David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter One1 In the beginning— This is the term used in reference to the creation (Genesis 1:1) and refers to the original creation of matter, but inchoate in what is usually known as the six days’ creation. More properly the organization. [We recognize the phrase in Genesis as referring to a period antecedent to all created things, in which nothing existed but that which was self-existent and incapable of destruction. We have no doubt that John used this phrase in the same sense here and that, as we can make no periods in eternity back of time, the phrase is equivalent to “ through all eternity,” or “ eternally.” ]was the Word,— The Word in this place clearly refers to Jesus Christ before he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary. [Logos, the Greek of “ Word,” was used by the Greeks to express both reason and speech, both the thought and ex­pression, and was probably therefore selected by John as the name of the personality of which he was about to speak. For our purpose it is sufficient to know that the logos “ became flesh,” and is identified as Jesus Christ, and this Jesus, in his intercessory prayer (John 17:5) is represented by John as recalling a distinct memory of the glory he had of the Father before the world was. This sets aside all idea of the logos as represent­ing simply principles or attributes of deity, which were mani­fested in him whom he called the Son of God. Here is a Being, a Person with a continuous memory, part antedating time, and part in time. ] and the Word was with God,—[It expresses intercourse or association with God, and therefore makes of the Word a dis¬tinct personality. Jesus was with God in the creation of all things.] and the Word was God.—He was with the Father. He was one of the Godhead. [We here have an advance in the thought. In the first clause of the verse we had eternal exist¬ence; in the second, distinct personality; now we have deific personality. This eternal Being is declared to be in nature the same as he who is called God here and afterwards the Father. He therefore possesses the attributes of deity.] There are three distinct personages presented to us as composing the Godhead— God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. These three personages, each distinct as persons, yet one in nature, being, purpose, and designs, performed distinct and different offices in the work of creation and in all the works in which they engaged. God the Father is represented as the supreme ruling power of the heavens and the earth. He ordained and provided for all things. The Word was the personage through whom the worlds were created. [The Holy Spirit organized.] Jesus the Christ had an existence before his conception and birth of the Virgin Mary. He is nowhere called the Son of God or the son of man except prophetically before his concep­tion and birth of the virgin. He is nowhere called Jesus or the Savior until he came to save his people from their sins, save as the Spirit in prophecy foretold this would be his mis­sion. He is nowhere called the Christ until he was anointed “ with the oil of gladness above his fellows,” until he in his mission on earth received the Spirit “ without measure,” save as it was foretold in prophecy that he would be the anointed, the Christ of God, to save the world. These names were all bestowed as descriptive of his character and work of office. 2The same was in the beginning with God.—He was one of “ us” when matter was originally created. “ Let us make man in our image.” (Genesis 1:26.) The Godhead is represented as composed of God, the originator and provider of all things; the Word, the creative agent of the Godhead; and the Holy Spirit, who, when the work of creation was completed by the Word, brooded upon the face of the matter, organized it, gave laws in accordance with which the work of procreation would proceed, and in and through which the Spirit took up his abode to guide the matter forward to its predestined end. 3 All things were made through him;—The Word as the creative agency of the Godhead.and without him was not anything made that hath been made.—[Without the intervention or help of any other person or being, he created all things. This language is sweeping and unevadable. The logos was the active agent in the whole broad work of creation.] Jesus was the active representative of the Godhead in the work of creation. Hebrews 1:1-2 : “ God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.” John 1:10 : “ He was in the world, and the world was made through him.” Colossians 1:16 : “ In him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him.” 4 In him was life;—He not only created, but he imparted life to all beings, vegetable, and animal. [Having predicated of him the creation of all material things, John now turns to the sentient creation, and especially man, its crown. As it is said that God created man, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, so the Word is capable of a higher work than making things; he makes them live. There has been much scientific groping to find and understand the subtle principle called life. Here is the answer and all any one can know about it. Life is an emanation from the logos with power of an infinite series of reproductions; life in all its vari¬eties, physical, moral, spiritual. As all objects have their present form through him so all things that live by him.] and the life was the light of men.—[In the case of man, the crown of creation distinguished from all the rest by impassable lines, the life became light, which, in the Bible, is put for truth, knowledge, and holiness; darkness for ignorance, error, and sin. Spiritual light and life are mainly intended in the text. Or, rather, we should say that the thought progresses to light in its highest signification.] All light comes from God. This is not only true of spiritual light, but all true light of knowledge. Science, by many, is supposed to be the enemy of revelation; but where has science ever obtained a foothold in the world where the light of the revelation of God had not gone? Where has truth on any subject gained admission un¬less the light of God’ s truth opened the way? Look at the condition of the world in all ages where the light of God’ s revelation has not gone and see what practical truth on any subject exists among the heathen nations. 5 And the light shineth in the darkness;—[This verse is a bridge to verses 7 and 8. The thought advances from the light in the abstract to the visible exhibition of the light, shin¬ing with a brilliance that men had never seen before, the in¬carnate logos, the incarnate life, the incarnate light.] and the darkness—[The world of humanity in the condition to which sin had brought it— ignorance and sin.] apprehended it not.—[The people rejected the light, pre¬ferred the darkness, and so the darkness was not dispelled by the light. Did not take hold of it. Did not realize what had come into its midst. The thought is in regard to the condi¬tion of the world in the years of Christ’ s life preceding John the Immerser's testimony. The light was already shining. It was morally impossible for Jesus to be among men and not give forth divine light. But the world knew him not, even as John the Immerser himself knew him not till he saw the sign of God at his baptism. We have thus been led in the prologue from the profundity of eternity to the reality of the ministry of John. All the wonders of the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke are chronologically comprehended in these verses.] 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. —John the Baptizer came to prepare the way for Christ. 7 The same came for witness,—Christ was the light. John came to prepare for him that all, through Christ, might be¬lieve in God. [More literally “ for testimony.” This is the predominant character of John. All else is incidental or sub¬ordinate to this. The preaching, the baptism, the rousing men to repentance, while all in themselves useful and good, are only circumstances of the testimony, only side employments of the witness bearer.] that he might bear witness of the light,—“ He” in this verse might more naturally refer to John, but a similar expression in verses 9 and 10 shows that it refers to Jesus the light. [This sentence gives the subject of the testimony. “The light” here is not abstract, but concrete. It is the light incarnate; in other words, the Lord Jesus Christ. He was to testify to the world that “ the light” had come into the world.] that all might believe through him.—[That all might believe on Christ through the testimony of John. See John 1:29-42 for the beginning of this result. This idea of testimony is one of the fundamental notions of the gospel of Christ. It is correlative to, and inseparable from, that of faith. Testimony is given only with a view to faith, and faith is impossible except by means of testimony. The only faith wor¬thy of the name is that which fastens itself upon a divine testimony given either in act or word.] 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light.—John came to testify that others might believe in Jesus. [The apostle states that John was not the light probably in opposition to an idea of some that John himself was the Messiah. The clause is an emphatic reassertion of the state¬ment of verse 7. 9 There was the true light,—Jesus was the only source of the light, and all who came into the world, if lightened at all, must receive this light from him. even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.—[Whether to connect the last clause, “ coming into the world,” with “ the true light,” or with “ every man,” has been a hotly disputed question among commentators. We do not think there is any reference here to an innate light belonging to every man from birth, nor to an enlightening of men before the coming of Christ, under the old dispensation, or in the various heathen religions. The apostle has to do only with the present dispensation. The true light was coming into the world, which lights every man (who receives it), that is, teaches him spiritual truth and duty, else he is not enlight¬ened. He is the exclusive light giver.] If God is the fountain and source of all light [and he surely is] only he who looks to God can find true light. Man is prone to look to himself for light; but in man is no light, save as he receives it from God. 10 He was in the world,—[John now takes a step forward. He who was coming had come. The babe had been cradled at Bethlehem, carried to Nazareth, and grown to man’ s estate.] and the world was made through him,—[He was no stranger and no intruder. All the fair scenes upon which he gazed were the product of his creative power as logos. ] and the world knew him not.—Jesus who created the worlds was in the world, but the world did not know him. [Of all this great world, and its sentient, teeming inhabitants, there was not one being who recognized him in his divine character as Creator of the universe and Redeemer of men.] 11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.—We have long thought ‘‘ his own" referred to those prepared by John for him. They embraced a large portion of the Jewish nation, but only those who voluntarily took upon themselves the obligations by being baptized. This was a radical change in the order of God’ s dealings with the Jews. Hitherto those he recognized as his servants were born after the flesh. All that were born of the fleshly family of Jacob were his servants. Now the voluntary principle was intro¬duced by John. None were his save those who through faith in John’ s teaching voluntarily took on themselves the obligations imposed in baptism. This principle introduced into the provisional and introductory stages of the kingdom was to be the distinguishing principle of God’ s government henceforth. Hence, these to whom Christ came were his own, prepared for him by John, and they were born not of blood or the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, inasmuch as they were begotten by the word of God preached through John. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God,—Those of John’ s disciples who heard and believed in Jesus became sons of God. The Jews had been servants. Through faith in Jesus they became sons by which they could address God as “ Father.” (Galatians 4:5-6.) All moved by faith in Jesus may become sons of God. [What is meant by receiving him, how much it includes, is to be found by reading the last clause of the verse, “ even to them that believe on his name.” Nor is the “ many” here to be confined to the Jews. John does not say all those from among them, but all those who in general. When Jesus is once rejected by unbelieving Israel, there is henceforth only humanity and in it individual believers or unbelievers. Observe that receiving him, that is, the believing on his name, did not make them the children of God. It only brought them into such a relationship to him that it was now their right or privilege to become children of God if they chose to exercise it. How they became children of God is to be learned elsewhere. (See Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38 Acts 8:26-40.)] even to them that believe on his name:—[That is, who believe in the character belonging to him manifested by his name, “ Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (John 20:31; also verses John 1:14 John 1:18.)] 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.—This relation of sons of God was not attained through the fleshly descent from Abra¬ham or of any fleshly birth, but he is begotten of God. (John 3:5.) All fleshly births are through the will of the flesh. This henceforth would not make a man a child of God. [Being a Jew did not involve the new birth or begetting. He must be born again even as others. Fleshly generation had nothing to do with it. Nor was it in any sense human in its origin. No human enactments, no human purpose, could bring it about. It was “ from above.” (John 3:3.) The begetting is purely of God with the Holy Spirit as the agent (John 3:8) and the word of God as the Spirit’ s instrumentality (1 Peter 1:23) and the birth or transfer to new relationship of the whole man becomes com¬plete in baptism (John 3:5).] 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us—This Word was Immanuel— God in the flesh. He dwelt among men as a man, subject to like passions and infirmities as man, tempted in all things as we are, yet his nature and life were manifestations of divine life and truth. [The Word “ became” denotes a single and complete act. His dwelling among us was not a mere transitory or momentary appearance followed by a quick vanishing. He remained with us about thirty- three and a half years so that we could study and know him.] (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father),—In the transfiguration and works of Christ his associates saw this glory. The working of miracles was showing forth the glory of God (John 2:11), full of kindness to man, teaching the truth of God. [They beheld his glory, not in any particular instance, as the transfiguration, for example, but the continuous glory of his life and character as manifested through the whole period of his active ministry and which marked him as the Son of God.] full of grace and truth.—[Sweetness and light, or love and light. Through him both mind and heart are fed. Grace in his redemptive work; truth in his teaching. Not that there was no grace and truth before, but he is a rich storehouse of it all.] A PART OF JOHN’ S AND A COMMENT BY THE APOSTLEJoh_1:15-1815 John beareth witness of him,—[The present, “ beareth witness,” is ordinarily explained by the permanent value of this testimony; but perhaps it is due rather to the fact that the author transports himself in a lifelike way backward to the moment when he heard this mysterious saying coming from such lips; he seems to himself to hear it still. We often use the present thus for the past in vivid narration.] and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me. — John was careful that they should not think he was the promised Messiah. He had already taught them that Jesus was greater than himself, and although born of the mother later than John, had existed long before John. Jesus said, “ Before Abraham was born, I am.” (John 8:58.) John was careful that the honor which belonged to Jesus should not be bestowed on himself. [Though he is after me in point of revelation to the people, yet he at once takes position before me as the more important of the two and destined to continue in this superiority. The immerser now turns to the essential precedence both in time and rank. Though he was subsequent in revelation, yet he existed long before his revelation and long before John, his revealer, and this in such dignity that he was entitled to take precedence as soon as revealed.] 16 For of his fulness we all received,—Of the fulness and the grace of Jesus all who receive him partake. [The quota¬tion from the immerser ceases with verse 15. It is the apostle who now speaks, having interrupted himself after verse 14 by the memory of the immerser’ s testimony. In verse 14 he said that the Word was “ full of grace and truth.” Now we, all be¬lievers who have been born again, have received from the rich stores of his fullness.] and grace for grace.—One degree of grace leads on to a higher degree. [Ever growing supplies of grace from the full¬ness of Christ.] 17 For the law was given through Moses;—The great law of God in the Ten Commandments was given by Moses. These commandments given as the standard of right and mo¬rality were given by Moses to the children of Israel. They were given as laws with their rewards and penalties. This law given to them was good and if one kept it it fitted him for eternal life. But the kindness and love of God were not mani-fested in these laws. grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.—God's charac¬ter for mercy and truth was received through Jesus Christ. There was no antagonism on the part of Jesus towards the law. The law was good and right. Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it and to introduce new features into the service of God that would enable man to obey this law and to attain to the righteousness of the law. [The grace of God was certainly exhibited in giving the Mosaic revela¬tion, and his truth was certainly contained in it, but it sinks into insignificance by the side of the revelations of these that come through Jesus Christ. We come now for the first time to the historical name of the incarnate logos, but to which the apostle has been tending throughout the passage. First the Word, then Life and Light, then the Only Begotten of the Father, now Jesus Christ, who embraces all that was said of him before.] 18 No man hath seen God at any time;—While no man hath seen God, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and the ex¬press image of his person and the effulgence of his power and is presented to man as the best beloved of the Father and the perfect representative of God, declaring God’ s own fullness and perfectness and the full representative of God to the world. the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,—[Most intimate with him— not living, like Moses, at an infi¬nite distance from him. This intimacy gives him such thorough knowledge of all that pertains to him as to qualify him for the next clause.] he hath declared him.—[Revealed or manifested him. There is more in this than the mere declaration of a messen¬ger. Jesus Christ is the visible manifestation of God. “ He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” God has now been seen in the person of his Son, who was “ the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance.” ] ANOTHER PART OF JOHN'S Joh_1:19-2819 And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites—The Jews in Jerusa¬lem were the most zealous of the law. Jerusalem was the cen¬ter of Judaism. John in the wilderness attracted the masses by his preaching. to ask him, Who art thou?— -The Jews at Jerusalem sent the priests and Levites to hear him, see what he claimed for him¬self as a religious teacher, and demand of him who he was. 20 And he confessed, and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ.—Without evasion or denial he said, I am not the anointed one of God. He was not willing to claim the honor that belonged only to Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No.—It had been foretold that a great prophet should come into the world and that before the coming of that prophet Elijah should come again. He told them that he was neither Eli¬jah nor this great prophet that was to come. Jesus said, “ And if you are willing to receive it, this [John the Immerser] is Elijah that is to come.” (Matthew 11:14.) This statement of Jesus is thought to contradict John’ s statement in this verse, but it is explained by Jesus when he says, “ And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah.” (Luke 1:17.) John meant that he was not the veritable Elijah. Jesus said he came “ in the spirit and power of Elijah.” [The Jews doubtless asked art thou literally Elijah. He said no. Art thou that prophet foretold by Moses? No, for Christ is that prophet. The difference is doubtless one speaks of the literal Elijah, the other who came in the spirit of Elijah. No contradiction here.] 22 They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?—They wished him to define his mission, if neither the prophet nor Elijah [so that on their return to Jerusalem they could give an intelligent report to those who had sent them]. 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet.—He answered that he came in the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 40:3), of the one who should come before and pre¬pare the way for the prophet. His work was that of preparation for the Lord. 24 And they had been sent from the Pharisees.—The Pharisees were the most zealous and watchful of the religious parties of the Jews. 25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet?—John gave as his reason for baptizing that he was come preparing for the Messiah and he baptized in water and the Messiah would baptize in the Holy Spirit. [The question shows that John's baptism was to them a new rite. They could understand that Christ, or Elias, or “ the prophets" might establish a new ordinance by divine authority, but if John is none of these, why does he do so? Their perplexity shows that the baptismal right was new to them. This refutes the claim that Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith were bap-tized by all Jewish authorities before this time.] 26-27 John answered them, saying, I baptize in water: in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, even he that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose.—The preposition “ in" is used here instead of “ with." This is right, yet to say “ with" does not militate against the idea of a burial. We use “ with" to indicate the element used even when the thing washed is wholly sub¬merged. We say a cloth is dyed with indigo and leather is tanned with ooze when the thing is wholly submerged. “ In" is better here as placing the point contrasted beyond doubt. John told them that the one for whom he came to prepare the way was in their midst and unknown to them and probably to John at this time who was so much his superior that he was not worthy to unlatch his shoes. The servant unlatched and bound the shoes of his master. 28 These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.—Much of John’ s teaching was done on the west side of the Jordan, but this was done on the east side, opposite the line between Samaria and Galilee. JESUS THE LAMB OF GOD AND THE SON OF GODJoh_1:29-3429 On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God,—The baptism of Jesus is not mentioned by the gospel of John, but it is particularly described by the other evangelists. When he was baptized and came up out of the water the voice came from heaven saying, “ This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17.) The Holy Spirit also in the form of a dove de¬scended upon him and abode with him. With these assur¬ances John testified to his disciples that he was the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. that taketh away the sin of the world!—[Jesus, the Lamb, when slain, took away the sin, not of Jews only, but of the world. He died for all.] 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is become before me: for he was before me.—He again states this of whom he had spoken, as born after he was, yet existing before him. 31 And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water.—Here one of the special objects of John’ s baptism is said to be to make known Jesus to Israel. 32 And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven;—John was to know by the Spirit descending in the form of a dove which was he and then was to bear testimony to the world. and it abode upon him.—The Spirit came in the form of a dove, abode upon him, not in this form; but its form dissolved, and took up its abode in Jesus. (Luke 3:22.) This was when he was anointed with the Spirit above his fellows. (Hebrews 1:9.) 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.—John did not know Jesus. Whether it was that he was not acquainted with Jesus or that he did not know that he was the Christ has been a matter of doubt. Although their mothers were cousins, they lived eighty miles apart, and it is possible that they had not met. Or it may mean that John did not have the full assurance that he was the Christ until he was assured by the sign appointed by God and in some way revealed to John. 34 And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.—Having seen this sign from God he testified that Jesus is the Son of God. THE LAST Joh_1:35-4235 Again on the morrow John was standing, and two of his disciples;—This was the day after the facts stated in the preceding verses had occurred. It was some weeks at least after his baptism. He had been baptized, had been forty days in the temptation, had returned to where John was baptizing, and John had testified to his disciples what had happened at his baptism. 36 and he looked upon Jesus as he walked,—[Jesus, passing by or in sight, John beheld him.] saith, Behold, the Lamb of God!—[The lamb was slain to save the first-born of Israel when the first-born of Egypt was destroyed, and at every Passover feast a lamb was slain by every family of Israel. In the types of Judaism the lamb was slain pointing forward to “ the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” He came to die as a sacrifice to take away the sins that man had committed and to lead him to live a holy life.] 37 And the two disciples heard him speak,—Some of the disciples of John were jealous that Jesus gathered followers at the expense of John, but John had none of this feeling. He came to make ready a people for Jesus, bear testimony to his claims, and direct his disciples to Jesus as the Lord, and re¬joiced to see him increase, while he himself decreased in fol¬lowers. and they followed Jesus.—Again at a later date he with two of his disciples saw Jesus walking and again bore witness that he was the Son of God and his disciples thus assured left John and followed Jesus. 38 And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye?—Jesus seems at all times to desire that those who followed him should know what they took upon themselves so he asked what they were seeking. And they said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), where abidest thou?—He saw them com¬ing after him and asked what they sought. They called him Rabbi, which means teacher. They declared in this they were his disciples, had come to learn of him, and asked where he dwelt that they might come unto him as learners. 39 He saith unto them, Come, and ye shall see. They came therefore and saw where he abode; and they abode with him that day: it was about the tenth hour.—He acknowledged himself a teacher, accepted them as learners, and asked them to come with him to his home. They did and remained with him, for it was now four o’ clock in the afternoon. They spent the night with him. We may well suppose that the time was spent in discoursing of his mission and teaching. The work of Jesus in the world has been greatly hindered and marred by the unfaithfulness of his followers, yet, imperfect as that work has been, the contrast between the conditions of the world where Jesus has been known and where he has not must convince the most superficial observer of the immense good Jesus has done the world. The lifting up of the common people, the provisions for the unfortunate and helpless are found only where the teachings of Jesus have gone. There is not a hospital or asylum for the unfortunate in the world that has not been built by the influence of Jesus. It would be diffi¬cult to find a country where a workingman could get more than twenty-five cents a day for labor save where Christ is known. He lifts up and helps the helpless today through the influence of his teaching as in his personal ministry. 40 One of the two that heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’ s brother.—We may well feel sure that his stay with Jesus satisfied his desire to know and strengthened his faith in Jesus. Andrew was one of the first called of the followers of Jesus. He was Peter’ s brother. Their home was in Bethsaida, a city on the Sea of Galilee. This was also the home of John and James, the sons of Zebe dee. They are now at Bethany— not the Bethany near Jerusalem, but a village on the east side of the Jordan, near its en¬trance into the Dead Sea. Simon Peter was the older of the two brothers, likely the more aggressive, and became in one sense the first leader among the disciples. 41 He findeth first his own brother Simon,—So moved by a natural and fleshly feeling he first sought Simon. The teaching of Jesus does not destroy the ties of the flesh, but sancti¬fies them. Andrew first sought his own brother. Every Christian should act on this principle. The person who is indifferent to the salvation of his own kindred and people, but who is zealous of the salvation of strangers, does not follow the ex¬ample of either Jesus or his disciples. Jesus first preached to his own people then to others. and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ).— Messiah is the Hebrew term for Christ in the Greek, then chiefly spoken, or anointed in En¬glish. He was anointed by the Spirit which descended upon and abode with him [at his baptism.] 42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).— His report brought Simon to Jesus, who, when he looked upon him, saw what was in him, and gave him the name of Cephas, the Hebrew of which Peter is the Greek translation, which in English means rock. It seems that Jesus gave him this name as describing in some respects his character. Andrew first came to Christ and was instrumental in bringing Peter. In their after life Peter was the more active, forward, and prominent in his work. Andrew is seldom mentioned save in the enumeration of the apostles of the Lord. It is an example of how an humble one may be instrumental in bringing forward one of more power and general effectiveness. Peter was already a disciple of John as were these others. The leading characteristic of Peter was the promptitude with which he decided and acted on questions. Jesus beheld him and knew him, for he needed not to be told what is in man. OTHER GAINED AT BETHANYJoh_1:43-5143 On the morrow he was minded to go forth into Galilee, and he findeth Philip: and Jesus saith unto him, Follow me.—Galilee was his home, and the day following that on which Peter came to him he was minded to return to Galilee and found Philip. Philip is of the same city (Bethsaida) of Peter and Andrew, James and John. They had all come down to hear the preaching of John, had been taught by him, and tarried with him until he bore testimony to Jesus. We are not to conclude that Philip and Jesus heretofore had not known each other. 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter.—All of the twelve save Judas seem to have lived on the Sea of Galilee. This is not Philip, one of the seven, but the apostle Philip, which name is associated with Bartholo¬mew. 45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.—So soon as Phil¬ip had found Jesus his first impulse seemed to be to bring others to him. This is the essential spirit of Christ. No one imbued with his spirit can know Christ and be indifferent to others, all others knowing him. First, Jerusalem, Judea, Sa¬maria, but stops not until it reaches the uttermost parts of the earth. Converting your family stimulates the desire and leads you to convert your neighbor, your countryman— all who sit in “ the valley and shadow of death.” The spirit of Christ will let man enjoy no good alone. Jesus could not enjoy the glory of heaven unless man could have an opportunity to share it with him. Good is multiplied to us as we divide it with others. 46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.— Nazareth seemed to have an ill name among the people. Philip insisted that he should come and see before deciding. He did so. Nathanael was of Cana in Galilee, and is thought to be the same as Bartholomew, with whose name Philip’ s is associated in the list of apostles. 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!—The super¬natural knowledge that enabled Jesus to know men and what their thoughts, purposes, and characters were enabled him to tell the character of Nathanael, whom he did not know, so an¬nounced him an Israelite in whom was no deceit or guile. This was a compliment. Such are prepared to receive the pure and guileless life of the Son of God. 48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me?— He asked, “ How and from what do you know me?” showing he had no acquaintance with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.—Jesus re¬sponded that he knew him as he sat under the fig tree before Philip called him. I take it that Jesus could not see him by his sight, and that Nathanael knew it required superhuman knowledge and his frank and guileless spirit, taken with what Philip had told him, he confessed that Jesus is the Son of God. 49 Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.—His knowing things that were beyond his power to learn by his senses with none to inform him satisfied the guileless spirit of Nathanael that he was su¬perhuman. Putting it with the teaching of John and the testi¬mony he had borne to Jesus which he learned of Philip and had likely heard of others satisfied him at once, and he ac¬knowledged him as the Son of God, the King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee underneath the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.—Jesus complimented him on his ready faith in this testimony and assured him that he should see greater things than these. 51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.—When this promise was fulfilled we know not unless at the ascension of Jesus. The angels ascending and descending upon him, possibly was not literal, but meant that he would be constantly watched over and guarded here in the world by the angels of God, and that their ministration to him as the Son of God would be manifested to Nathanael in the care and love God would show him. Verse 1 This chapter falls easily into five divisions: (1) the prologue, John 1:1-18; (2) the deputation from Jerusalem to John the Baptist, John 1:19-28; (3) the events of the next day after that deputation, John 1:29-34; (4) the events of the second day after the deputation, John 1:35-42; and (5) the events of the third day following the historic interview with John the Baptist, John 1:48-51. Thus, aside from the prologue, this chapter records the events of only four days of Jesus' ministry. Appropriately, it begins with the words, "In the beginning," for a number of important beginnings appear in it, such as: The beginning of all things, John 1:3. The beginning of the recognition of Jesus as the Son of God, John 1:34. The beginning of Jesus' disciples, John 1:41. The beginning of the apostleship, John 1:41 f. The beginning of the use of the title, Son of Man, John 1:51. The beginning of Jesus' public ministry. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) The eternal existence of the Lord Jesus Christ and his absolute identification with God and as God are unequivocally stated in the first line of this gospel; and this may be considered the theme of the whole Gospel, every word and every event of the entire narrative having been skillfully chosen by the narrator for the purpose of proving the Godhead of Jesus Christ and of persuading people to believe in him. From this opening word to the end of the Gospel, there is not the slightest deviation from the sacred author's intention of presenting Jesus Christ as God come in the flesh for the purpose of human redemption, and to whom every person owes the uttermost worship and devotion. In the beginning ... is like the opening words of Genesis; and, by such a choice of words, the apostle John evaluates the new creation through Jesus Christ in the same category of importance as the physical creation itself, and, in fact, being another creative act of the same Word which was active in the first. A bolder beginning cannot be imagined. Was the Word ... The Greek word [logos] from which Word is translated was widely known in the world of John's day, being found some 1,300 times in the writings of Philo,[1] a Hellenistic Jew of Alexandria (30 B.C. to 40 A.D.). However, John owed nothing to Philo, who taught that "the absolute purity, perfection, and loftiness of God would be violated by direct contact with imperfect, impure, and finite things."[2] He even went so far as to say that "God could not be conceived of as actively concerned with the multiplicity of individual things."[3] Philo's [logos] had no hard identity of any kind, being called the "reason of God" in one view, and in another, "a distinct individual, or hypostasis, standing between God and man." Philo's [logos] did not create anything, for matter was viewed by him as eternal; and it is impossible to form any intelligent harmony out of Philo's writings on the [logos], described in the Encyclopedia Britannica as "self-contradictory." It was the inspired genius of the apostle John which seized upon this word, applied it to Christ, and gave it a meaning as far above anything that Philo ever dreamed as the heavens are above the Nile Delta where Philo lived. The Word, as applied to Jesus Christ, is found only four times in the New Testament, twice in this prologue (John 1:1; John 1:14), in 1 John 1:1, and in Revelation 19:13. John's use of "Word" [Greek: logos] for Christ Jesus might have been suggested by Psalms 33:6, "By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made," a passage which, according to Hendriksen, represents the Word of God as a person.[4] Whatever the source of the thought that led John to so designate Christ, it was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and perfectly appropriate. A word, in the primary meaning of the term, is a vessel for the conveyance of an idea; and Christ was the vessel which conveyed the true idea of God to humanity. As Jesus stated it. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). And the Word was with God ... means that our Lord was intimately associated with the Father upon a parity and equality with him. Hendriksen's bold translation of this place is: He himself was in the beginning, face to face with God. The fully divine Word, existing from all eternity as a distinct Person, was enjoying loving fellowship with the Father. Thus, the full deity of Christ, his eternity, and his distinct personal existence are confessed once more, in order that heretics may be refuted and the church may be established in the faith and love of God.[5]And the Word was God ... This truth might have been deduced from either of the two preceding clauses, but the apostle left nothing to chance, categorically affirming in this third clause that the Word was indeed God, a truth reaffirmed at the end of the prologue (John 1:18), and again by the apostle Thomas (John 20:28). John's estimate of the deity of Christ does not exceed that of other New Testament writers. For a detailed study of ten New Testament passages that call Jesus "God," see my Commentary on Hebrews, John 1:8. The apostle's doctrine of the [Greek: logos] is thus seen to differ from the [logos] of Greek philosophy in these particulars: (1) The New Testament [logos] is God; (2) is personal; (3) created all things, including matter; and (4) became flesh and dwelt among human beings. To presume that John got anything like that out of Philo's [logos] is like supposing that Thomas Jefferson got the Declaration of Independence out of McGuffy's Third Reader! On the statement here that the "Word was God," Dummelow declared that this means that Christ was divine, and is therefore to be worshipped with the same worship as is due the Father.[6][1] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 69. [2] Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, 1961), Vol. 17, p. 740. [3] Ibid. [4] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 70. [5] Ibid., p. 71. [6] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 774. Verse 2 The same was in the beginning with God.The three propositions of Joh 1:1 are here reduced to a single declaration and re-affirmed. As Hovey said: This emphatic repetition of the first verse prepares the way for the statement that follows in verse third; and the practice of repeating an important truth for the sake of emphasis, or of preparing the mind for connected truth, is characteristic of this evangelist's style.[7]ENDNOTE: [7] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Society, 1885), p. 60. Verse 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.Other New Testament passages which attribute the creation of the universe to Jesus Christ are as follows: For in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist (Colossians 1:16-17). Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him (1 Corinthians 8:6). (God hath) spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds ... (And of the Son he saith) Thou Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands (Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 1:10). Some seek to make a point of the fact that creation is not directly attributed to Jesus in the synoptics, claiming a "contradiction." The point fails in light of the fact that Matthew represented Jesus as having twelve legions of angels, that is, some 75,000 angels, at his command (Matthew 26:53), quoting his words that "All authority in heaven and upon earth" were his (Matthew 28:18-20). One wonders just how such an accumulation of power in Jesus' hands is any less than the power of God! Mark 5:6 represents Jesus as having authority over the entire demonic creation; Luke 10:19 plainly presents Christ as a being capable of creating all things - hence, there is no conflict. Added to this is the fact that each of the synoptics records instances of Jesus' raising the dead; and that is an act fully equal to the creation of the world in that only God could have done it. Also, the synoptics are filled with Jesus' promises of eternal life, which, again, is just as wonderful as creation, or even more wonderful, since the creation itself is not eternal! Those who wish to open a conflict between John and the synoptics must do it upon other grounds than this. Throughout the Bible, creation is declared to be an act of God and Christ, or God through Christ; and this Biblical explanation of how the universe came into existence is the only reasonable and intelligent explanation ever given. For the benefit of persons who might have fallen into the foolish and hurtful superstition that this universe merely happened, through chance, or the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, a little further study of the problem of creation is in order. Is it scientific to view the universe as having been created by God? There is no better answer to this question than some of the statements of brilliant scientific minds; therefore we shall present a short anthology of what some of the greatest scientists of this age are saying with regard to creation. The men whose views shall be offered here hold the highest academic degrees from some of the greatest universities on earth and are as qualified to speak on this subject as any who could be heard. That some scientists are indeed atheists is of no consequence; so are some preachers. The point to remember is that no atheistic scientist holds any higher degrees, has any more intelligence, or possesses any more information pertinent to the question, than do the men cited here. Also, it should be remembered that one's answer to questions of this kind does not depend upon intelligence alone, but upon spiritual wholeness also. Frank Allen, Ph.D., Cornell University, Professor of biophysics, University of Manitoba, recipient of the Tory Gold Medal, Royal Society of Canada, commented on the ponderous protein molecule, the basic building block of all life, and noted that it has about 40,000 atoms arranged in an exceedingly complicated pattern. Regarding the possibility that even a single molecule, such as that, could have been produced by chance, he said: The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require almost endless billions of years (10 to the power of 243). But proteins as chemicals are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only Infinite Mind, that is, God, could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed, and made it live.[8]Merritt Stanley Congdon, natural scientist and philosopher, holder of three doctorates from Webster and Burton Universities, and a member of several learned societies, stated that: There are no facts yet wrested from the intriguing mysteries of this strange onrushing cosmos which can in any degree disprove the existence and intelligent activities of an unconditioned, personal God. On the contrary, when we as careful scientists analyze and synthesize the data of the natural world, we are observing only the phenomena of the operations of that unseen Being who cannot be found by mere scientific seeking, but who can and did manifest himself in human form. For science is indeed "watching God at work."[9]John Cleveland Cothran, Ph.D., Cornell University, mathematician and scientist, Chairman of Mathematics and Science Division, Duluth, University of Minnesota, said: Lord Kelvin, one of the world's greatest physicists, has made the following significant statement: "If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to believe in God." I must declare myself in full agreement with this statement .... Now the material realm, not being able to create itself and its governing laws, the act of creation must have been performed by some non-material agent .... That is to say, we unhesitatingly accept the fact of the existence of the supreme spiritual being, God, the Creator and Director of the universe.[10]Donald Henry Porter, Ph.D., University of Indiana, distinguished mathematician and physicist, declared that: Whatever process of nature is considered, or whatever question of origins is studied, as a scientist, I derive satisfaction only by placing God in the leading role. God is the central figure in every picture. He alone is the answer to the unanswered questions.[11]Edward Luther Kessel, Ph.D., University of California, outstanding zoologist and entomologist, also editor of distinguished scientific publications, affirms that: During recent years, scientific research has been yielding new evidence supporting the traditional philosophical proofs that there is a God. Not that this new evidence was necessary, for the old proofs were more than adequate to convince anyone whose mind was not encrusted in a capsule of prejudice.[12]W. O. Lundberg, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, physiologist and biochemist, noted writer in scientific fields, observed that: The scientific method is founded on orderliness and predictability in natural phenomena. It is precisely this orderliness and predictability that constitute a revelation of God in nature. Order and predictability in the framework of non-existence of God is a meaningless contradiction.[13]Paul Clarence Abersold, Ph.D., University of California, member of National Research Council, specialist in nuclear physics, Manhattan Project, Atomic Energy Commission, an authority on neutron radiation and isotopes, wrote: Although science can develop very plausible theories of a cataclysmic birth of the universe resulting in galaxies, stars, worlds, and atoms, it cannot explain where all this matter and energy came from and why the universe is so constituted and ordered. Straight thinking and clear reasoning demand the concept of God.[14]Marlin Brooks Kreider, Ph.D., University of Maryland, physiologist, member of American Society of Professional Biologists, said: Both as an ordinary human being, and also as a man devoting his life to scientific study and research, I have no doubt at all about the existence of God. There definitely is a God.... I see at the beginning of the cosmic road, not eternal energy, or matter, not "inscrutable fate," not a "fortuitous conflux of primordial elements," not "The Great Unknown," but the Lord God Almighty.[15]George Earl Davis, Ph.D., University of Minnesota, a specialist in solar radiation, and widely known physicist, denied the popular notion that atheism is more prevalent among scientists, noting that such a thesis has never been proved. He then added: Such a popular belief is, in fact, contrary to impressions gained at first hand by many of the scientists themselves. These revelations in the natural world of transcending intelligence ... are, for me, sufficient evidence of a God. They are sufficient even without the inference that no material thing can create itself.[16]John William Klotz, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh, noted specialist in genetics, began his answer to this question with two quotations from the Old Testament: The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. This world of ours is so complex and intricate that it could hardly have risen by chance. It is filled with intricacies which require as their cause an Intelligent Being, not blind fate.[17]Irving William Knobloch, Ph.D., Iowa State College, Professor of Natural Science in Michigan State University, wrote: I believe in God because mere chance could not account for the emergence of the first electrons or protons, or for the first atoms, or for the first amino acids, or for the first protoplasm, or for the first seed or for the first brain. I believe in God because His divine existence is the only logical explanation for things as they are.[18]There is no need to multiply scientific witnesses of the truth that there is nothing unscientific about accepting the Scriptural account of creation, which is indeed the ONLY account that makes any sense whatever. In Monsma's impressive anthology from which the above examples have been taken, there are thirty others just as bold and emphatic; and, in this writer's library, there are at least a hundred more. These few have been introduced here to refute the notion that any man, or any group of men, on earth has any knowledge or information disproving even in the slightest degree the Scriptural account of creation. The conclusion of this study of the creation might be summed up by the Lord's word: "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" (Psalms 14:1). With characteristic clarity and emphasis, the apostle stated the truth of Joh 1:3, first positively, and then negatively, to avoid any possible misunderstanding. [8] John Clover Monsma, Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958), p. 24. [9] Ibid., p. 35. [10] Ibid., pp. 37,42. [11] Ibid., p. 48. [12] Ibid., p. 49. [13] Ibid., p. 57. [14] Ibid., p. 61. [15] Ibid., pp., 63,68. [16] Ibid., pp. 70,72. [17] Ibid., p. 77. [18] Ibid., p. 89. Verse 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.In him was life ... Life was a favorite term with the author of John. "The noun occurs thirty-six times, and eleven are in conjunction with the adjective ETERNAL."[19] The use of the past tense shows that true spiritual life was in Christ before the incarnation, emphasizing the truth that all of the hopes of worshipers under Israel's law were actually in the Lord Jesus Christ, just as it is with all who ever lived. Physical life does not seem to be the subject here, but as the agent of creation, Christ contained all life of every kind. All life came through Christ, is sustained by him, and is responsible to him. The light of men ... God's revelation of Himself to sinful and fallen humanity appears in this. Beginning at the gates of Eden, God laid down the program of instruction and revelation designed for the enlightenment of all people, and the guidance of all people into the way of eternal life (Genesis 3:15). Although the Adamic fall is not mentioned here, it is implied through the identification of man's source of light, being not within himself, but derived from the Saviour. Only they are enlightened who know the life in Christ; all others are in darkness. ENDNOTE: [19] Merrill C. Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), p. 66. Verse 5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.The dramatic shift to the present tense shows that John was not here dealing merely with a past phenomenon, but with a present reality. In the very nature of that ineffable light in Christ Jesus, it is at once past, present, and future, ever shining in the gloom of mortal darkness; and in the remarkable truth of this Gospel, that light was viewed as a blazing sun illuminating the night of human sin and rebellion against God. And the darkness apprehended it not ... Some of the translations favor "the darkness overcame it not"; however, a comparison with parallel expressions: "the world knew him not" (John 1:10 b), and "his own received him not" (John 1:11 b), justifies the rendition here. Of course, it is also true that "the darkness overcame it not," nor will it ever do so. The basic hostility between light and darkness, good and evil, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil, appears in this verse. The unregenerated world hates God and the knowledge of his truth; but the hatred and opposition of evil men cannot prevent the light from shining. It shines of its own inherent glory regardless of how inadequate human response to it might be. The history of the last two millenniums is here summarized as the Light shining in darkness! Verse 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.The apostle John nowhere referred to the great herald as John the Baptist, but simply as John, as should have been expected, since the apostle himself was the only other John of Biblical significance in that entire era, thus supporting the conviction of apostolic authorship of this Gospel, and demanding the inference that the other John was the writer of this Gospel. Any forger would have been careful to explain which John he meant; but the apostle John had no need to do so. Sent from God ... identifies John the Baptist as a true prophet with a valid message from God. This verse, and the two following, form a parenthesis in this prologue dealing with the mission of John the Baptist. Verse 7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light.This parenthesis, including John 1:6, presents the following facts with reference to John the Baptist: He came from God and was therefore a true prophet. He was not the light. His mission was to bear witness to the light. To bear witness to the light was to bear witness to Jesus Christ. It is true, of course, that Jesus himself said of John, "He was the lamp that burneth and shineth; and ye were willing to rejoice for a season in his light" (John 5:35); but the apostle John here made a distinction between the light of John the Baptist, which was a dim and borrowed light, and that true light which lighteth every man coming into the world. In no sense could John the Baptist be that light. As the true light, Christ was self-revealed, independent, pre-existent, and eternal. He was the perfect light, in that the source was in himself as identified with the Father. That all might believe through him ... The purpose of God in sending John the Baptist was that all people might believe in Christ. His was the function of a herald who went ahead of a king to announce his coming and to prepare the popular mind to receive him. John the Baptist effectively discharged that responsibility. The fact that many would not believe was due to hardening and prejudice on their part and not to any fault of the noble herald who went before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah. Verse 9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.There was the true light ... coming into the world ... This speaks of the sudden appearance of Christ the world's Redeemer, his "coming into the world" indicating his preexistence, and making his appearance among human beings an act of our Lord's own volition. This corresponds perfectly with Luke's account of the "Dayspring from on High" and his visitation among people (Luke 1:78). "Coming into the world" is here a reference to the light, not to "every man." Which lighteth every man ... This could be viewed as hyperbole, of course, since that figure is often used in Scripture; but there seems to be something far more than mere hyperbole here. Hovey thought that: It may signify that some knowledge of God is given to every man by the Word. We understand it, however, as a description of the normal relation of the Word to mankind, as an affirmation that, if one fails of true and saving knowledge, it is because he closes the eye of his soul to it, and not because the Word has failed to offer it to him.[20]The view maintained by this writer is that light from Jesus Christ has truly reached and benefited, in some degree, every person who ever was born after Jesus came. Whatever enlightenment there may be anywhere on earth, it derives finally from Christ. Wherever there is concern for the poor, the downtrodden, the helpless, the aged, the hungry, the bereaved, or whatever - there the light has dispelled at least some of the darkness. The great pity is that light even unto eternal life is available for every man, but not all avail themselves of it. ENDNOTE: [20] Alvah Hovey, op. cit., p. 63. Verse 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.These words bluntly state a near incredibility. That the very Creator of the world should cast aside the glory of His eternal existence and choose to enter earth life as a man subject to all the inconveniences and limitations of the flesh - that is a fact of awesome wonder; but added to that is the obstinate and rebellious refusal of the Lord's creation to acknowledge Him when he came! As the prophet cried out so long ago, "Lord, who hath believed our report?" (Isaiah 53:1). God was not taken by surprise by man's refusal to know the Lord, for His prophets had faithfully foretold it. The repetition of "world" in these lines dramatizes the marvel of humanity's not knowing Jesus when he came. Verse 11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.Here is the same dramatic repetition of "his own," similar to the repetition of "the world" in the previous verse. The better part of a century had passed since Jesus came, when John wrote these words; and yet, in these words, the apostle seems still to be struck with the marvel that the Lord's own people, the chosen people, who should have been the first to know and hail his coming, that even THOSE PEOPLE did not welcome him. The words of the apostle in this passage reveal a profound and pathetic grief on his own part that Israel, in its major aspect, had rejected the Lord - but not all of them. These words strongly remind one of Paul's words (Romans 9:1-5). John, having registered the fact of the unbelief of the chosen people (in major part, that is), next turned to a consideration of those who had received him. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 This verse does not change the meaning of the preceding one, but it is a significant passage, showing that while the term "God" applies to each of the Beings considered, yet they are to be understood as two separate personalities, else one of them could not be "with" the other. 3 The pronoun him means the Word of verse 1, and whom we know as the Son in the New Testament. All things were made by Him. That accounts for the plural pronoun "us" in Genesis 1:26; Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7. In all of the domain of creation, providence and redemption, God the Father and God the Son, worked together in perfect unison although they are separate personalities. 4 A careful attention to the language of this book, will show us that John was especially impressed with the divine character of Christ, and that He has been present, either apparently or otherwise, in all of the movements and influences pertaining to the works of God. In him was life, then, applies from the very "beginning" which is explained above. When God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, the Word contributed to that life. Of course, the writer is not especially thinking of that fact as he writes this verse, but is viewing the subject more directly as it pertains to His influence upon the spiritual lives of men as he lived upon the earth. Thus we hear Jesus saying, "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12). 5 The light shineth refers to the general favors of a spiritual character that Christ has offered to the world. What John says about the attitude of men in darkness toward the light has been and always will be true. (See chapter 3:19, 20.) Comprehended is from , and Thayer defines it, "To lay hold of so as to make one's own, to obtain, to attain; to appropriate." The thought is that even though the Lord has offered the benefits ob divine enlightenment to the darkened world, the men groping in darkness (as a rule) refuse to take advantage of the light. 6 The preceding 5 verses may be considered as John's preface to his account of the Gospel. The importance of the light of heaven, as it was to be shed on the world by the personal life of Christ, was of such great proportions, that God deemed it well to send a forerunner among men, to prepare a people for the reception of the Light. That man's name was John (the Baptist). 7 It is customary, when some notable person is about to appear before an audience, for another to present or introduce him. And even this temporary speaker is supposed to be a man of some importance. He will usually make a brief reference to the timeliness of the subject to be discussed before the audience, and always bears testimony of the qualifications of the speaker to handle the matter. Likewise, it is stated that the forerunner of the Light bore witness of Him, and the purpose stated is, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that light. John was always attentive to keep the people informed about his relation to Christ in his work, and did not want them to confuse the one with the other. (See verses 15, 20, 27.) 9 The spiritual light that Christ had to offer was for the whole mass of mankind, not just for the Jews or any other special group. The word world is from KOSMOS, and with the exception of chapter 9:32, every occurrence of the word "world" in this book is from that Greek word. It has a wide range of meanings, but the one that Thayer gives for its most general application is, "The inhabitants of the earth." 0 He was in the world, means he was among mankind as a citizen. Knew is from GINOSKO, and Thayer's first and "universal" definition is, "To learn to know, get a knowledge of; passive, to become known." Robinson defines it in virtually the same words. We might recognize a certain man to be John Doe, and yet not know, or care to know much about him. In that way the people of the world did not care to know much about Christ. (See the definition of comprehended in verse 5.) The world (mankind) was made (caused to be) by him. The words in parentheses are according to lexicon definitions. Verse 3 declares that all things were made by Him; also the definition of "us" in that verse is important and should be consulted again by the reader. 1 Came unto his own. Luke 1:17 says of John that he was to precede Christ, "To make ready a people prepared for the Lord." These people were Jews, and had been all of their lives, but had to be reformed before they could become a part of the "people prepared for the Lord." That is why chapter 3:25 makes a distinction between the Jews as such, and the disciples of John. Own received him not. The same "own" is meant in both instances in this verse. The meaning is, that the disciples of John as a group did not receive Jesus. According to Matthew 3:5-6; Mark 1:5, great multitudes from the regions named were baptized by John. However, according to Acts 1:15, only about 120 disciples, which would include the ones made by both John and Christ, were accounted for on that day of Pentecost. This explains the words received him not, stated in verse 11. 2 As many as received him. There is a familiar saying, "All rules may have some exceptions." In the preceding verse we learned that the disciples of John, as a group, rejected Christ. That was the "rule," and the exception is indicated by the italicized words here. For instance, the apostles had all been baptized by John, and were prepared for the work of Christ as soon as He called upon them. (See the comments at Matthew 9:9.) Hence the apostles, at least, were among "his own" who "received him." Power is from EXOUSIA, and its first meaning is, "right or privilege." Sons of God or children of God, is a term denoting family relations. While Jesus was on earth with_the apostles, the spiritual family of God had not been formed. But as soon as that was done (which was on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2), all of the faithful disciples of both John and Christ became "charter members" of the new family, and in that sense they became children of God. 3 People became members of the Mosaic system by fleshly conception and birth. Being born into the spiritual family of God is accomplished according to His will, that was made known through the Gospel of Christ. However, the persons specifically referred to at first in the present passage, were those who had been baptized by John. The principles involved in their birth, though, were the same as pertain to all others who afterward were to become members of the divine family. John's disciples were baptized upon their repentance, after having believed on Him (which should come after him, Acts 19:4), while all others were to be baptized upon believing on Him who has come. 4 The Word was wholly spiritual until the time for God's great "will" (Hebrews 10:7; Hebrews 10:9) to be carried out, the purpose of which was to have a Son begotten by His own bodily vitality, but clothed upon by the flesh, so that He could become a complete sacrifice for sin. (See the comments on Luke 1:34-35.) Full of grace and truth denotes that through Christ we are furnished completely in those blessings. 5 Of whom I spake. (See Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16.) The word before is used twice, but it is from different Greek originals. The first means before in the sense of being previous; therefore it denotes being before in the sense of rank or importance. The second means previous in time, or in any succession of things. John's reasoning is based on the priority of Christ. Since He existed before John did, he (John) felt that he ought to accord to Him the place of seniority. Christ was six months younger than John in the flesh, but existed before the beginning of the world spiritually. 6 Grace for grace is the outstanding phrase in this verse. For is from ANTI, and Thayer explains it to mean, "grace (or favor) succeeding grace perpetually, I. e., the richest abundance of grace, John 1:16." 7 The law of Moses was truthful, and many favors were bestowed on the Jews by it. But in contrast, the system given by Jesus Christ was far superior, because it bestowed one favor upon another in more complete measure, as the preceding verse with its comments shows. 8 No man with fleshly eyes has ever seen God, for that would have caused his death (Exodus 33:20). Yet God wished to give man some kind of glimpse at Him that he could endure, hence the Son of God came among man in the form of flesh, who then declared, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). 9 For comments on priests and Levites, see at Luke 10:31. 32. 0 The messengers' the Jews sent to John asked him about his identity. He was the most unusual person who had come among them in that generation, and it had raised questions and suggestions in connection with some historic characters of the Old Testament. Many knew it was predicted that the Christ (the Anointed) was to come into the world, and perhaps John was that person. The inquiry was doubtless prompted by both curiosity and genuine interest. Confessed often implies some unfavorable charge having been made; it does not in this case. The first definition of the original shows it to mean simply, "to declare." It had been the attitude of John all along, to be humble and to show deep respect for the One who was to follow him, hence he wished to leave no uncertainty as to his position. 1 The inquirers became specific in their questioning. By Elias, they meant the person predicted in Malachi 4:5. That prophet was their reference to a prediction of Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-20. To all of these questions, John gave a negative answer which left the inquirers without the desired information. 2 The negative answers did not furnish these messengers with a satisfactory report to take back with them. They insisted that John take the affirmative line and give them a specific answer as to his identity. veryone knew the personal and family name of John, and hence this inquiry did not pertain to that. What the messengers wanted to know pertained to his connection with the vital affairs of the Jews. 3 John's answer must have been a surprise to these men, for he had nothing to say about himself personally. The voice of one, etc., was to direct their attention to what he was saying to the people in the wilderness, and not to anything pertaining to him as an individual. He verified that "voice" by referring to a prediction of Esaias (Isaiah), chapter 40:3, 4, of that prophet's book. 4 The Pharisees were a prominent sect of the Jews in the time of Christ, and they had been so for several years before. They were very formal, and made great pretensions to righteousness. For a more extended description of them, with the Saddu-cees, see the notes at Matthew 16:12. 5 It is uncertain as to when the practice of baptism began among the Jews. History reveals that it became a part of the ceremonies that introduced Gentile proselytes into the religion of the Jews, and in some particulars admitted them to the privileges of the same. But since those cases were performed upon Gentiles only, and John performed his baptism on Jews only (Luke 1:16), the Pharisees thought the work he was doing was for the purpose of introducing some new system (which was true). And such a radical movement, as they thought, should properly be initiated by some note-worthy person, such as the ones they named to John. 6 John did not say anything to lessen the importance of his work, neither did he wish them to think he regarded It as the most important. Hence he stated that his ceremony consisted of water baptism only. He further told them that an unknown (to them) person was standing among them. 7 See comments at verse 15. 8 These things means the conversations just reported. There is some uncertainty with the works of reference, as to the exact identity of Bethabara, but all agree that it was a town on the east shore of the Jordan, near a spot where John was baptizing at that particular period in his work. 9 The next day means the day after the conversations mentioned above. John saw Jesus coming to wards them, and he recognized him from the events recorded in verse 33. Behold the Lamb of God. This should be understood as John's presentation of Jesus to his (John's) disciples, and his speech corresponds with the opening of the sheepfold in chapter 10:3. Taketh is translated "beareth" in the margin, and the lexicon agrees with it. The whole sentence is worded in view of the use made of the scapegoat to "bear upon him" the iniquities of the congregation of Israel (Leviticus 16:22). Yes, Jesus became the scapegoat for the whole world, but that does not relieve sinners of their personal obligation to appropriate the benefits of that arrangement by proper conduct of life. The ceremony with the scapegoat was for the congregation as a whole, but the individual members of the congregation had their personal duties to perform in order to benefit by the national sacrifice. Likewise, men have their individual duties to obey, in order to obtain any benefit from Crist's sacrifice. 0 This is the same as verse 15. 1 John knew some person was to come among the people of Israel, but did not know what particular man it was. He was given a cue (stated in verse 33) whereby he would have the promised one pointed out, and it was to take place while performing an act of baptism. Therefore signifies that because of the part water baptism was to play, John engaged in that kind of baptism, as well as to be preparing a people for that special One. 2 Luk 3:22 says the Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove, while the other three records say the Spirit descended like a dove. The point is in bringing out the idea that the Spirit had to be in some visible form, in order that it could be seen by John. Not only did John see this form descend, but it alighted on Him and remained for the occasion. 3 And I knew him not. John means that up to that instant he did not know this person as the promised Messiah, and the One for whom he was baptizing penitent Jews. There was to be no mistake, or confusion caused by a mere incident. It might not be regarded so strange for a dove to alight momentarily, but such a timid creature would not ordinarily be seen "remaining" on the head of a man. Hence that item was added to the circumstance to give it the force of evidence. Just how long before this verse it was that the baptism had taken place, we do not know; but it was prior to the "presentation" of verse 29. 4 After John saw the evidence so strangely demonstrated, he became a witness in person. The subject of his testimony was the great fact that the person he baptized under such unusual circumstances, was the Son of God. 5 This was the next day after the presentation in verse 29. 6 The Lamb of God. This phrase was significant especially to the Jews, because they were familiar with the national practice of offering animal sacrifices. 7 The two disciples were the ones mentioned in verse 35, to whom John repeated his presentation phrase in verse 36. 8 Saw them following. These disciples had hitherto been disciples of John. He had told his converts they should believe on the one who was to come. Now that One was in sight, and when John bade his disciples to behold Him, it meant to them that from then on they would desire to be in His company. That is why they asked Jesus where he dwelled, which meant for the time being, for the permanent residence of Jesus had been established in Capernaum (Matthew 4:13). 9 Jesus invited the disciples to go with him and see where he was staying. As it was about the tenth hour (our 4 o'clock), they visited the rest of the day. 0 One of the two evening guests of Jesus was Andrew, brother of Peter. He had been a disciple of John, but upon introduction to Jesus, followed Him. 1 First is from PROTOS according to the commonly-used Greek text, but Moffatt says it is really from PROI. Thayer's definition of that word is, "in the morning, early," and it is so translated in Matthew 16:3, and Moffatt so renders it in our verse, making it read, "In the morning," as being the time when Andrew went in search of his brother Peter. That is a reasonable conclusion, for we have seen that it was near the end of the day when the two disciples made their call upon Jesus with whom they spent the rest of the day. Then early the next morning, Andrew went in search of his brother, and told him the good news of finding the Messiah. 2 This verse corresponds in thought (but not necessarily in chronological order) with Matthew 16:18. In that passage Jesus is reported to have said, "Thou art Peter," while in our present verse he said, "Thou shalt be called Cephas." The two statements are identical in thought, because the Greek words for "Cephas" and "stone" have virtually the same definition. 4 Day following means the day after the one on which Jesus had the conversation with Peter. Jesus left his place of lodging and started to go to Galilee. Upon arriving there he came to the home town of Andrew and Peter. There Jesus met Philip who was told to follow Him, and he became one of the 12 apostles. 5 I have consulted half a dozen standard works of reference, and all of them say Nathanael was another name for Bartholomew, one of the apostles. The information will be useful when we get to verse 51. Philip told Nathanael the news of, finding the person whom the prophets and Moses had predicted. This announcement would have been unmingled good news for Nathanael, had it stopped there. But Philip next specified the person he meant, by saying he was Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 6 The information almost dashed the interest of Nathanael, for Nazareth was not a very popular town. The question Nathanael asked was not prompted by prejudice as against some territory besides his own, for he was himself a Galilaean. The origin of the lowly repute of that district is not known with certainty. Philip made a fair and logical reply to the question; come and see. He believed (and rightly), that no one could come under the influence of Jesus without being convinced that He is not only a "good thing," but the best that ever lived among men. 7 Guile means "deceit," and Jesus described Nathanael as an Israelite who was free from that evil. He made that announcement as Na-thanael approached, but after he was near enough to hear it. 8 Nathanael was surprised that Jesus knew him, even though they were in the bodily presence of each other. Then his astonishment was increased when Jesus mentioned an apparently trival circumstance such as standing under a fig tree. If Jesus knew of that circumstance while not present nor in sight of it, it would prove Him to be the very person whom Philip described in verse 45. 9 Upon the aforesaid evidence, Nathanael acknowledged Jesus to be all He had claimed to be, namely, the Son of God and King of Israel. 0 Jesus made a remark about Nathanael's belief in Him, based on the incident of relating an experience he thought no one knew. He then notified him that he was destined to see greater things than such circumstances. 1 This verse names the "greater things" referred to in the preceding one. Upon is from EPI, and Greenfield defines it to mean, "On account of, because of." This prediction was fulfilled at the ascension of Jesus in Acts 1:9-11. Here the "two men" were angels, and they were seen coming down in the sight of the apostles (of whom Nathanael was one, verse 45). Their descending from heaven, then ascending thereto again, was brought about by the ascension of Jesus. They conducted this mission "upon" or "on account of" the performance of the Son of Man who had just disappeared in a cloud. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Two A BRIEF VISIT TO GALILEE AND THE FIRST MIRACLEJoh_2:1-12 1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee;—The third day from what time is not very evident. Jesus was where John was baptizing, calling around him cer¬tain disciples whom he would teach and fit to be his apostles to teach others the words of wisdom that Jesus taught them. He had been at Bethabara, east of the Jordan; now he is in Cana of Galilee, not a great distance from Nazareth, the home of his mother Mary, and where he was chiefly brought up. and the mother of Jesus was there:—All the circumstances show that his mother was very much at home at the marriage, and took such a personal interest and direction in the matter as to indicate it was at the home of a close personal friend or relative. The affair shows that Jesus did not even, after the beginning of his ministry, withdraw from all social relations with his friends and acquaintances, but he used the opportunities offered in these to show he was from God. 2 and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage.—They all attended. Tradition says, John, the son of Zebedee and supposed relative of Mary and Jesus, married. I know of no ground for the tradition. 3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.—They ran short of the accustomed quantity of wine and Mary told Jesus. It would seem that she had confidence in his ability to provide for the deficiency. This could not be because she knew his power to work miracles, for he had wrought none before. Yet her going to him is a comment upon her confidence in his ability to provide in times of difficulty. It indicates that she had learned to rely upon him in times of need and leaves the impression that she had learned to rely upon him to aid in such emergencies. Her statement of the trouble implied a request that he should in some way remedy the deficiency. 4 And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?—His response to his mother sounds to us harsh and lacking in respect, but the style of address depends on the cus¬toms of the times and place and we cannot judge by this. The response rather shows depths of feeling and earnestness in him. It was the customary style of address. Our customs differ is all. mine hour is not yet come.—It is generally considered that he means that his hour for manifesting his power had not come. If so, it soon did come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.—Her confidence that he would do something to relieve the deficiency is shown in her instructions to the servants to do his bidding. 6 Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews' manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece.—The purification was that they should not eat without washing their hands. (See Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:4.) The vessels held about twenty-five gallons each. This was provided that all the guests might wash before eating. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.—They had been well nigh emptied by the guests before eating the supper, and he ordered them filled to the brim to remove all doubt as to their containing wine— to show no deception was practiced. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. And they bare it.—I take it only that which was drawn from the vessels full of water was changed into wine. 9 And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now be¬come wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom,—The bridegroom furnished the banquet; the governor, or friend, and one of the guests, directed the order of it. The governor, it seems, was ignorant of what had been done. 10 and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when men have drunk freely, then that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now.—The ruler was to give good wine at the beginning, then, as men got their taste satiated, they gave the inferior. But this wine made by the Savior was pronounced the best. It was pure and of the best quality of wine. There is no intimation that these guests drank to drunkenness. He speaks of the custom and says the order was changed. This was the best wine. That Jesus would make it good and pure was to be expected. Much has been said of the Savior making wine. Many think it was not intoxicating wine. Even the juice of grapes was recognized as leading to intoxication. God did not, under Christ, prohibit evils save as he prepared their hearts to voluntarily turn from the evils. So that all morality and virtue are to be from the heart. So while not prohibiting the evils, he put in operation principles that would banish all wrongs as men received them into the heart and acted on them. The governor of the feast and the bridegroom were dependent on the servants for their knowledge of this miracle. 11 This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory;—Cana of Galilee was but a few miles from Nazareth. In Cana Nathanael lived and there Jesus healed the nobleman’ s son. (John 4:46.) This was the first miracle wrought by Jesus. In manifesting this power to work miracles, he proclaimed the glory of God that gave such power to men. and his disciples believed on him.—His disciples had some faith in him at this time, and this sign greatly increased their faith in him. This is called the beginning of miracles. The miracles were performed to show that God was with him and that he was imbued with divine power. The working of the miracle set forth his divinity and declared his glory. By it the disciples had their faith in him greatly strengthened. Miracles were as often wrought to strengthen the faith of his followers as to convince the unbelievers. When their faith was strengthened, they testified of him to the multitudes and caused them to believe. 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples; and there they abode not many days.—Capernaum was situated on the Sea of Galilee. Although it is said they did not remain many days, he made Capernaum his home after this. It is called his city. The greater number of his apostles were reared in Capernaum and the other cities on the Sea of Galilee. JESUS GOES TO THE Joh_2:13-2213 And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.—The Passover was the feast commem¬orating the passing over or sparing of the first-born of the children of Israel when the first-born of the Egyptians were slain. It was eaten on the fifteenth of the month Abib, the first month of the Jewish year, and corresponds in time to what is popularly known as “ Easter.” It is important that we note the Passovers during the public ministry of Jesus, as they afford one of the easiest ways of determining the length of his public ministry from his baptism until his ascension. This was the first Passover after he began his public ministry and he went to Jerusalem to attend it. 14 And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves,—The children of Israel came to Jerusalem to observe the Passover in the temple. The law was that certain animals— oxen, sheep, goats, doves, and pigeons— must be slain at the door of the temple and offerings made on the bra¬zen altar outside the door. Coming from distant parts in Judea, and even from distant lands, they must purchase the animals in Jerusalem. This created a demand for these ani¬mals and traders brought them here to supply the demand and they were brought into the court of the temple. and the changers of money sitting:—They were required to make offerings of money, all in the coin of the sanctuary. This created the demand, and the traffic in these animals and coins was carried on for gain. The Jews were required to contribute the half shekel to the temple expenses. They could not contribute coin with idol images. Money of this character was in general circulation. So the money-changers exchanged with them for profit. 15 and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew their tables;—When Jesus came to the temple to attend this Passover feast, he found this traffic shamelessly carried on within the sacred limits of the temple. Indignant, he made a whip of small cords and drove all the animals out. He poured out the money of the changers and overturned their tables. Jesus was now teaching. His authority, to some extent, was recognized. 16 and to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence; make not my Father’ s house a house of merchandise.—He now gives his reason for cleansing the temple. On a later occasion he found the same shameless profanation of the temple, and quoted Isaiah 56:7 : “ For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” And then adds, “ But ye make it a den of robbers.” (Matthew 21:13.) He condemns and denounces their course with severity. It is a worse crime to make merchandise of the gospel of Christ, or to traffic in the privileges of the church of God— that is, to corrupt and defile the spiritual temple of God. 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, Zeal for thy house shall eat me up.—This zeal for his house was pre¬dicted in Psalms 69:9, and is a little difficult to understand, but seems to apply this consuming zeal for the house of God to Jesus. He desired it kept pure and holy. 18 The Jews therefore answered and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?—This seemed to use violence more than any other act save a similar one repeated on a similar occasion in his attend¬ance of the last Pass wer of his ministry. (Matthew 21:12; Luke 19:45.) Jesus no dovbt in doing it claimed he did it by the authority of God whom he represented. The Jews com¬plained that he should exercise such authority yet work no miracles or give no proof of the authority by which he did these things. 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.—He pointed to his death, burial, and resurrection. Spoke of his body as a temple, which, when they destroyed it, would be restored in three days. They did not understand this reference. He more than once referred those refusing to be convinced by the evidences he gave of his divine mission to his resurrection as the great sign of his being the Son of God. He “ was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: even Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 1:4.) 20 The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?—The Jews applied it to the temple in Jerusalem, while he applied it to the temple of his body. The temple had been re¬paired by Herod the Great, and he was forty and six years in rebuilding it. 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.—He called his body the temple. The misunderstanding of his meaning was the basis of the testimony borne against him in his first trial (Matthew 26:51), and the taunts against him as he hung upon the cross (Matthew 27:40). 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.—When it came to be understood by his disciples after his resurrection it became the ground of their believing in him more strongly. SIGNS WROUGHT DURING THE Joh_2:23-2523 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he did.—While in Jerusalem at this Passover he wrought signs or miracles and this caused many to believe on him. What the signs were we are not told. 24 But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men,—Jesus knew their hearts and that their faith was weak and unstable and so while he encouraged their belief, he did not trust himself to them. His infinite wisdom enabled him to know the hearts, the thoughts, and desires of all. There are many degrees of faith. It begins weak and unsteady, and by continued exercise it grows strong and steadfast. At this period Jesus trusted himself to the power of no man. He knew the uncertainty of men. Many, under the first impulse of the wonders wrought, would believe in him, but turn against him when trials and troubles came as they always do. Many in the days of the Savior were carried away by momentary excitement as now that fell away afterward. 25 and because he needed not that any one should bear wit¬ness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.—He had a divine insight into the hearts of men that enabled him to understand them without others telling of them. He gave an example of this in Nathanael. (John 1:43-47.) Then he told where and what Nathanael had been doing, and understood the secret workings of his heart. He was brought to believe in Christ by this. He did the same to the woman of Samaria. Verse 1 Beginning here and continuing through chapter 12 (John 2-12) is the first main section of this Gospel, in which seven great signs pointing to the deity of Christ are recounted. The word "sign," used seventeen times in this Gospel, is the term John used for "miracle." The seven signs are: 1. Changing the water into wine (John 2). 2. Healing the officer's son (John 4). 3. Healing the cripple (John 5). 4. Feeding the 5,000 (John 6). 5. Walking on Lake Galilee (John 6). 6. Healing the man who was born blind (John 9). 7. Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11). Of these, Numbers 2, 4, , 5 are also found in the synoptics. The choice of these particular wonders for inclusion in John evidently was made with regard to the absolute authority by which each was performed, and also with consideration for the deeply spiritual overtones in each. The latter fact may not be made the occasion for denying the true character of these signs as actual miracles, marvelous occurrences of historical events, in which the most circumstantial details are related, the names and identity of participants and witnesses provided, and the circumstances so carefully narrated, that the unbiased reader will invariably receive them, not as mere dramatic illustrations, but as FACTS. The flood of literature stressing the spiritual implications of these wonders to the point of denying the factual events upon which the spiritual teaching is founded is unconvincing and unreasonable. THE FIRST OF THE SEVEN SIGNSAnd the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. (John 2:1) No parable or drama, ever started like this. Cana is distinguished from another village of the same name in the tribe of Ephraim (Joshua 16:9), and Mary, the mother of Jesus, was one of the guests. The third day ... is the third day after Nathaniel became a follower of Jesus; and, in this implied connection with Nathaniel, there is the probable explanation of how Jesus and his disciples came to be invited. Nathaniel was a native of Cana (John 21:2); and the small size of the village makes it quite easy to suppose that he was certainly acquainted with the bridegroom, or even a relative. Also, Cana was only eight or ten miles northeast of Nazareth. Verse 2 And Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage.See under preceding verse for the possible source of the invitation, which, despite all conjecture, cannot be known; all such irrelevancies were omitted by the inspired writer. It is enough to know that Jesus and his disciples were invited and that they attended. Christ came not as an ascetic, fasting and withdrawing from public contact, but as a person of lovable social grace who adorned and blessed any company by his presence. "The Son of man came eating and drinking" (Matthew 11:19). Verse 3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no wine.All Jewish weddings were celebrated with wine for the guests, and such a failure as is recorded here would have been an occasion of sharp embarrassment to the host. Jesus' mother knew that he had the power to alleviate the shortage and evidently hoped by this remark to enlist his aid in overcoming it. Verse 4 And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.Woman ... This word addressed to his mother seems a little harsh in English; but, as Richardson noted, "It would not in the original. There is no precise English equivalent of this usage; perhaps `Madam' comes nearest, but is too cold and distant."[1] Nevertheless, a mild and respectful reproof of his mother cannot be separated from this. The Saviour's work of worldwide redemption was beginning; and the magnificent dimensions of such a work were not to be prescribed and directed by his earthly mother. Jesus' words here leave no doubt that Mary's suggestion was premature and unnecessary; and yet Jesus' rejection of her words did not violate any of the veneration and respect the beloved Mary was entitled to receive. These words bring into sharp focus the true status of the earthly mother of our Lord; and, in the sacred text, she never appears as a semi-deity commanding and directing her son to do this or that, but as herself subject to error. At no other point has the Medieval religion erred any more dramatically than here. As Gaebelein noted: She was not without error and sin, and was not meant to be prayed to and adored. If our Lord would not allow his mother even to suggest to him the working of a miracle, we may well suppose that all prayers to the Virgin Mary, and especially prayers entreating her to "command her Son" are most offensive and blasphemous in his eyes.[2]Mine hour is not yet come ... has been variously understood as meaning: "they are not yet completely out of wine," or "it is not time for me to step in yet," or "it is not yet time for me to show my glory," etc. It was Barnes' opinion that it means, "the proper time for his interposing THERE had not arrived,"[3] and not that it was an improper time for him to work a miracle. Of course, the expression "my hour" was also used to mean the hour of the Lord's crucifixion and resurrection (John 7:30; John 8:20; John 12:33; John 13:1; John 17:1, etc.). [1] Alan Richardson, The Gospel according to St. John (London: SCM Press, 1959), p. 60. [2] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1965), p. 47. [3] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), Volumes of Luke and John, p. 192. Verse 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.This verse shows several things: (1) Mary did not understand Jesus' words either as a rebuke or as a refusal to meet the need pointed out by her; (2) she evidently anticipated that Jesus' command might appear unreasonable to the servants; and (3) under normal circumstances, servants might hesitate to carry out the orders of a guest. Thus, her remarks to the servants were needed and timely. That she was in a position to instruct the servants suggests a close personal connection with the family of the bridegroom, and indicating also that Mary, not Nathaniel, might have been the source of the invitation to Jesus and his disciples. Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it ... Mary thus assumed her proper place, no longer making suggestions to the Lord, but leaving everything in his hands. These words are timeless in their application. Whatever Christ commands should be obediently accepted and done. The advice of the blessed Mary to the servants of Cana is appropriate for every generation; and even churches should spare themselves the burden of deciding which of the Lord's commandments are essential or not and do them all. Verse 6 Now there were six water-pots of stone set there after the Jews' manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece.Here is the vivid description of an eye-witness who, after so many years, could still see the six great water-pots sitting there, precisely in a certain place; nor is the indefinite capacity of the water-pots (two or three firkins) a contradiction of this. After the custom of the times, those water-pots were hand-made of stone; and there is hardly any possibility that they were of any precise capacity in each case. Containers sold in markets today are required by governments to be of an exact capacity, but that was not the case with these water-pots. One can only be astonished at the conclusion of a scholar like Richardson who said: In view of the vague "two or three" ... this consideration alone is enough to convince us that the story is a parable, not an actual historical event.[4]How strange that a certain school of interpreters can make so much of the indefinite capacity of the pots and so little of their exact number! No eye-witness could have told by looking at them exactly how much water they held; and, therefore, an indefinite statement of their capacity was strictly proper and correct. The parable theory regarding this sign is really hard-pressed for evidence to support it when its advocate will seize upon something like this. After the manner of the Jews' purifying ... In Mark 7:3-4 is a reference to the extensive washings of hands, cups, pots, and brazen vessels; and the observance of such ceremonies by the Jews required a bountiful supply of water-pots. Two or three firkins apiece ... A firkin was not an exact measurement, being about seven or eight gallons; and thus the capacity of the six water-pots was something between eighty and one hundred and fifty gallons. Again, the water-pots of that day were not precisely machined and uniformly crafted containers with exactly equal capacities, but they were made by hand in diverse patterns and varying sizes. ENDNOTE: [4] Alan Richardson, op. cit., p. 61. Verse 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.The servants obeyed the Lord, and without hesitation filled the water-pots up to the brim. Here in the manner of filling these pots is another factor requiring an indefinite statement of their capacity. The same pot would have held less or more, depending upon whether or not it was filled normally full, or brimming full, as here. The fact that the servants filled the pots to the brim left no room for adding anything else to the water. Verse 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now and bear to the ruler of the feast. And they bare it.Commentators have speculated at length upon WHERE the change took place, whether in the pots, or on the way to the ruler of the feast, etc.; but if the apostle had not intended to imply that the whole supply in the water-pots was changed into wine, it is simply inconceivable that the number and capacity of the pots would have been mentioned at all. One water-pot would have provided at least one round of wine! Along with C. S. Lewis, this writer receives this miracle as a literal creative act of God incarnate. He said: Every year, as part of the natural order, God makes wine. He does so by creating a vegetable organism that can turn water, soil, and sunlight into a juice which will, under proper circumstances, become wine .... Once, in one year only, God, now incarnate, short-circuits the process; makes wine in a moment; uses earthenware jars instead of vegetable fibers to hold the water.[5]Regarding the question of what kind of wine this was, all kinds of irresponsible speculations abound. Even Barnes gave elaborate arguments to prove that the wine here created by the Lord was nothing more than the pure juice of grapes with no alcohol content whatever; but, as Barnes admitted, "The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine."[6] And it is precisely this evident truth that rebukes any notion that this wine was merely the unfermented juice of grapes. On Pentecost, the apostles were accused of being full of new wine (Acts 2:3-15), to the extent of intoxication, a charge that Peter denied; but he did not deny that the wine common in those days was capable of producing intoxication; on the other hand, his defense tacitly admitted it. Also, the opinion of the ruler of the feast that the wine Jesus made was superior in quality to that they had drunk earlier, supports the conclusion that it was not merely pure grape juice. This is not to say, however, that the wine Jesus made was supercharged with alcohol like some of the burning liquors that are marketed today under the label of "wine". THAT we emphatically deny; but to go further than this and read WINE as GRAPE JUICE seems to this writer to be a perversion of the word of God. [5] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge University Press. 1965), p. 30. [6] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 193. Verse 9 And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom.The ruler of the feast ... was the person in charge of the festivities, presumably a close friend of the bridegroom honored with the responsibility of organizing and conducting the marriage celebration. Among his duties was that of tasting wine before it was served to the guests; and this accounts for the fact that the ruler of the feast was the first to taste the wine created by the Lord. His pleased and approving remarks are recorded in the next verse. Verse 10 And saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when men have drunk freely, then that which is worse; thou hast kept the good wine until now.First the good wine ... then ... worse ... In these words, the ruler of the feast unconsciously recorded the sordid economy of this world which first entices with that which is beautiful and desirable, and then punishes and frustrates with that which is worse. Of course, the ancient toastmaster was merely stating a commonly known fact, but the perception of John led him to see in that chance remark a universal law with profound applications far beyond the restricted situation that prompted its utterance. As Morrison said: Why, think you, did this saying so impress John that it lingered ineffaceably in his memory? Was it merely because of the pleasure it evoked to hear his Master's handiwork so praised? I think there was a deeper reason. John was by nature an idealist, loving to find the abstract in the concrete; and, in the particular instance of that moment, he was quick to see the universal law.[7]; THAT WHICH IS WORSE1. In the history of Adam's race, first there was Paradise and the garden of Eden; then came the temptation and fall, the curse, the expulsion, and the flaming sword that pointed in every direction. 2. In the progression of physical life on earth, first there are the joys of childhood, the excitement and pleasure of youth; and afterwards there are the labor and strife, weakness, senility, and death. This physical progression to that which is worse is among the saddest and most pitiful qualities of mortal life. Wordsworth captured the full pathos of it thus: The rainbow comes and goes, And lovely is the rose. Shades of the prison house begin to close Upon the growing boy. The sunshine is a glorious birth; But yet I know, where'er I go, That there hath passed away A glory from the earth. Where is it now, the glow and the dream? At length the man perceives it die away And fade into the light of common day.[8]3. In the enticement to sin, the death's head is always hidden behind the smiling mask of beauty and delight. The smile of the adulteress ends in blood upon the threshold, and the sparkling cup conceals the poisonous asp at the bottom of it (Proverbs 23:21; Proverbs 23:32). 4. In life's arrangements without consideration of God, the progression is ever downward and toward that which is worse. Marriages where God is not a partner move unerringly in the direction of futility and sorrow. Prodigals move invariably in their thoughtless and licentious freedom, not to honor, but to the swine pen. Many an arrangement of business, employment, or pleasure is begun with high hopes and expectations; but, if God is not in the arrangement, it moves inexorably to lower and lower levels to become finally a state of crime and shame. Afterward, that which is worse. 5. In the longer progression of unconsecrated life, as it regards time and eternity, the same wretched deterioration occurs. However glorious or desirable the state of the wicked in this present life may appear to be, it is only for a little while, followed by the terrors of a hopeless grave and the punishments of hell. Some people refuse to believe in any such thing as hell; but intelligent reasoning, as well as divine revelation, supports the conviction that awful retribution is stored up for the wicked after death. Again from Morrison: I believe in law; I believe in immortality; I believe in the momentum of a life. And if the momentum of a life be downward, and be unchecked by the strong arm of God, how can we hope that it will be arrested by the frail and yielding barrier of the grave? ... If sin conceals the worse that is behind tomorrow, may it not also conceal the worse that lies behind the grave?[9]6. In the progression of the material universe, all material things being inferior to the great spiritual realities, there is the same downward course. The sun itself will finally become a burned-out star and our earth but a dead speck of dust in space. As Dr. Moody Lee Coffman stated in a lecture on The Origin of the Inanimate: The universe must be reckoned as becoming more disordered with time. All other known physical laws may be extrapolated backward in time as well as forward, but the second law of thermodynamics insists that entropy monotonically increases. Time cannot be reversed in direction to change this fact. No violation has ever been observed. All the experience of mankind leads us to believe the universe must work its way to a uniform heat sink with no potential for doing useful work. It is the second law of thermodynamics.[10]This profound observation is but the scientific way of saying, "afterward, that which is worse." The apostles of Jesus warned people to live lives founded upon spiritual principles and unhesitatingly predicted the end of the physical world, as, for example in Peter's foretelling the destruction of the earth and its works (2 Peter 3:10 f). 7. In the corruption and defilement of man's moral nature, through the ravages of sin, it is always "afterward, that which is worse." Sin always begins with so-called minor departures from the word of God; but the descent of the soul towards reprobacy and debauchery is constant and accelerated in its declension from God. The miserable history of Sodom and Gomorrah has been endlessly repeated by all of the nations that have turned away from God. "Evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:13). "Worse and worse" is the law of all sin and turning away from God. From the above considerations, it is clear enough that the ancient master of ceremonies at Cana uttered a truth far more comprehensive than the primary application of it. No wonder the apostle remembered and recorded it! And when men have drunk freely ... People have gone to great lengths to defend the Lord against any implied approval of excessive drinking; but no such defense is necessary. It is not implied that any of the guests at that wedding had exceeded the bounds of propriety. He merely stated what was publicly recognized as a fact, and there can be no question of the truth of what he said. Thou hast kept the good wine until now ... This is the converse of the proposition stated above. The contrast between the way God does things and the performance of people apart from God is dramatically stated. With sinful men, it is ever "afterward, that which is worse"; but with God in Christ it is ever "the best wine last!" This truth also has a wide application. THE BEST WINE SAVED FOR LAST1. In God's great act of creation, the best wine came last. First, the earth was without form and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the deep. Afterward came light, vegetation, lower forms of animal life, and finally man created in the image of God! 2. In the dispensations of God's grace, the same progressive betterment is observed. The patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations of God's mercy appeared in ascending order of benefit and glow. 3. In Scriptural revelation, the same progression to that which is better appears. As the writer of Hebrews expressed it: God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2). 4. In the earthly life of our Lord, the wonder of Bethlehem and the angelic announcement of a Saviour born culminated in the far more wonderful event of Jesus' death and resurrection for the salvation of mankind. The best wine came last. 5. The progression of the Christian life follows the same pattern. The enthusiasm and joy of the novice convert to Christ resolve into a far more wonderful experience of the mature Christian. The difference in Christ and the devil is just this, that the devil's tomorrow is worse than his today; but the morrow of Christ, for every man who trusts him, is always brighter and better than his yesterday. Every act of obedience on our part gives us a new vision of his love.[11]One of the hymns of the pioneers was "Brighter the Way Groweth Each Day"; and all who have ever followed the Lord have found it so. 6. In time and eternity, we may be certain that God has kept the best until last. Joyful and fulfilling as the Christian life assuredly is, the full glory of it will not be realized until "that day" when the Lord shall provide the crown of life to all them that have loved his appearing. No description of heaven is possible. Language itself, as a means of communicating thought, breaks down under the weight of superlative metaphor employed by the inspired writers who received from God visions of the Eternal City. The throne of God is there, the river of life, the tree of life, the gates of pearl, the streets of gold, the protective wall, and the Saviour's own face as the light - who can fully understand such things as these? But of one thing we may be certain: when the trials, sorrows, tribulations, heartaches, and sufferings of our earthly pilgrimage have ended, and when we awaken to behold the Saviour's face in the eternal world, we shall cry adoringly, "Lord, thou hast reserved the best until now." Note: A somewhat fuller treatment of the spiritual import that may be found in John's great signs is entered here, with reference to the first of them, than will be undertaken with regard to the others, as an example of the kind of interpretation possible in all of them. That such implications are indeed to be found in these mighty signs is perfectly evident; but the critical device of making the spiritual import of these wonders the basis of denying that they actually occurred is satanic. A lie has no spiritual import of the kind evident in John's signs; and therefore the very quality of their spiritual application is a proof that the events themselves happened, that they are historical facts. [7] G. H. Morrison, The Wings of the Morning (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 1. [8] William Wordsworth, Ode on the Intimations of Immortality. [9] G. H. Morrison, op. cit., p. 6. [10] Moody Lee Coffman, The Origin of the Inanimate (Atlanta, Georgia: Religion, Science, Communication Research and Development Corporation, 1972), p. 75. [11] G. H. Morrison, op. cit., p. 11. Verse 11 This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him.Far from being presented as a mere parable, Jesus' action in changing water into wine is here denominated the first of his mighty miracles, a positive manifestation of the Lord's glory, and the event which issued in the faith of his disciples. As the first of those mighty deeds which proved him to be God in the flesh, this sign of Jesus has a breadth of meaning and depth of importance fully compatible with its priority in the time sequence. Compared with the first great miracle wrought by Moses, in which water was changed into blood, this sign resembles that one, as should have been expected of type and antitype; but it also contrasts dramatically. Moses' sign impoverished; this one enriched. This was a source of joy, that one a source of revulsion and disgust. That changed water into something worse; this changed water into something better. The superiority of Christ over Moses, so starkly visible here, was to appear in all the miracles that followed. Moses' miracle was a curse; this was a blessing. As Richard Trench noted: This beginning of miracles is truly an introduction to all other miracles which Christ wrought, as the parable of the Sower to all the other parables which he spoke. No other miracle has so much of prophecy in it; no other, therefore, would have inaugurated so fitly the whole future work of the Son of God, a work that might be characterized throughout as an ennobling of the common, and a transmuting of the mean, a turning of the water of earth into the wine of heaven.[12]CHRIST AND Any full appreciation of this wonder must take account of the occasion upon which it was enacted, namely, at a wedding feast. By such a choice of platform from which to launch his world-saving ministry, Christ conferred upon marriage his approval, encouragement, and blessing. Fittingly, the traditional wedding ceremony has the lines: "... in holy matrimony, which is an honorable estate, and signifying to us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee... etc." Far from having been a capricious or accidental beginning of his ministry, the sign at Cana was part of the Master Plan of the Saviour's earthly sojourn. How appropriate it is that he who was to become the great Bridegroom of the Church in heaven and upon earth should have begun his ministry with such a wonder as this and upon such an occasion as the marriage in Cana of Galilee. And manifested his glory ... Of some mere prophet, it might have been declared that such a sign manifested God's glory; but the glory here manifested was essentially of Christ himself, who was God incarnate. As Westcott said: The manifestation of his glory in this "sign" must not be sought simply in what we call its miraculous element, but in this connection with the circumstances, as a revelation of the insight, sympathy, and sovereignty of the Son of man, who was the Word incarnate.[13]The enrichment, that came of Christ's presence at that ancient wedding was a literal endowment of the new family unit with an exceedingly valuable and ample supply of the choices: wine, removing the new couple at one stroke from a status of poverty and embarrassment to a position of abundance and plenty. The literal enrichment of that bride and groom symbolizes the enrichment that always follows the welcoming of Christ into the homes and hearts of people. [12] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1943), p. 105. [13] Brooks Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 39. Verse 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples; and there they abode not many days.Capernaum ... was a principal city on Lake Galilee and a scene of many of our Lord's most notable deeds. Of this city, he said: Thou Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades: for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would have remained until this day (Matthew 11:23). This curse upon Capernaum has been literally fulfilled, the very site of the place hardly being known today. The fact that the mighty deeds and preaching of Christ himself were ineffective there leads to some reflections on the subject of evangelism. Many evangelists, especially young ones, seem to believe that given the proper methods, reinforced with zealous and attractive personnel, just about any city or province may be taken for the Lord. Such determination and zeal are commendable so long as it is remembered that, in the last analysis, each community, and every person, has the final word on whether or not it or he will serve the Lord, and that no method, personality, system, or anything else can win the whole world for Jesus Christ, bind it in golden chains, and lay it at the Redeemer's feet, the insurmountable obstacle being what it has ever been, the stubborn will of sinful and unregenerated people. Take the case of Capernaum: It must be admitted that Jesus was an effective and powerful evangelist, being himself none other than the glorious Head of our holy religion. Moreover, his helpers had the rank of apostles, being capable, industrious, diligent, and intelligent persons; and they knew the territory, five of them having been brought up in the suburbs of Capernaum. Yes, and Jesus got the community's attention. He raised Jarius' daughter from the dead, and Jairus was the ruler of the synagogue (Mark 5:22). He healed the centurion's servant, and the centurion commanded the Roman military presence in the city and was doubtless the richest man in the whole area, having built the Jews a synagogue (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-5). Also, the Lord cured the son of the king's personal representative in that town, called "a certain nobleman" (John 4:46 ff). If such deeds did not get the total attention of Capernaum, nothing could have done it. Add to all this the impassioned preaching of the Son of God, and one is forced to the conclusion that there is no way that Capernaum could have been won for the Lord. Who can doubt this? The intangible factor in evangelism is the people themselves, every individual one of them, each having the power to oppose the heavenly will if he so decides. Are there such places as Capernaum today? You'd better believe it. Illustration: A large dog food company had a convention in a great city for hundreds of their salesmen; and, with the great auditorium overflowing with salesmen, the president of the company made his presentation. "Look at this," he said. "This beautiful golden can with the red label holds thirteen ounces of pure protein; it will make your dog's coat silky, his teeth white, and his disposition adorable. It has all the vitamins and minerals added and costs only 39 cents a can; why can't you go out and sell a billion cans of it?" Pausing dramatically to let the import of his tremendous message sink in, he was dumbfounded and the convention propelled into a near riot, when, from away up in the balcony, somebody shouted, "The dogs don't like it!" That is the way it is, alas, with the gospel of Christ. As long as people prefer to commit fornication and drink liquor rather than serve the Lord, many a loving message of faith and salvation shall fail of its intended fruit. His mother and his brethren ... This is the first mention of Jesus' brothers in John; and it is clear from John 7:5 that they did not yet believe in him. Regarding the question of whether or not these were sons borne by the mother of Jesus, reference is made to my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 13:55-56. It is the conviction of this writer that there is no good reason for understanding "brothers" in this passage in any unusual manner. Verse 13 And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. THE TEMPLEThe passover of the Jews ... Writing near the end of the first century, John no longer referred to the passover as a feast of God, but of the "Jews". Whatever ordinances or observances are undertaken upon man's initiative only, such ordinances, even though originally commanded by God, become in a special sense the ordinances of men. Jesus' saying of the temple, "Behold your house is left unto you desolate" (Matthew 23:38), is in the same vein of thought. The cleansing of the temple about to be related should not be confused with a second cleansing during the final week of our Lord's life on earth (Matthew 21:12 f; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45). In this cleansing, Jesus made use of a scourge, but none was mentioned in the synoptic accounts of the second cleansing. Far from being any difficulty, John's relation of this dramatic cleansing gives the explanation of the implacable hatred of the Pharisees and other keepers of the temple concessions, the hatred being evident enough in the synoptics, but this practical reason for it at so early a date appearing only in John. Verse 14 And he found in the temple, those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting.These animals and birds were required offerings in the Jewish sacrifices, but the worshipers were required to purchase them from the temple functionaries and were not allowed to bring their own; and even in circumstances where the worshiper might have been permitted to bring his own offering, the element of convenience naturally turned all to the supply provided by the temple. Also, the only money that could be used in such purchases was the coinage or currency controlled by the temple. The denarius and other coins were prohibited, for example, as bearing Caesar's image. Thus, with the temple concessionaires having the only supply of animals and the only supply of money by which they could have been purchased, the suffering people were gouged unmercifully. No wonder Jesus denounced that crowd of cheaters as "thieves and robbers." It was particularly an act of aggravation that the money-changers had actually moved into the sacred area of the temple itself. Modern Christians have little reason to be critical of the commercialization of the ancient temple. As Gaebelein said: So-called churches have become houses of merchandise, places of amusement, theatricals, moving pictures, dancing for young people, etc. .... Evangelistic campaigns led by evangelists who are incorporated, aiming at big collections to which saints and sinners, Jews and Gentiles, are urged to give ... schemes to raise big sums of money - all these are greater evils than selling sheep and oxen in the temple court of Israel.[14]Of course, Christian houses of worship correspond in no way to the ancient temple of the Jews, being in no sense "the Lord's house," except in the most accommodative sense; and yet it is still true that in places set apart for prayer and the ministry of the word of God, reverence and spirituality should prevail within them. ENDNOTE: [14] Arno Gaebelein, op. cit., p. 51. Verse 15 And he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money, and overthrew their tables.It is said that Jesus never used force, but this verse proves otherwise. It is a moot question whether or not Jesus actually used a whip on any of the money changers, the usual interpretation being that he did not; but the very existence of such a weapon in the strong hand of the vigorous young carpenter from Nazareth was a threat of force sufficient to deter any of the money-changers from contesting it. The whip was necessary in driving out the animals; but, with regard to the money-changers, the moral indignation of the Holy One crying out against the callous commercialization of the very house of God was far more effective than any physical threat could have been. Needless to say, such action by Jesus was requited by the undying hatred of the godless Sadducees who were the principal operators of the temple concessions. Their financial interests had been jeopardized; and one may be sure that from this day forward murderous schemes were devised for getting rid of Jesus. This further comment on the meaning of "all" in this verse comes from Hendriksen: The KJV and RSV favor the idea that Jesus actually drove out all the wicked traffickers together with the sheep and oxen. In the second cleansing of the temple (Matthew 21:12), it is definitely stated that the cattle dealers were themselves driven out. If that happened then, we may take for granted that it took place now.[15]ENDNOTE: [15] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 123. Verse 16 And to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.The doves, in cages, could not be driven out, hence the Lord's command that they be carried out. House of merchandise ... Among the differences in this cleansing and the second is this order of the Lord for them to cease and desist from such practices. At the second cleansing, it was too late to command them to cease, and they were at that time denounced as "thieves and robbers." Their day of grace had passed. My Father's house ... "My" indicates the unique sonship of Jesus. and focuses on the Messianic import of this event of cleansing. As Hunter noted, "The cleansing is far more than a Jewish reformer's act; it is a sign of the advent of the Messiah."[16] In Malachi 3:1 f, it is written: "The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple ... but who may abide the day of his coming? ... and he shall purify the sons of Levi." Also, in Zechariah 14:1, we have, "And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day" (RSV). Thus, very early in his ministry, Jesus laid claim by these bold deeds to his rightful position as the long-awaited Messiah of Israel and head of the Theocracy. ENDNOTE: [16] A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 33. Verse 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, Zeal for thy house shall eat me up.This quotation is Psalms 69:9; and, again from Hendriksen: The disciples witnessing this manifestation of the zeal of their Lord for the house of his Father, are filled with fear that Jesus may suffer what David had to endure in his day, namely, that his zeal in some way would result in his being consumed.[17]And of course, as noted above, it was precisely this manifestation of the Saviour's zeal that set in motion against him the murderous animosity of the religious apparatus in Jerusalem, which never relented until a cross arose upon Golgotha. Jesus never lost sight of the Messianic implications of the temple cleansings; and, in the second instance of it, he reminded the selfish concessionaires that the house of God's holy religion had never been intended as their private privilege and personal domain, but that "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations" (Mark 11:17; Isaiah 56:7), indicating that "all nations," including the Gentiles, were intended to be benefited through the coming Messiah. Thus, the sin of the money-changers was not merely against Israel, but against all mankind also. The strong Messianic implications of this bold deed were not altogether lost on the priests, for they immediately demanded a sign that would confirm Jesus' implied claim of Messiahship. The cleansing itself was an excellent sign, but that they rejected. ENDNOTE: [17] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 123. Verse 18 The Jews therefore answered and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?For discussion on the kind of signs the Jews wanted, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 16:1. Verse 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.What Jesus meant by this is plainly given in John 2:21, "He spake of the temple of his body"; but such a simple answer is rejected by some. This pointed reference to his own death, burial and resurrection cannot be allowed by those who would spiritualize every historical fact out of this Gospel. As one has declared: "Destroy" is a prophetic command meaning, "Go on as you are doing and you will bring this temple down in ruins (at the hands of Rome); but in a brief time (three days) I will raise up another center of worship." Jesus is predicting that through his work there will arise a new spiritual building in which the new Israel, the Church, will worship God![18]Of course, such an interpretation is sheer nonsense. In Jesus' true words, the same temple envisaged as destroyed is exactly the same one Jesus promised to raise up in three days; and added to that obvious fact is the emphatic statement of the inspired evangelist himself that Jesus "spake of the temple of his body"! This verse shows that Jesus fully knew the consequences of casting out the money-changers; and, by this prophecy, he clearly foretold that they would indeed put him to death and that he would rise from the dead on the third day. This statement made in response to the demand for a sign is similar in the Lord's answer to the demand of the Pharisees recorded in Matthew 12:38 ff. In both instances, the only sign the Pharisees were promised was the Lord's own death, burial, and resurrection; but here he used the analogy of the destroyed temple raised again in three days, while there the "sign of the prophet Jonah" had exactly the same meaning! ENDNOTE: [18] A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 34. Verse 20 The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up, in three days?At this point, it is possible to check the historicity of John's Gospel; and it is no surprise to find it exactly accurate. Herod the Great began building the temple in 20-19 B.C.[19] Adding 46 years to that date brings the time of this first cleansing to 27-28 A.D. and adds strong evidence for the early date of this cleansing. Of course, the Jews construed Jesus' words in the most literal fashion possible, and with such a lack of perception that they naturally considered his claim ridiculous. At the time of the trials before his crucifixion, Jesus' enemies presented a garbled version of his words here as "evidence"! It is clear enough why those men could not understand Jesus, but it is disconcerting that some Christians cannot seem to understand him. ENDNOTE: [19] Ibid. Verse 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.See under preceding verses. Verse 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.As Westcott declared: John notices on other occasions the real meaning of the words of the Lord not understood at first: John 7:39; John 12:33; John 21:19; and, in each case, he speaks with complete authority. This trait of progressive knowledge is inexplicable except as a memorial of personal experience.[20]And they believed the scripture ... The Scripture in view here is John 2:19, above, where Jesus had spoken of raising up the destroyed temple. ENDNOTE: [20] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 43. Verse 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding the signs which he did.John means by this that a great many other signs had been wrought by Jesus at this first passover, giving the key to the selectivity of his narrative. From the vast number of Jesus' signs, only seven were selected for this Gospel by its inspired author. There is a sense too in which the cleansing of the temple may be considered a sign. Such a frontal assault upon the entrenched forces of exploitation would have resulted in a sudden burst of popularity, the rabble always being capable of sudden, but not sustained, clamor against authority, especially authority which is abused and exploitive as was that of the temple. A multitude would have gathered quickly around such a defender of righteousness as Jesus showed himself in that episode. However, the view here is that the mention of signs (plural) has reference to many of Jesus' mighty deeds that were omitted from this Gospel and all the Gospels. The cleansing of the temple, though not miraculous, and thus not reckoned among John's seven signs, nevertheless was a dramatic and startling announcement of Jesus as the Messiah who had suddenly come to his temple. Verse 24 But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men.The sudden wave of popularity had not deceived Jesus who well knew the fickle and unreliable nature of public opinion. For more on this subject, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:20-21. Verse 25 And because he needed not that any should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.It will be recalled that Jesus instantly read the character of both Peter and Nathaniel. Our Lord looked right through those people in Jerusalem who, in the presence of his astounding miracles, readily conceded that he was the Messiah, but who discerned none of the moral implications of such a fact. Their first thought was: "Well, good! Let us see if he can throw the Romans out!" The omniscience of the Lord is stated by the apostle in this verse; and, from the fact of John's bringing that attribute into the foreground at this particular juncture, it may be inferred that some of Jesus' disciples were a little disappointed that Jesus did not at once place himself at the head of that great throng of "believers" who had been so easily convinced by his miracles. Only in the true retrospective reflection of the apostle so long afterward would the true reason for the Lord's refusal become clear. Something more than belief has always been a prerequisite for becoming a true follower of the Lord; and that throng of "believers only" had nothing of that "something more" always required. That fatal lack was the thing Jesus discerned. These were doubtless some of the same people who shouted, "Crucify him!" when the Lord stood before Pilate. One additional thing, over and beyond faith only, required of all who would enter the kingdom of God is the new birth; and, appropriately, John next recorded Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. Questions by E.M. Zerr For John 21. From what was this the "third day” ? 2. What was taking place? 3. Who was present besides Jesus and his disciples 4. Of what did she inform Jesus? 5. What did he say had not come? 6. Tell what indicates her confidence in him. 7. What vessels were available? 8. State their customary use. 9. Repeat the orders Jesus first gave to them. 10. What next? 11. How was the ruler impressed? 12. What did he not know? 13. To whom did he give the credit? 14. When was “ good” wine usually served ? 15. What effect would this “ good” wine have? 16. Then what might be served? 17. How was the present case different? 18. Of what was this the beginning? 19. What did it manifest? 20. How did it affect his disciples ? 21. After this where did he go? 22. Where is this located ? 23. What woman went along ? 24. Were his “ brethren” and his disciples the same? 25. What about their stay here ? 26. Tell what feast was about due. 27. Where did Jesus go? 28. Why to this city? 29. Tell what he found in the temple. 30. What occasioned these things ? 31. State the need for money changers. 32. Tell what Jesus did. 33. Of what did he accuse them? 34. What writing did the disciples then apply? 35. For what evidence did the Jews ask? 36. State his answer. 37. To what did they refer his answer? 38. Why did it seem impossible to them ? 39. Of what was he speaking? 40. State his meaning of three days. 41. When did the disciples recall this prediction? 42. What two authorities did they then believe ? 43. Why believe the two? 44. Did any others believe? 45. Where did they meet him? 46. What caused them to believe ? 47. Tell what Jesus knew. 48. Because of this what did he not do ? ' 49. What testimony did he not need ? 50. Tell what he knew without seeing it. 1 Third day means after the conversation with Nathanael in the preceding chapter. Cana was a town not far from Capernaum, and it was the home of the apostle Nathanael (chapter 21:2). The text does not state whether the mother of Jesus was there by personal invitation, or that she was a relative of the parties. 2 The disciples of Jesus would mean those he had made after entering upon his personal ministry. It was appropriate to invite the disciples along with the Master. 3 Wanted is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, "To fail, be wanting." It indicates that they had wine provided in the beginning of the feast, but the supply had run out. The mother of Jesus very naturally appealed to her son to help them out of their embarrassment. 4 Such an appeal indicated that she expected Jesus to perform some kind of a miracle, since the occasion was too far advanced to go to a market. But Jesus had not intended launching upon his public miraculous works in full scale degree yet. Moffatt renders the question Jesus asked, "What have you to do with me?" It was a mild protest against her attempt to press Him into his work before he was ready. 5 The statement of Jesus to his mother must not have been very severe, and there was doubtless something in the conversation (not recorded) that indicated a willingness on the part of Jesus to help the group out of their difficulty. Mary instructed them to follow whatever directions He gave to them. 6 Moffatt says these waterpots could hold about twenty gallons each. 7 It required no miraculous power to fill the pots with water, hence Jesus bade the attendants do that. The lesson of human cooperation with the Lord is taught frequently throughout the Bible, showing that He will not do for us what we can do for ourselves. Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from death, but commanded the people to feed her (Mark 5:43). He brought Lazarus from the grave, but told the people to remove the grave clothes (John 11:44). 8 Governor in this verse, and ruler in the next, are from -LINOS, and Thayer defines it," The superintendent of a dining-room, a table-master." He then explains it as follows: "It was his duty to place in order the tables and couches, arrange the courses, taste the food and wine beforehand, etc." That is why Jesus told them to bear this wine to the governor of the feast. 9 The foregoing information explains why the ruler of the feast tasted the wine. He thought it had been provided by the bridegroom for the use of his guests. He was so well pleased with it that he decided to compliment the host. 0 When a man is drunk, his mind is rendered dull so that his ability to make distinctions is weakened. Hence an entertainer would reserve his worst wine until the guests were drunk, after which they would not know the difference. Attempts have been made by some commentators to explain away the seeming objection to this circumstance, by referring to the various kinds of wine that were made in Palestine. They explain that some varieties were not as strong as others, and that when men are said to be drunk on it, it only means they are filled to the point of being stu-pified. But the theory does not agree with the original language. Drunk is from , which has some variety of forms in the Greek New Testament, but all have virtually the same meaning. Thayer defines the word, "To intoxicate, make drunk; to get drunk, become intoxicated." Strong defines it, "To drink to intoxication, 1. e., get drunk." Greenfield defines it, "To intoxicate, inebriate, make drunk; passively, to be intoxicated, make drunk." Good and worse wine are used in the sense of superior and inferior, meaning that after wine has been fully "aged," it is more satisfactory. Of course it would be no difficult task for Jesus to put this water through all the processes that nature does in bringing it to a state of clarification. The attempts of friends of the Bible to meet the so-called objection to this event by appealing to the meaning of the word "drunk," are not justified by the original Greek words. But the whole effort is unnecessary, for Jesus did not claim to be attempting a general reformation of the whole world all at once. (There is no evidence that the related guests were disciples either of John or Jesus.) He once told his disciples, even, that he had many things to say to them which they could not bear then (chapter 16:12), and certainly the world in general was not yet ready for the more advanced teaching on the subject of wine as a beverage. Another thing to note in the case, is that it does not say that a single person present had actually drunk enough to make him intoxicated. In those days, people did not have any process of preserving grape juice unfermented, hence the various passages on the subject only rule against drinking enough of the wine to become drunk. (See Ephesians 5:18; 1 Timothy 3:3; 1 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:7.) 1 Jesus had not planned to open his public work of performing miracles yet (verse 4), but the appeal of his mother prompted him to act. It is noteworthy that the "beginning of miracles" was enacted in the district where he was brought up. Disciples believed on Him. This does not denote they did not believe previously, for they could not have become disciples of Jesus without first believing; but their faith grew. 2 Jesus went on down to the city that he had adopted as a residence (Matthew 4:13), which was not far from Cana where he had performed his first miracle. Note that his brethren and disciples are mentioned in the same sentence, which refutes the Romish theory that the "brethren" of Christ always means his disciples. The doctrine is used to support their un-scriptural notion of the perpetual virginity of His mother. 3 John's record of the Gospel is the only one of the four that refers to all the passovers Jesus attended while on earth. These events give us the Biblical basis for saying that His earthly ministry lasted between three and four years. The present verse gives the first one, and the next is in chapter 5:1. 6 See notes on Matthew 21:12-13. 7 The saying referred to is recorded in Psalms 69:9. See my comments on that verse in volume 3 of the Old Testament Commentary. 8 The Jews were questioning the right of Jesus to "take the law into his own hands," so to speak, and inflict this physical punishment on the dealers in necessary articles for the service of God. They challenged Him to stake his standing as an unusual person by uttering some sign, which means some kind of event that was to come. 9 The Jews pretended to think Jesus meant the literal temple that was the capitol of their national service. But their conversation with Pilate, recorded in Matthew 27:62-63, shows they fully understood what temple was meant. 0 Forty and six years was the length of time that Herod had used in building (remodeling) the temple. But even if Jesus had meant that structure, it would not have been any more difficult a task for him to have reconstructed it in three days, than to perform the other miracles recorded. 1 Jesus compared his fleshly body to a temple because it was the structure in which his spirit was dwelling. Paul makes the same comparison in 1 Corinthians 6:19; 1 Corinthians 12:12-26. 2 Believed the scripture refers to the prediction in the Old Testament that Jesus was to rise from the dead the third day. That prediction is recorded in Psalms 16:9-10, and commented upon by Peter in his discourse in Acts 2:25-27. 3 This is still the first pass-over, mentioned in verse 13. Believed when they saw the miracles. That was the primary reason why Jesus performed the miracles according to chapter 20:30, 31. 4 Commit is from PISTEUO, and as used in this verse, it means to put trust in another. Jesus did not put any confidence in mankind in general, and the reason is stated in the next verse. 5 Jesus knew all about the innermost thoughts of men, and regarded them as unreliable; he knew they were not to be trusted. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Three WITH Joh_3:1-15 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;—Nicodemus was a member of the council of the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees were the most strenuous sect of the Jews in observing the traditions of the elders. [Jesus charged that they made the commands of God of no ef¬fect by their traditions. (Matthew 15:3.) They were the most popular sect of Judaism in the days of Christ. They believed in the resurrection. Nicodemus is mentioned (John 7:51) as in-sisting to the Jews that “ our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?” He (John 19: 39) brought a hundred pounds mixture of myrrh and aloes to anoint the body of Jesus. The notices we have of him indicate that he was a just and true man.] 2 the same came unto him by night,—[Why he came at night is a guess of no value. Possibly he desired to avoid publicity, or he found Jesus more at leisure; possibly he had more leisure himself.] and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.—The object of miracles was to con¬vince the people that God was with or in those who wrought them and to give assurance to the people that when they heard him they heard God. The person acted and spoke by the authority of God. He came to Jesus that he might learn the will of God. Jesus had come and had given a number of signs or worked miracles that attracted the attention of the observant and thoughtful. Nicodemus was an honest, sincere Pharisee, a ruler and teacher among the Jews, who saw and heard these things. A person’ s working miracles was the token of a new message from the Father. Nicodemus came to Jesus modestly to inquire the meaning of the miracles and what truths they heralded. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,—[Jesus at once assumes he is anxious to know of the kingdom that John had preached which was now at hand, and which Jesus came to establish, and at once tells the leading condition of entrance into that kingdom. Without en¬trance into it citizenship and privileges cannot be enjoyed. The condition was:] Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.—God whom Jesus set forth on earth was the subject up¬permost in the teachings of Jesus, and he at once responded that no person could enter into the kingdom without being born again. Jesus recognized Nicodemus as of the best of the Jews, was looking for the coming Messiah, and yet he needed to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God was a more spiritual institution, a higher degree of spirituality being required to enter this kingdom than was re-quired for membership in the Jewish kingdom. A fleshly birth introduced man into the Jewish kingdom and it was a fleshly kingdom. The kingdom introduced by Jesus was a spiritual kingdom entered by a birth of the Spirit and spiritual relations prevailed in that kingdom. Some interpreters say this means born from above. While the word translated “ anew” may mean “ from above,” the context here shows plainly that Jesus meant “ anew.” Without he is born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God, The word “ born” in this connection cannot be literal; but what is meant by “ born anew” is essential to entrance into the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old?—He took it literally, and seeing the impossibility of such a thing he asks, “ How can this be when he is old?” can he enter a second time into his mother’ s womb, and be born?—This had been foretold by the prophets (Joe 3:1-21; Jeremiah 31:31), and Jesus seemed to take it for granted that Nic¬odemus would understand him. But his mind only recurs to the fleshly kingdom and he could not see how an old man could enter his mother’ s womb and be born again. 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.—Men were being baptized by John, and by way of suggestion, he added he must be born of water and the Spirit. This new birth carries with it more than is usually at¬tached to it. It was addressed to Nicodemus and regarded as one of the truest and most faithful of the teachers under the law of Moses— one ready to accept Jesus as the teacher from God. Jesus tells him, for him or any one to enter the kingdom of heaven, he must be born anew. Nicodemus was not in the kingdom of heaven. He was a subject of the Jewish law, which only made them servants or slaves, and he must be born into a higher and better. The kingdom of heaven was to be a spiritual kingdom. In it the Spirit of God was to abide and rule. It had not done this in the Jewish kingdom. In this kingdom those who had been servants were to possess a higher measure of the Spirit of God by which they were to become sons of God. He here tells that the birth, instead of being from the mother’ s womb, is from the water and the Spirit. They are the agents and instruments in producing the birth. The Spirit is living, active, the water is inanimate. The Spirit is the active agent, the water the instrument of the birth. On the day of Pentecost the Spirit spoke through the apostles— produced faith in the hearts of the people. “ They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.” The coming forth from the water of him who had believed through the teaching of the Spirit was the birth of the water and the Spirit as exemplified in the practice of the apostles. To this the whole religious world has always agreed until of late a few from partisan motives call it in question. [This last statement is sanctioned by J. R. Graves, editor, The Tennessee Baptist, as follows: “ If Brother Vaughn convinced us that born of water refers to anything but the baptism of one previously born of the Spirit, we never knezv it, and we would have owned it to him and to our readers. It means nothing else, and no Baptist that we ever heard or read of ever believed otherwise until A. Campbell frightened them away from an interpretation that is sustained by the consensus of all scholars of all denominations in all ages.”— ] 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.—It is the fleshly part of man that is born of the flesh, of his father and his mother; but it is the spirit within man that must be born or begotten of the Spirit. He is removing the difficulty in the mind of Nicodemus about the possibility of being born again. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. —He tells him not to wonder, or think it impossible, that he said, “ Ye must be born anew.” All this is directing to the point that it is not the fleshly body that is to be changed and brought forth by the mother, but that it is the spirit of man that is the subject of this birth. 8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is bom of the Spirit.—These verses have been ever of great difficulty because men try to get out of them what is not in them. Flesh in the mind of Nicodemus is the difficulty Jesus is trying to remove. He introduces the wind and its blowing which cannot be seen. It blows where it will, no one can know by seeing whence it comes or whither it goes, and then he says the one born of the Spirit is like this. That is, it is the spirit of man unseen like the wind and not the flesh, that is to be begotten of the Spirit of God. The effort was to show Nicodemus that it was the spiritual part of man, not the fleshly part, that is to be born again. The man which is born, or begotten, of the Spirit is not the fleshly man that you can see, but the intangible, spiritual part of man— the spirit, invisible, like the wind. The Spirit that begets is not compared to the wind, but the invisible spirit--inner man— that is, born of the Spirit is like the wind invisible. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?—He seems not to readily take in how one must be born to enter the kingdom of God. He considered himself al¬ready in the kingdom of God. He thought he had been born into it by fleshly birth as a member of the family of Abraham. So he asked, “ How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things?—Jesus shows that he thinks a teacher of the Jews should understand these simple truths. It had been taught by the prophets of the Jew¬ish law that a new principle would be introduced. (Jeremiah 31:31-33.) Under the figure of the birth of water and the Spirit this change in the character of the subjects of the kingdom of heaven is told. 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.—Jesus was a witness from God of those things he taught and yet his teaching was not received and Nicodemus is slow to accept. It had been foretold by prophets that a kingdom of higher spiritual power should be established on earth and a teacher like Nicodemus should know it. The great end of Jesus in this conversation was to teach Nicodemus to enter the kingdom of heaven. He must enter into a higher spiritual state than the Jews or others on earth had enjoyed. He could be a child of God, could call him Father, would have his sins forgiven once and forever, washed away by the blood of Christ, not rolled forward as was done under Moses. Among the Jews they were servants, slaves; under Christ they must be children of God, must draw near to God as a Father, and he would love and bless them as his children. He must prepare for a closer walk with God in the kingdom of heaven than men had hitherto known. This was the leading end and thought of this talk with Nicodemus. Do we read it to get this thought out of it? Or do we read it to prove that baptism is a birth, a bringing forth from the water; that baptism puts us into Christ; that without baptism we cannot enter Christ or receive the blessings to be enjoyed in Christ— the forgiveness of sins and the privileges of the Lord’ s blessings? This conversation illustrates and emphasizes these truths, but they do it only incidentally. The main truth he was emphasizing was the higher honors and chiefest glories of the kingdom of heaven over the honors and glories of all other kingdoms on earth, human or divine. To understand and appreciate this truth was needful to induce all, especially Jews, to leave these kingdoms of “ less glory” and to seek the more glorious kingdom of heaven. Not only did Jesus hold up the transcendent beauties of the kingdom of heaven in its purer life and holier privileges and honors and insist on the purer life and more godly walk to fit them for this, but all the apostles and inspired teachers from that time forward insist on this superior life to fit them for the closer walk with God. 12 If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things?—What he tells them pertains to the kingdom of God here on earth and their relation to it. If ye do not receive this how shall ye believe when I unfold to you the eternal things of the heavenly land ? 13 And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven. —No one else than Jesus who came down from heaven is competent to teach these things. He calls himself the Son of man, leaving his works to declare him to be the Son of God. His home or citizenship is in heaven. This was written after his ascension. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up;—When the Israelites had murmured in the wilderness against Moses pnd against God on account of the difficulties and trials of the way, they had as a punishment been bitten by fiery serpents and they died. The people came to Moses, confessed their sins and asked Moses to pray for them that they might be healed. Moses prayed for them and God told him to make a brazen serpent and put it on a pole and all who looked upon it should live. (Numbers 21:9.) This seems to have been given as a test of their faith in Moses. God has in all ages demanded that man's faith shall express itself in a bodily act. This was the type of Jesus being lifted up on the cross that man might be drawn to him in his service and be saved. 15 that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life.—Jesus was lifted up [on the cross] and slain that he might be buried and rise again that men might believe on him. “ When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28.) “ And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.” (John 12:32.) The lifting up was the killing according to the prophecies concerning him. He died [lifted from the earth to the cross] that he might rise again “ Who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 1:4.) This believing in him on these testimonies led them to so follow him as with him to enjoy life eternal. Looking upon the serpent was the expression required in this instance and it is given here as an illustration of the sinner looking to Christ for salvation. The test of his faith is that he is baptized into Christ. Being baptized into Christ was the birth of water and the Spirit into the kingdom of God. REMARKS ON THE MISSION OF JESUS AND THE SIN OF Joh_3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish,— God showed his love to the world, to free man, the head of the world, by giving his Son to die for the world. He showed his hatred of sin by giving his Son to die for the sins of the world that man might be delivered from the dominion and penalty of sin. God loved man despite his rebellion and sin, and so loved him that he gave his Son to die to save man from the result of his rebellion against God. That the death of Jesus so satisfied the law that God “ might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:26.) He at the same time showed man his love to him to excite in man a corresponding love to God. “ We love, because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19.) If we love God we will keep his commandments. “ For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:3.) “ Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.” (Revelation 22:14.) but have eternal life.—And being freed from sin that separates from God and brings death they become the heirs of eternal life with God. Faith in Christ leads man to follow him that he may have life eternal. It does not mean a faith cross] that he might rise again, “ who was declared to be the bring everlasting life. But faith in God through Christ is the great living principle that leads through obedience unto life everlasting. 17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.—The world was in a state of condemnation before God on account of their sins, and God sent his Son to open the way for their return to God that they might return and be saved. God did not send his Son in the world to condemn the world— they were already in condemnation for their sins. He sent him to save them from their sins— to bring them from under the sentence of condemnation. Those who believed not in Christ were already condemned. He came as a light into the world, and men rejected him because they loved darkness and remain in condemnation or under judgment. In coming to Christ a man makes his own works manifest as wrought in God through Christ. 18 He that believeth on him is not judged:—When he speaks of believing on him he means an active, living faith that works through love and is perfected by obedience to him in whom he believes. Jesus having come, he has provided that through faith in him man might come to God and be saved. So those who believed in him were not under judgment. he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.—Those who refused to believe in Christ were under con¬demnation before he came and his coming had given better opportunities for believing and their condemnation was the more severe because of their greater opportunities. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.—The coming of Jesus and the additional light he shed abroad showed more clearly that they loved darkness rather than the light, and he teaches that their love for darkness was because their deeds were evil and they did not wish their deeds exposed to and tested by the light. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved.—Those who do evil of choice show that they hate the light and truth and seek to cover the exposure of their deeds that the light would make. 21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.—Those who live according to the truth love the light and rejoice in it that their works may be justified by the light of truth. JESUS AT THE JORDAN AND JOHN AT AENONJoh_3:22-30 22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.—The foregoing conversation occurred in Jerusalem. Jesus then went into the country of Judea and tarried in the country and baptized. Jesus baptized through his disciples. (John 4:2.) 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim,— There has been some dispute as to where Aenon was. It is now generally accepted that it was in Samaria, due east of the city of Samaria, about midway between it and the Jordan. because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.—The water was needed for purifying the multitudes that attended the preaching of John as well as to furnish facilities for baptizing the people who came and were baptized. 24 For John was not yet cast into prison.—Although Jesus was now teaching, had begun his public ministry and through his disciples was baptizing, John was not yet cast into prison and was still teaching. Both Jesus and John were teaching at the same time. 25 There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John’ s disciples with a Jew about purifying.—John taught the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. Jesus was teaching the same, and out of this grew some reasonings on the subject of purifying. 26 And they came unto John, and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth,—The questionings were brought to John whom they addressed as Rabbi, a reverential term applied to a divine teacher, and in the conversation some of his disciples in a seemingly complaining spirit told him that Jesus whom he baptized on the east side of the Jordan and to whom he had borne witness as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world was baptizing and the masses of the people were following him. and all men come to him.—They seem to have grown somewhat jealous that the masses were leaving John to follow Jesus. 27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven.—However his disciples may have regarded it, there was no feeling of jealousy with him. He had to bear witness of Jesus as the Messiah that was to come so he assured them, “ what I am, and he is given us from heaven, is in accordance with the will of God." 28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that I am sent before him.—He had from the beginning testified that he was not the Christ, but is his messenger and sent before him to make ready for his coming. 29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, that standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’ s voice:—He explains his relation to Jesus by that of the friend of the bridegroom. He stands so related to Christ. this my joy therefore is made full.—The friend of the bridegroom rejoices at the joy and success of the bridegroom so the joy of John was completed or filled in the success of Jesus. 30 He must increase,—He in this work is permanent and must continually grow. The kingdom he came to set up will become a great mountain, fill the whole earth, and stand forever. (Daniel 2:44.) but I must decrease.—John was preparing for Jesus, his work would soon be swallowed up in that of the greater one that he introduced. OF THE SON AND THE OF FAITHJoh_3:31-36 31 He that cometh from above is above all:—The supremacy of Jesus over John is shown by their origin. Jesus came from heaven and was with the Father before the world was. he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh:—John was from the earth and speaks as of the earth. he that cometh from heaven is above all.—He who came from heaven is above all, the leader sent from God. 32 What he hath seen and heard, of that he beareth witness; and no man receiveth his witness.—Jesus who came from heaven testifies what he heard in heaven and the world did not believe him. The next sentence shows that this was not to be received as literally true. 33 He that hath received his witness hath set his seal to this, that God is true.—While but few received him, he who did receive him confessed in his heart that God is true. 34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: —Jesus sent from God spoke the words he had heard from God. As a reason for this, he says: for he giveth not the Spirit by measure.—God gave the Spirit in its fullness without measure to Jesus the Messiah. To all others, apostles, and prophets God gave his Spirit by measure or in modified portions. 35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.—God loved the Son and the Son sought only to do the will of God so he gave all things of this world into the hands of the Son. Jesus said, “ All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:18.) And “ He that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (John 13:20.) 36 He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life;—He who believes on Jesus so as to give himself up to the guidance of Jesus is an heir of eternal life because being led by the Son of God brings eternal life.but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.—He who does not trust and fol¬low God will never see the eternal life, but the wrath of God abides upon him. Verse 1 The proper understanding of this chapter begins with the final verses of John 2, where it was revealed that a great number of people "believed on" the Lord Jesus Christ, but whose discipleship was rejected by the Lord because they had "faith only." Commentators who have vainly tried to find something wrong with the faith of those people are frustrated by the fact that "believed on" in John 2:23 means exactly what it means everywhere else in the New Testament. See under John 12:42-43. The failure of those "believers on his name" to be accepted by Jesus was due to the fact that in all the history of redemption nobody was ever accepted upon the basis of faith alone. One of the things, in this dispensation of mercy, that one must have in addition to faith is the experience of the new birth. That was precisely the lack of those believers at the end of John 2; and, appropriately, John next recorded the Saviour's instruction regarding the new birth. This interview with Nicodemus with its teaching on the new birth (John 3:1-21) and the final witness of John the Baptist (John 3:22-36) form the subject matter of this whole chapter. Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jew's; the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him. (John 3:1-2) Nicodemus ... means innocent blood, or victor over the people,[1] depending upon whether the name is Greek or Hebrew. He was a wealthy Pharisee, member of the Sanhedrin, teacher of theology, and known as a "ruler of the Jews," a title reserved in Rabbinic literature "for a great man, or a prince."[2] For an article on the Pharisees, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 3:7. The connection here with events of the preceding chapter is dramatic, Nicodemus clearly being one of those "believers" who did not obey the Lord. The omniscience of Jesus is evident in his answering the question of Nicodemus without his utterance of the question. Nicodemus is mentioned three times in this Gospel: (1) He came to Christ (John 3:2); (2) He spoke for Christ (John 7:45-52); and (3) He honored Christ (John 19:39-40); and in each instance the circumstance of his coming to Jesus by night is mentioned. The same came unto him by night ... Some have supposed that the night interview resulted from Nicodemus' fear of his peers in the Sanhedrin, but the idea of secrecy must be imported into the text. It is just as reasonable to suppose that the night afforded the best opportunity. In the absence of certain knowledge, one conjecture is as good as another. Although Nicodemus spoke up on behalf of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (John 7:45-52), it is not recorded that he did so when that body condemned Jesus to death, hence, the inference that he was not present at that trial. After Jesus' death, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea prepared the body for burial (John 19:39-40). One can hope that, after the resurrection, this sincere, fair-minded man became a loyal disciple. Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God ... The words "we know" indicate the profound effect which the mighty signs of Jesus had produced in the very center of Judaism. These words admit that the whole Sanhedrin knew of the heavenly origin of Jesus and of the validity of his astounding miracles. Only one of the great signs John selected for this Gospel had been recorded at this point; but Nicodemus' words, along with John 2:23, show that many signs had been wrought. For no one can do these signs ... See above paragraph. How amazing it is that with such evidence before them, so few, probably only this man and Joseph of Arimathea, were touched in their hearts sufficiently to lead them to Jesus. [1] Herbert Lockyer, All the Men of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1958), p. 259. [2] Brooks Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 248. Verse 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.Born anew ... is better translated "born again," as in the KJV, PH, IV, New English Bible (1961), etc. The marginal reading "from above" is preferred by some, but such a rendition is too vague, omitting the element of meaning which appears in the word "again." The new birth is another, a second birth; and, although in a sense the second birth is from above, so also in another sense is the first birth, or natural birth. Thus, "born again" is more explicit and correct. The doctrine of the new birth will be discussed under John 3:5, where Jesus more fully described it. Here the emphasis is upon the absolute necessity of it. It is not merely true that one cannot enter God's kingdom without the new birth; he cannot even see it! The requirement here stated by Jesus was actually a demand that Nicodemus forsake all reliance upon the law of Moses, and upon the elaborate ritual and traditionalism of the Pharisees, and enter upon a totally new way of life. It was a shocking requirement; and the evidence is that Nicodemus, at that point in time, was not able to accept it. Concerning the abrupt manner of Jesus' speaking to Nicodemus, Hovey said: The answer seems abrupt, but it is unnecessary to suppose the omission of any connecting thought. For Jesus, being recognized as a teacher from God, and reading for himself at a glance the character of Nicodemus, as well as the question in his heart, viz.: "What must a man do in order to enter Messiah's kingdom?" (Meyer) ... declares at once that a new birth a new life, is indispensable to any real knowledge of the kingdom of God. "No one," he says, "whether Jew or Gentile, can grow up and glide over from nature to grace; every one must begin his life altogether anew, in order to share in my kingdom,"[3]The kingdom of God ... It is a mistake to minimize the teaching of this Gospel regarding the kingdom of God. True, John was more concerned with the credentials of the King, the burden of the Gospel being to prove the deity and Godhead of Jesus Christ; but the kingdom was never far from his thoughts. In this great passage, the terms of entering the kingdom are emphatically stated; and before Pontius Pilate Jesus made pointed reference to "my kingdom" (John 18:36-37). Jesus' great purpose of establishing his kingdom is there stated to have been his total reason for coming into the world; and John, with the synoptics, recorded the inscription with the significant words "The King of the Jews" (John 19:19). ENDNOTE: [3] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 95. Verse 4 Nicodemus saith unto 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?Nicodemus the teacher of Israel appeared here in a very obtuse and unspiritual frame of mind, in that he ridiculed the Lord's requirement of a new birth. Even ordinary spiritual perceptiveness would have saved him from such a reply as this, which was merely another way of saying, "What you ask is an impossibility!" However, it was not so much the impossibility of a new birth that Nicodemus rejected, as it was the idea that such a thing was necessary. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, one of a class that had rejected out of hand the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins preached by John the Baptist (Luke 7:30). It should be remembered that John's baptism was from God, and that all who rejected it rejected God. This fact underlies the truth that the publicans and harlots entered God's kingdom before the Pharisees. They accepted John's baptism; the Pharisees did not. Christ and his apostles accepted the baptism of John and submitted to it; and that baptism was intended as preparatory for the kingdom of heaven; and, therefore, it is impossible to suppose that Nicodemus should have been excused for not knowing what Jesus meant by being "born of water," mentioned in the next breath: the excuse for Nicodemus being founded upon the sophistry that the baptism of the great commission was not announced by Jesus until long after this interview; but there was another water baptism much nearer at hand, of which Nicodemus did know, and which he had rejected along with others of his class. Again from Hovey: The metaphor of the new birth appears to have been used by the Rabbis to describe the religious change in a Gentile who became a proselyte to Judaism; and the import of baptism as administered by John implied the same view of repentance, namely, that it was a burial of the old life, and entrance upon a new life.[4]ENDNOTE: [4] Ibid., p. 96. Verse 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.Paraphrased, this statement means that unless one obeys the gospel of Jesus Christ by believing in him, repenting of sin, confessing his name, and being baptized into Jesus Christ (no genuine baptism is possible without the three antecedents mentioned here), and as a consequence of such obedience, receives the Holy Spirit, he can never enter God's kingdom, he cannot be saved. At the time Jesus revealed this teaching to Nicodemus, the great commission had not been given; and the immediate application of the teaching to Nicodemus regarded John's baptism which was mandatory for all the followers of Jesus prior to the resurrection; but the glowing words of this passage anticipated the Great Commission and the baptism therein commanded, thus making the passage equally applicable to all of subsequent ages who would enter God's kingdom. See under John 7:39. The persistent and ingenious efforts of people to shout baptism out of this passage are in vain, for there is no way it can be made to disappear. "Born of water" refers to baptism; and there is absolutely nothing else connected with Christianity to which it could refer. For centuries after this Gospel was received, "born of water" was never otherwise construed than as a reference to baptism; and, as noted above, in its application to Nicodemus, it pointed to the Pharisaical refusal to submit to the baptism of John; but, by extension, it is even more emphatic in its application to that baptism which is greater than John's, namely, that of the Great Commission. In the study of this passage, it should be remembered that it is only quite recently in Christian times that interpretations of this verse have been devised to exclude its obvious reference to Christian baptism. John Boys, Dean of Canterbury, renowned preacher and scholar of the Church of England in the 17th century, wrote as follows: Some few modern divines (Note: Although few THEN, they are many NOW - James Burton Coffman) have conceded that these words are not to be construed of external baptism; because, say they, "Christ taketh water here by a borrowed speech for the Spirit of God, the effect whereof it shadoweth out; and so water and the Spirit are all one!" To this interpretation answer is made: first, that it is an old rule in expounding of Holy Scripture, that where a literal sense will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst ... (Note: Boys wrote at great length concerning the efforts of men toward "changing the meaning of words," calling such conduct "licentious and deluding," and denouncing it as "perverting the text.") Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact, Euthymius, in the commentaries on this place (John 3:5), along with Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basil, Gregory, Nyssen, and many more, yea most of the Fathers - Hooker, a man of incomparable reading, openeth his mouth wider, avowing peremptorily that ALL THE (capitals mine, J.B.C.) have construed this text, as our church doth, of outward baptism.[5]It cannot be denied, therefore, that all interpretations that would edit any reference to baptism out of this text are too late by centuries, to have any weight at all with people who wish to know what the word of the Lord teaches. The warping and distortion of the views of expositors since the Lutheran reformation, who have sought to conform this text to Luther's erroneous theory of justification, were denounced by no less a giant of Biblical exegesis than Alford, who wrote: There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that [@gennethenai] [@ek] [@hudatos] (born of water) refers to the token or outward sign of baptism, [@gennethenai] [@ek] [@pneumatos] (born of the Spirit) to the thing signified, or the inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped.[6]It is regrettable that Afford injected the jargon of "outward sign" and "inward grace" into his comment; because the relative meaning of these two things, "born of water" and "born of the Spirit" is not under discussion in this passage. It makes no difference what either one of these things is in its relationship to the other, both are absolutely necessary to salvation, that being the unqualified affirmation of this text. Thus, in order to be saved, one must be baptized (born of water) and receive the Holy Spirit (born of the Spirit). Christ joined these entities in this passage; and what God hath joined, let no man put asunder! The opinions of great scholars might be multiplied in support of this interpretation of the text; and, for those who might be influenced by such opinions, reference is made to the Handbook on Baptism,[7] in which fifty of the most notable scholars of the last 200 years are quoted. Only one other will be cited here, namely, Phillip Schaff (1819-1893), Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York, President of the American Company of the New Testament Revisers, and one of the greatest Christian scholars of all time. He said: In view of the facts that John baptized, that Christ himself was baptized, that his disciples baptized in his name (John 4:2), it seems impossible to disconnect water in John 3:5, from baptism. Calvin's interpretation arose from doctrinal opposition to the Roman Catholic over-valuation of the sacrament, which must be guarded against in another way.[8]Most of the bitterest denunciations against what Jesus taught here are actually directed against a straw man called "baptismal regeneration," in which it is continually affirmed that water cannot save anyone; but, of course, no one supposes that it can. No efficacy was ever attributed to the water, even by the staunchest defenders of what Jesus here clearly made a precondition of salvation. Fulminations against baptismal regeneration might have been relevant in Calvin's day, when that scholar attacked the Medieval superstition that a few drops of water sprinkled religiously upon a dead infant could save a soul; but those arguments by Calvin are not relevant arguments against Christ's promise that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). And that promise is as good a commentary on John 3:5 as any other (yes, better than any other) that might be brought forward to explain this disputed passage. The importance of the questions raised around the sacred words of Jesus in this place requires that further attention be directed to their study. See "Regarding the New Birth" below. THE NEW BIRTHThe new birth "of water and of the Spirit" is one birth, not two, despite there being two elements in it. One of these elements "born of water," is water baptism, that being the element of the new birth for which man himself is responsible for the doing of it. Thus, Saul of Tarsus was commanded, "Get thyself baptized" (Acts 22:16).[9] The other element of the new birth, "born of the Spirit," is the reception of the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14). Contrasting with what is done by man, this endowing with the Holy Spirit is what is done by God. The great heresy regarding this one birth is the doctrine that people may omit their part, not being baptized, but that God will go ahead, despite that, and endow the believer with the Holy Spirit anyway! John 3:5 teaches that both elements are absolutely necessary in the new birth. Born of water is a reference to the ceremony of baptism; but there is no magic in water, nor does the ceremony itself contribute anything to sanctification, as often alleged. Millions of faithful Christians can testify that submission to the commandment of baptism did not automatically give them a new nature, the new nature coming through a growth process in consequence of the endowment of the Spirit. Care should be taken to distinguish between "baptism" as a reference to the immersion ceremony, and "baptism" meaning the new birth of which the ceremony is an element. Jesus himself used the word in this latter sense in Mark 16:16. But if the actual ceremony does not change the nature of the convert, what does it do? (1) It is the last of the preconditions of salvation to be fulfilled by the sinner, the others being: believing, repenting, and confessing Christ; and upon compliance with all of them by the sinner, God forgives all previous sin of the sinner and confers upon him a state of absolute innocence. The fulfilling of the preconditions by the sinner does not merit or earn God's forgiveness, nor provide any class of works that could place God under any obligation other than his own gracious and merciful promise. However, such is the importance of this ceremonial element in the new birth, that it may be dogmatically affirmed that in the history of Christianity there has never been an exception to the proposition that every true believer who repented and was baptized was then and there forgiven of all past sin and endowed with a status of absolute innocence in God's sight. This is accomplished not by the ceremony but by God WHEN the ceremony is obeyed, and not otherwise. This is clear from "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). (2) In the second instance, there is achieved in the penitent a clear conscience upon the event of his submission to the ceremony, as affirmed by the apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:1). See my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 9:13-14. There is no way that any man on earth can have a clear conscience without submitting to baptism. That is why even the churches that deny the necessity of baptism have not dispensed with it altogether. Their consciences will not allow it, despite the fact that their doctrine, if heeded, would demand it. The universal rejoicing that attends submission to the ordinance was in New Testament times (Acts 8:39; Acts 16:34, etc.), as now, the certain evidence of a clear conscience. (3) The ceremony of immersion called baptism is the God-ordained rite of initiation into Jesus Christ; and that status of being the appointed device by which God inducts the penitent into corporate union with the Son of God, that is, into his kingdom, church, or spiritual body - that status uniquely belongs to the baptismal ceremony. As Vine noted, "Baptizing into the Name (Matthew 28:19) would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became the property of, the one into whose Name he was baptized."[10] Three times the New Testament declares that people are baptized "into Christ," or into his "body" (Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 12:13). See article, "Jesus Christ Incorporated," my Commentary on Romans, p. 123. It is encouraging to note that present-day scholarship is taking a further look at the importance of the baptismal ceremony. Thus, Beasley-Murray recently assented to the key thesis maintained here, namely, that "Baptism is the occasion when the Spirit brings to new life him that believes in the Son of Man!"[11]This is true; and if, through failure to obey the Lord in baptism the never comes, then neither will the new life. (4) Thus it is clear that the baptismal ceremony is retrospective as regards the past sins of the believer, being the pivot in which he is forever separated from them all and endowed with a new status of innocence. Earned? A million times, No! The new status is a gracious gift of God to the unworthy sinner who penitently took God at his word and obeyed the gospel, the baptized believer being added, not by men, but by God, to the kingdom or church of Jesus Christ ( Acts 2:47). (5) But that is not all. The new baptized convert, having a clear conscience, and being forgiven of all past sins, and having been added to the spiritual body of Christ, THE HOLY SPIRIT, not to make him a member of Christ (his baptism did that), but because he is a member (Galatians 4:6). This is the second element in the new birth. But, is not this latter thing all that matters? In a sense, perhaps, it is; but this all-important thing is connected with the ceremonial element (baptism) and made a contingent of it, a consequence Christian baptism. That is why both are required, both are essential and that they are not separate births but one new birth. The apostles honored this requirement of both elements before there can be a new birth. On Pentecost, Peter said: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Thus, in that passage, the baptism of penitent believers is made to be a prior condition of receiving the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; and in this also appears why the Holy Spirit is called the "Holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1:13). It will be noted from the discussion above that most of what is said relates to induction into Christ's kingdom, the receiving of forgiveness of past sins, the receiving of a clear conscience, and the receiving of the Holy Spirit - all of these things upon the occasion of baptism and contingent upon obedience to that ceremony - and all of which achievements are accomplished by God and not by the ceremony. What does the ceremony do? It demonstrates and proves that the faith of the believer is of a sufficient degree to save him; it is the sinner's acceptance of Jesus' promise of Mar 16:16; it is therefore his "accepting Christ" by accepting his promise. Those who speak of accepting Christ as if it were some kind of a subjective response are absolutely wrong. Baptism is a renunciation of self in permitting the whole person to be buried under water as a pledge that self shall no longer rule in the life of the convert; it is the successful passing of God's ordained test of faith to determine if faith is sufficient to save; and, as such, it corresponds exactly with Abraham's offering of Isaac upon the altar, whereupon God said, "For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son" (Genesis 22:12). In that God said, "Now I know," it is equivalent to saying that until that time he did not know (such language is accommodative and anthropomorphic, of course). God did not justify Abraham until he offered Isaac (James 2:21); and, if God did not justify Abraham until he had passed such a test as offering Isaac, how could it ever be imagined that God will justify just any stinking sinner who believes, and purely upon the sinner's assertion of it? Never! Baptism, the water ceremony itself, is the terminator that separates between the saved and the lost; and as long as the faith of any person is insufficient to prompt his obedience to God's universal commandment of baptism, there is no way that such a faith could save. That is why Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), and, in regard to the quibble which says, "Well, Jesus did not say, `He that is not baptized shall be condemned,'" the answer that thunders from the New Testament is that the meaning is exactly the same as if he had said that! Now, whereas the operation of the ceremony of baptism itself is retrospective regarding past sins, the second element of the new birth, the reception of the Holy Spirit, is prospective and looks to the perfection of the believer in Christ. It is this progressive work of the Holy Spirit that leads to a greater and greater degree of sanctification in the heart of the saved. For more on sanctification see my Commentary on Romans, Romans 6:22. When a person is truly baptized (and only believing, penitent, confessing persons can be TRULY baptized), as Christ commanded, God sends the Holy Spirit into his heart (the second element of the new birth); and, when viewed in connection with this divine fulfillment of the promise of the Holy Spirit, baptism is the new birth; but it is not a birth of water only, but a birth of "water and of the Spirit" as Jesus said. On the other hand, when baptism is thought of as the water ceremony only, it is only part of the new birth, nevertheless a vital and necessary part of it. It is proper to use baptism as a synecdoche for the new birth in its entirety; and thus Jesus himself used it in Mark 16:16. [5] John Boys, An Exposition of the Dominical Epistles and Gospels (London, 1938); quoted from Handbook on Baptism (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1950), p. 322. [6] Handbook on Baptism, Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1950), p. 320. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid., p. 334. [9] W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1962), p. 97. [10] Ibid. [11] G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), p. 278. Verse 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.Just as there are two elements in the new birth, there are two elements in man that require it. The flesh is born of the water (baptized), and the spirit is born of the Spirit (receives the Holy Spirit); but these are not two births, only one new birth. Born ... The etymology of this word bears witness to the nature of the ceremony of baptism, coming from an old Anglo-Saxon word, "to be drawn forth from." The previous verse revealed the two elements of the new birth, this the requirement that both flesh and spirit participate in it. Thus, what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus was: "Do what my disciples have done; first submit to John's baptism, and then come join my company."[12] If he had done so, the second element of the new birth, the reception of the Spirit would have been completed after Pentecost. The fact that at that particular time, Nicodemus could not have received the Holy Spirit, since he was not given yet, proves that the new birth as experienced in the new dispensation was in view here. See under John 7:39. ENDNOTE: [12] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge: University Press, 1965), p. 37. Verse 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.These verses record Jesus' help of Nicodemus to believe and understand the invisible power of the new birth. To be sure, a baptismal ceremony can be seen; but the forgiveness, clean conscience, and receiving the Spirit cannot be seen. Like the powerful wind, though invisible, its power is nevertheless profound. As Barnes said: Jesus tells him that he should not reject a doctrine merely because he could not understand it. Neither could the wind be seen, but its effects were well known, and no one doubted the existence or power of the agent.[13]Nicodemus, schooled in all the Mosaic ritual, found the concept of a new birth difficult to accept; but he is not the only one who ever had trouble with these words of Jesus. Note this: 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 to God.[14]This interpretation (!) is typical of the gimmickry employed in vain efforts to talk the rite of baptism out of this passage and out of the whole New Testament. Note the play upon the words "whence" and "when," as if the similarity of these words interchanged their meaning. Can anyone believe that Jesus was here telling Nicodemus that he could not tell "when" the wind was blowing? But the words rhyme! So what? "P" stands for pool; and "P" rhymes with "T" and "T" stands for trouble, right here in River City! People do know WHEN the wind is blowing; and Christ also revealed the WHEN of the new birth; it is WHEN we are baptized into Christ. As Paul said, "Being THEN made free from sin" (Romans 6:17-18 KJV), that is, WHEN we have been baptized. Paul was discussing Christian baptism in that passage, and he did not hesitate to make the Christian's baptism the exact moment, the THEN of his being made free from sin and becoming a servant of righteousness. See my Commentary on Romans, p. 226. [13] Alfred Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954), Volumes on Luke and John, p. 203. [14] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 17, p. 118. Verse 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?The natural man finds it very difficult to receive spiritual things, due to his inherent preoccupation with the mechanics of them, the "how" of everything. Nicodemus' question is therefore one of remarkable interest to all. HOW CAN THESE THINGS BE? How persistently man probes every mystery! Wherever there are dark and knotty problems, or things hard to be understood, there man stands, the great inquisitor, demanding to know, "How can these things be?" In a sense, this attitude is the glow of the human race, resulting in countless discoveries and inventions; and yet, there are certain areas that God seems to have reserved for himself, for even in Paradise there was a tree forbidden to man. In a little different sense, there remain certain questions of the deep things of God, which, by their very nature, are unanswerable. This is such a question, nor does it stand alone. However, the question of "how" God does this or that is not necessary to the enjoyment of God's gifts. As Jesus said: So is the kingdom of heaven, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; and he should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how ... but when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle (Mark 4:26-29). From this word of Jesus, it is plain that people should be more concerned with obeying God's laws than in searching out the "why" and the "how." Nicodemus apparently permitted his puzzlement over the "how" of the new birth to prevent his ready acceptance of Christ's word. Of course, such questions have their place, but obedience should not wait upon the resolution of all problems. Some of the questions which are similar to the one that Nicodemus raised here are: (1) How did God create the heavens and the earth? People strive in vain to answer this; but they cannot agree. It is enough for the child of faith to believe that "God spake, and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast" (Psalms 33:9). (2) How does God answer prayer? Does He answer by performing a miracle? How can prayer do any good when God already knows everything? We must confess a little sadly that we do not know; but we believe that "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16). (3) How are the dead raised up? (1 Corinthians 15:35). This is another "how" that torments the intellect endlessly; but the believer holds that it is no more difficult for God to give one another life than it was for Him to have given him the first life. The soul's deepest instinct demands belief in a resurrection; but "how" it will come to pass is a problem beyond the perimeter of man's ability to solve problems. And yet there is an instinct supporting the divine revelation that a resurrection will indeed occur. Illustration: The great chemist Farraday received an engraved cup of pure silver with his name and inscription on it; but one day a workman knocked it into a jar of nitric acid where it was quickly consumed. The workman was frantic with concern, but the great Farraday only smiled. He added other chemicals to the jar, precipitated the silver from the solution, returned it to the original craftsman; and within six weeks, the same cup was sitting in its accustomed place, perfect as before, inscription and all! If man with his little learning can do a thing like that, how easily may God recall our human spirits and reclothe them with the robes of flesh; nor should we dare to disbelieve it, merely because God has not permitted us to photograph him in the process. How can a man be born again when he is old ... ? Part of the answer to that question, namely the reception of the Holy Spirit, was not even available to the apostles at the time Nicodemus made this inquiry; and his mistake of waiting until he had all the answers was tragic. His greater concern should have been the acceptance of what he knew, namely, that he should have accepted the baptism of John. If he had submitted to that, as did Christ and the apostles, he would have experienced more, in time, and would have been truly "born again." Verse 10 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou the teacher of Israel and understandest not these things?By this answer, Christ did not deny some element of mystery regarding the questions Nicodemus had raised, but was exclaiming at his failure to understand the basic things Christ had commanded him to do. The Lord's words to this ruler of the Jews were the blunt equivalent of "Look, you Pharisees stop rejecting John's baptism; obey God by submitting to it; but that is only part of it; you must allow the Spirit of God to dwell in your heart, and that can come about only by your following me" (Luke 7:30). Greater importance attaches to John's baptism than is usually supposed. Jesus submitted to that baptism, as did (presumably) all the apostles, for it is inconceivable that the disciples of Jesus would have refused a baptism to which Jesus himself submitted. Also, those disciples baptized others during John's ministry; and they could not have done this without themselves accepting it and obeying it. Though called the baptism of John, it was actually God's baptism administered by John. Also, for a season, it was also administered by Jesus through his apostles. It was mandatory for all Israel, even for the priests and Pharisees; and it was the only baptism in force until Pentecost. With Pentecost and the preaching of the Great Commission, John's baptism was supplanted by that of the commission; but it was valid until then. The function of John's baptism was exactly like that of the great commission in the particulars of its being by immersion and its being the separator between the true Israel of God and the hardened secular Israel with which the true Israel was commingled until Pentecost. The Pharisees, including Nicodemus, had utterly rejected God's baptism administered by John, even though Jesus himself submitted to it; and that was the key to their ultimate rejection of Christ. The ignorance of the Pharisaical party regarding the sacred ordinance of baptism was the immediate beginning of the end of the whole Jewish nation as the covenant people. That stubborn blind ignorance, as it appeared so stark and adamant in Nicodemus, called forth the exclamation of Jesus in this verse. No wonder Israel was in trouble spiritually when even her noblest teachers rejected the idea of being born of water and of the Spirit. In such rejection, it was clear that the major part of Israel would ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*continue to trust in Abrahamic descent, despite the warnings of both Jesus and John the Baptist (Matthew 3:8-10; John 8:39). How strange is it that the same pattern of evil is endlessly repeated? Just as the Pharisees of Jesus' day stumbled at being "born of water," that is, at being baptized, just so, many today stumble at the very same thing; and it is no less a marvel now than it was then. Verse 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.In this verse, Jesus changed to the plural "we," a change that may be viewed (1) as inclusive of the disciples there gathered with him and also sharing in the witness of the power of the new birth, or (2) as an employment of the editorial "we" instead of the first person singular. If the former is correct, it would have the force of saying, "Nicodemus, I am not merely speaking the truth to you, but the demonstration of it is also before your eyes in the person of my disciples; and yet you do not receive the truth." Verse 12 I told ye earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things?The earthly things Jesus told Nicodemus regarded the new birth, an experience received by ordinary men during their earthly sojourn. Mysterious as it is, the new birth is a common everyday fact, "earthly" in the sense of men being in actual contact with the phenomenon and aware of it constantly. Thousands of Israel had already responded; but the Pharisees never made it. Heavenly things ... is a reference to such things as the incarnation, the death of Christ for the sins of the world, the existence of the spirit world above our own, the final judgment, heaven, hell, and all of those great spiritual realities lying utterly beyond earthly vision. It was of some of such heavenly things that Jesus proceeded to speak to Nicodemus. Verse 13 And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven.Here Jesus claimed his unique office as God's messenger who descended to man out of heaven, and yet, in a sense, who was still in heaven. This verse, admittedly difficult, has led to the view that heaven is a state rather than a place, and that Jesus could say the Son of man was in heaven even while he was on earth. Another view supported by this is that during the personal ministry of Christ he continued in the full possession of his heavenly attributes. Still another concept that finds support is the doctrine of the ubiquitousness of Jesus. Dogmatism is out of order here, due to the textual questions regarding this verse. Westcott wrote that these words were "omitted by many very ancient authorities, and appear to be an early gloss bringing out the right contrast between the ascent of a man to heaven and the abiding of the Son of man in heaven."[15] In the International Version, this place reads: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven, the Son of man." ENDNOTE: [15] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 57. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The scripture does not even intimate why Nicodemus chose the nighttime for his visit with Jesus, hence it would be speculation for me to attempt an explanation. Had it been worth-while for us to know the reason, doubtless John would have been inspired to tell us. However, there are indications that he left the presence of Jesus with a favorable attitude toward him and his disciples. (See chapter 7:50, 51; 19:39.) Rabbi is a Greek word, and has been transferred into the text of the New Testa- ment by the King James translators in its original form. Thayer defines it, "my great one, my honorable sir." It has been used as a proper noun 8 times, and translated by the simple term "master" 9 times. The complimentary things Nicodemus said were not mere flattery, for he gave a logical reason for his statement. In truth, the very reason he gave for saying that Jesus was from God, was the one that. John states to be the purpose for performing the miracles (chapter 20:30, 31). 3 Baptism, which is the final act in the process of the spiritual birth, is not the only important subject connected with salvation under the Gospel Dispensation, yet it is the principal one considered in this conversation with Nicodemus; there is a good reason for it. The Jews placed much of their dependence upon their fleshly birth, being in the blood line from Abraham (Matthew 3:9), which fact entitled them to be members of the Jewish Dispensation of religion. The text does not give us any of the introductory conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, further than the complimentary words of this verse. Perhaps that is all that was said to begin with, but Jesus knew what was in his mind (chapter 2:25), and hence the following conversation was on the subject uppermost in the mind of this Jewish teacher. He evidently thought his birth through the blood line from Abraham would entitle him to consideration in connection with the kingdom that Jesus was reported as being on earth to set up. Jesus took that idea away by a sweeping statement that meant his fleshly birth would not be even considered as a factor in entering the kingdom of heaven. See is from the Greek word EIDO, which has such a wide range of meanings that space would forbid attempting to quote all of them. The context has to be considered in each case to determine its specific meaning. The definitions of both Thayer and Robinson that apply in this verse and others like it, are condensed to the simple phrase, "To experience." A sinner may see the church as an institution of which he is not a member, but he cannot have the experience as a member without being born again. 4 With a fleshly birth still in mind, Nicodemus asked the question stated in this verse. He evidently was not a believer in the theory of "Transmigration of souls" (Matthew 14:2), or he would not have thought that even that kind of a new birth would be impossible, the only difference being the said theory did not teach that a man would enter his mother's womb, but that of another woman. 5 The necessity of a new birth in general was the form in which Jesus opened up this subject to Nico-demus; He then entered more into the details of the process. The Greek New Testament uses the same word in the process of reproduction, whether the time of begetting or that of the birth is considered. The word is GENNAO, and Thayer gives us the two definitions, "To be begotten; to be born." If the entire process is referred to in our language, it is proper to use the word "born," such as saying a child was born to Mr. and Mrs. John Doe. But if the parents are referred to separately, the correct form of speech is that a child is begotten by his father, and born of his mother. Having only the one Greek word on the subject, the King James translators often give us "born" when it should have been "begotten." A more exact wording of our passage would be, a man must be born of the water, having been begotten by the Spirit. This begetting takes place when a man believes the words of the Spirit (1 John 5:1), because that word is the seed (of reproduction) of the kingdom (1 Peter 1:23). After a man believes this word, he is then put under the water, and as he comes out of it he is being born of that water, because the literal meaning of "being born" is, "to come out of." The person has then been born into the kingdom of God. 6 This verse is a simple statement of the difference between things fleshly and things spiritual. The kind of birth Nicodemus thought Jesus was speaking of is fleshly only, while he was speaking of a spiritual birth. It is true the fleshly body must be acted upon even in the spiritual birth, but that is because the inner man that is being renewed or regenerated, is living within the fleshly body. 7 Jesus is still reading the mind of Nicodemus, and sees him in a state of confusion over the things that have been said. He is inclined to question the conclusions that Jesus has presented to him, because he cannot understand all about them. As an argument by way of comparison, Jesus intends to remind Nicodemus that he accepts other conclusions in the domain of his experiences, many of which are as mysterious as this one about a spiritual birth that seems to puzzle him. Yet he will accept them on the strength of the evidences, even though some phases of the cases might seem mysterious. One of those circumstances will be presented in the next verse. 8 The religious world in general is overwhelmed by erroneous ideas about the Spirit, as it is involved in the process of the new birth. Then in trying to refute those ideas, the friends of truth may go to extremes and invent other notions that are likewishe erroneous. One of such performances is the strain that is put on the present verse, which is only an illustration which Jesus draws from nature, to prove to this bewildered Jew that he is inconsistent in faltering over the new birth just because some features of it may seem mysterious to him, when he will accept the fact that the wind blows, even though he cannot tell (from any evidence of his senses) from where the wind comes nor to where it goes after it passes him. So is every one means that every person who is born of the Spirit is supposed to accept the proposition on the evidence of God's teaching, even though some things about it seem strange. That the passage means just what the common translation makes it say, and that it does not call for some labored interpretation to rescue it from the hand of "sectarians," I shall give the definitions of the original words in Thayer's lexicon for this verse. Wind is from PNEUMA, and the definition is, "1. a movement of air, (gentle) blast; a. the wind . . . hence the wind itself, John 3:8." Bloweth is from PNEO, and the definition is, "To breathe, to blow: of the wind, Matthew 7:25; Matthew 7:27; Luke 12:55; John 3:8; John 6:18, Revelation 7:1; Acts 27:40." 9 Nicodemus was still confused about the subject in general. It is as if he said, "I do not see how all of this can be, or what the action of the wind has to do with the Spirit in the new birth." 0 The word master is from a Greek word that means "teacher." Being a teacher of Israel would not be a reason why he should understand the new birth under the Gospel system, therefore we know that these things refers to the subject of the temporal wind that Jesus described in verse 8. 1 Jesus gives Nicodemus a mild rebuke for stumbling over what was said to him about the things in nature, which were matters that should be accepted as facts by every person who has made any observation. 2 The only verse that has any earthly things in it as far as this conversation is concerned, is verse 8, the one about the wind. This again shows that passage refers to the literal wind,. and is used to illustrate the point stated in verse 10. 3 The thought in this verse is that the Son of man had previously been in Heaven, and hence was in a position to speak on heavenly subjects, such as the new birth. This passage closed up the discussion on the subject of the new birth into the kingdom of God that Jesus was about to set up on the earth. 4 The account of the serpent is in Numbers 21:9. There were no curative qualities in the brasen serpent, but those who looked upon it were cured by the Lord as a reward for their faith. The serpent was placed on a pole so all could see it. 5 The literal sight of Jesus on the cross is not what saves sinners, for only a few men of the world could see it. Hence the Lord makes his comparison on the principle of believing, for the death of the Son of God on the cross will benefit no one who does not have faith in that great sacrifice. 6 The word so is from Hour°, and means, "in such a manner." The point is not how much God loved the world, but what kind of love He had. The answer is stated by telling how God manifested it, which was by the sacrifice He made for the sins of the world. God is the maker and owner of all that is in the universe, and no sacrifice could have been so costly that He would have been unable to produce it. But the value of the sacrifice (from the standpoint of its price or cost) is not the question. It is the fact that God gave up His only begotten Son. There was only one being in the universe who possessed that qualification. The subject is explained in detail at Luke 1:35, and I urge the reader to see and carefully consider that place, then come back to the present paragraph. Perish and everlasting life are put as alternatives for the responsible members of the world. There is no middle ground; every creature that God has formed is destined to experience one or the other of these lots endlessly, after the judgment. 7 The world was all under the guilt of unbelief before Jesus came into it (Romans 11:32), therefore his coming was not for the purpose of pronouncing condemnation upon it; that had already been done. But the condition called for something to counteract it, and the Son of God was sent among mankind for that purpose. 8 He that believeth on him is not condemned, since faith in Christ leads to obedience which lifts the condemnation from him. (See Romans 8:1.) He that believeth not is condemned already. That is because it leaves him in the state he was in before Jesus came into the world. (See the preceding verse.) 9 The condemnation that rests upon the world is not an arbitrary decree of God, but is based on the truth that men prefer darkness to light. The reason for their unwise choice is in their wanton manner of life, which is an evil one. 0 It is a bad indication when men prefer darkness to light, for it shows they are practicing evil deeds. If they were to operate under the light, it would expose them and show them to be guilty of evil practices. 1 On the other hand, if a man is a lover of truth, he will want his life to be revealed in order to see if it is correct. A sincere man, even though he may be in error, will wish to be sure of himself, and he knows he can never be certain as to what is right, except as his conduct is regulated by the divine truth. 2 Jesus had been in Jerusalem which is in the province of Judea. Land of Judea means the rural or outlying territory of the district. The purpose for going out there is indicated by the statement that he tarried with his disciples and baptized, all of which could be conveniently accomplished in the country. 3 Salim was a town not far west of the Jordan, and near it was a smaller place called Aenon. John the Baptist made that his headquarters at one time, because his business was to baptize people, and there was much water in that locality. According to some information in Funk and Wag-nalls Standard Bible Dictionary, the water supply in that vicinity was in the form of springs. 4 This is the only place where John mentions the imprisonment of John the Baptist. The manner of the injection of the subject into the story, indicates that John's work was about over, and that his imprisonment was in the near future. 5 A distinction is made between John's disciples and the Jews, although John did not baptize any but Jews (Luke 1:16). This shows that while all of John's disciples were Jews, not all of the Jews as a nation became his disciples, and hence were not the people whom he prepared for Christ. 6 This association between John and Jesus, and John's witness that he bore for Jesus, are recorded in chapter 1:19-29. They denotes John's disciples who are referred to in the preceding verse. They seemed to be concerned because their teacher was not drawing the crowds that Jesus was having. 7 John was always unselfish, and appeared pleased over any good news about Jesus. Instead of being envious, he always taught that it was expected for Jesus to increase, while he (John) would decrease. He went further and told his disciples that the success of Jesus was given him from Heaven. 8 John also reminded his disciples that he had previously predicted this very turn of affairs. Such predictions and instructions are in chapter 1:15, 27. 9 John continued his exaltation of Jesus and the diminishing of his own work and importance. He did it under the figure of a social custom regarding weddings. The superiority of a bridegroom is manifested by the fact that he it is who possesses the bride. However, the friend of the groom finds satisfaction in hearing the voice and seeing the happiness of the bridegroom. In the illustration, John is the friend and Jesus is the bridegroom, which causes him (John) to have full rejoicing. 0 John once more makes the prediction that the difference of importance between him and Jesus was to continue and widen. 1 John was an inspired man, and his teaching was directed by the Holy Spirit. But he was a man only, and his origin was wholly through the natural laws of reproduction. Jesus was both human and divine, and hence John said he was from above. That is why John was to decrease while Jesus was to increase. 2 As Jesus was from above, he was able to speak from personal knowledge. Notwithstanding, no man (comparatively speaking) seemed willing to receive the testimony of such an infallible witness. 3 Hath set to his seal is all from , which Thayer defines at this place, "To confirm, authenticate, place beyond doubt." It means that when a man receives the testimony of a personal witness like Jesus, he is thoroughly convinced that the testimony is from God and must be true. 4 Measure is from METBON, and Thayer's first definition is, "An instrument for measuring." It means that God did not use any measuring instrument in bestowing the Spirit on his Son. His possession of the Spirit was total; unlimited. From this we may gather further information on the much discussed subject of receiving the Spirit. The fact of John's stating that Christ received it without measure, implies that various measures of it may be given to men. Thus the apostles received that amount required to baptize them, and empower them to bestow spiritual gifts upon Christians. Then those Christians in the days of miracles possessed that measure that enabled them to perform miracles, but not enough of it to transfer it to others. And by all these considerations, we can understand how a person could be in possession of the Holy Spirit, but in a lesser measure than would enable him to perform any miracle. Further comments will be offered on this subject as the various occasions may suggest in our study of the New Testament. 5 A part of this verse was prospective, for not until Jesus had risen from the dead did God give unto his Son this complete authority. (See Matthew 28:18.) But the unmeasured possession of the Spirit was given to him at his baptism (chapter 1:33), and it abided with him throughout his work while on the earth. 6 For the first part of this verse, see the comments on verses 17-19. For the word see, read the comments at verse 3. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Three JESUS LEAVES JUDEA AND TOWARD GALILEEJoh_4:1-61 When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John—Baptism was the act in which the people declared themselves the disciples of John (Luke 7:30), and the baptism of Christ stood in the same relation to Christ and disci- pleship. It is thought that this leaving Judea was to avoid conflict with the Pharisees. 2 (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples),—What the disciples did by the command of Jesus, Jesus did through them. The disciples baptized the people in obedience to Christ, and the Holy Spirit said that Jesus baptized them. Jesus was in his disciples teaching and baptizing persons dur¬ing his lifetime. If those baptized by his disciples were baptized by Jesus, all acts performed by the disciples by direction of Jesus were performed by Jesus. Jesus was in his disciples working for the salvation of the world from sin. Just as God the Father was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself so was Christ in the disciples teaching and entreating the world to be reconciled to God through Christ. 3 he left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.—He left Judea where the Pharisees chiefly controlled and went back to Galilee where the religious parties were not so bitter. 4 And he must needs pass through Samaria.—Samaria lay between Judea and Galilee. In going from one to the other Samaria must be passed through or the person must cross the river Jordan, go on the east side, and cross over to Judea below the southern boundary of Samaria. This greatly increased the distance. 5 So he cometh to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph:—Sychar was near the city of Samaria, in the land of Ephraim, the son of Joseph. Jacob had bought this land of Hamor, Shechem’ s father. (Genesis 33:18-20.) He gave this to Joseph and Joseph’ s bones were brought up from Egypt and buried near to Shechem. (Joshua 24:32-33.) 6 and Jacob’ s well was there.—This well was noted and had the reputation of having been dug by Jacob or his servants. Lieutenant Anderson in 1866 descended to the bottom, found it seventy-five feet deep, walled with stones, and dry at the time. [McGarvey says: “ Jacob’ s well is still there, about one hundred yeards from the foot of Mt. Gerizim, which rises high above it to the west. The well is a perfect cylinder, seven and a half feet in diameter, and it is walled with stones of good size, smoothly dressed, and nicely fitted together. It is an ex¬cellent piece of masonry. Its depth was stated by the earliest modern who visited it (Maundrel) at one hundred five feet, and it then contained fifteen feet of water. In 1839 it was found to be seventy-five feet deep with ten or twelve feet of water. All visitors of more recent date have found it dry and gradually filling up from the habit of throwing stones into it to hear the reverberation when they strike the bottom. [This accounts for its depth at different times.] When the writer was there in 1879 his tapeline struck the bottom at sixty-five feet. The top of the well is arched over like a cistern and a circular opening is left about twenty inches in diameter. Another opening of irregular shape has been broken through the arch, and when you look into one of these the light admitted by the other enables you to examine the walls.” ] Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus by the well.—Jesus sat upon the stone at the well while his disciples went to the town of Sychar to buy food. It was about the sixth hour.—The sixth hour was most probably twelve o’ clock, though some place it at six in the evening. HE WITH THE WOMANJoh_4:7-267 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.—The Samaritans were a mongrel race that had grown up in Samaria from the importation of Assyrians after the deporting of the Israelites from the land. (2 Kings 17:24.) These imported Assyrians married with the poorer classes of the Israelites that remained in the country. At first they gave only a formal worship to the God of heaven while still worshiping the gods of Assyria. The Jews persistently refused all association with them as equals or as worshipers of their God. The Samaritans kept up the worship at the same places at whicn the ten tribes who for¬sook the house of David in the days of Jeroboam, that is, Beth¬el and Dan. 8 For his disciples were gone away into the city to buy food.—The Jews, while refusing all social and religious associations or intercourse, traded with them so the disciples had gone to this Samaritan city to buy provisions. 9 The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, who am a Samari¬tan woman?—The Samaritans would have been pleased to associate with the Jews, so when Jesus asked a favor of the woman and spoke in a kindly social way she was surprised and asked him how he could do so. (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans).—They regarded them as unclean and would not accept courtesies at their hands, although they bought from and sold to them. She did not refuse the water, but expressed a surprise that he asked it of her. Jesus came to break down all these partition walls, national and race prejudices, and to unite all who would follow him into one brotherhood. 10 Jesus answered and said unto her,—The answer Jesus made to her shows that his purpose was to introduce the question of her spiritual condition and to direct her mind to his mission to make known the will of God to the world.If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him,— The gift of God spoken of here meant the offer of eternal life to the world and that he was their Messiah to bring salvation to the world. and he would have given thee living water.—He meant the spiritual blessings he could give to the world. Jesus did not explain his course, or argue the matter with her, but at once laid before her the great end for which he came into the world — his gift to the nations. The water of life, or living water, represents the life-giving blessings to which the teaching of Jesus leads men. 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then hast thou that living water?—The woman failed to understand his meaning and suggested the difficulties of his getting water out of the well. Her mind was fleshly, sensual, and material. She could think of nothing but literal water, and knew of none better than that in Jacob’ s well. [See comments, verse 6. 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle?— She gives the tradition concerning Jacob’ s digging and using and giving the well to his descendants. How much of this is real, how much tradition we can never tell, as the traditions never grow less as time passes concerning such things. They had come to reverence Jacob as a saint, second only to Abraham as the father of the Israelites. She felt it was presumptuous for any one to promise more in the way of water than that found in Jacob's well, which had slaked the thirst of their fathers for nearly two thousand years. 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Every one that drink¬eth of this water shall thirst again:—Jesus tries again to di¬rect her mind away from this material water to the water of spiritual life. This water gives temporary relief. 14 but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him should become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life.—The water that he offered would abide with him who drank it and would give eternal life. He draws the contrast. The water which I give him will never let him thirst again. It shall be a perpetual fountain, or spring, of water within his soul, not only preventing thirst, but giving everlasting life. He is seeking to impress her with the truth that he promises not literal water, but spiritual water that gives eternal life. The blessings that bring spiritual life are frequently represented as living water. (John 7:38-39.) And then in the New Je¬rusalem is “ a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceed¬ing out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.” (Revelation 22:1.) 15 The woman saith unto him, Sir give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come all the way hither to draw.—The woman takes in the truth that the effects of the water he promised were permanent, but she thought it relieved from the fleshly thirst, and its possession would relieve her from coming to the well for water again. 16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.—He has failed to reach her spiritual nature by the figure of the living water so he seeks to reach her in a different way. He knew her condition and character and opened a way to impress her with his divine knowledge by telling the plain facts of her life. He suited his instruction to her capacities. 17 The woman answered and said unto him, I have no husband. Jesus saith unto her, Thou saidst well, I have no husband:—She promptly replied, “ I have no husband.” Jesus accedes to this and tells her important facts concerning her former life and present relations not creditable to her. She rec¬ognizes that only superhuman power could have made this known to him. 18 for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: this hast thou said truly.—This with his former speech and demeanor impressed her that he possessed more than human knowledge. He shows his knowledge of her past and present life and lays bare her present sinful state. 19 The woman saith unt him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.—The promptness of the confession shows the candor and readiness of the woman to accept the truth. His bearing and conversation, although she failed to take in the points of his instruction, had impressed her with his sincerity and high character. When he showed his knowledge of her past life, she saw and owned he was a prophet. This was the same kind of testimony he used to convince Nathanael. (John 1:46-50.) He knew things without learning them in the ordinary way, and it at once directed the woman’ s mind to the subject of worship, and, as he was a Jew, to the difference between the Samaritans and the Jews. 20 Our fathers worshippd in this mountain;—“ Our fathers” were the ten tribes that broke away from the house of David under the lead of Jeroboam. These Samaritans claimed these as their fathers, although they were a mixed race descended from them. Jeroboam set up two altars and made two calves— one in Bethel, the other in Dan. Mount Gerizim is the mount here spoken of. and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.— That he was a prophet and a Jew brought to her mind at once the difference between the Jews and the Samaritans. The Jews had persistently charged the Samaritans with forsaking God in leaving Jerusalem and the temple in which God had recorded his name and where he promised to meet his people at the mercy seat, and had made a calf at Bethel and met to worship at Mount Gerizim instead of Jerusalem. Moses says, “ But unto the place which Jehovah your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come.” (Deuteronomy 12:5.) Heted Jerusalem. Solomon built the temple, and God promised there to meet his children. “ Jehovah said unto him [Solomon], I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there per¬petually.” (1 Kings 9:3.) From this time forward to go elsewhere to worship than to Jerusalem was to forsake God. So the prophets taught and the woman refers to this teaching. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.—Jesus had come to supplant and swallow up this work of a merely local nature of both Jews and Samaritans and to substitute the spiritual worship of which the Jewish law and order was a material type. Jesus did not mean that in the future persons might not worship God either in Jerusalem or in this mountain. He meant that hereafter the worship of God would not be confined to either of these places, but that all who would could worship God wherever they might be. Whoever worships God according to the truth would be accepted of him. The time had come when the true spiritual temple of God should be opened to all the nations of the earth, and when the worship should not be confined to Jerusalem nor to this mountain. Jesus came to introduce this era and says, “ The hour cometh,” or is now coming, when this shall be done. The local and external shall give way to the spiritual and eternal. 22 Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know;—He kept before her the truth that in forsaking God’ s appointments they ceased to worship God. They did not know who they were worshiping. Jesus, while seeking to open the mind of the woman to the truth, condemns the sin of the Israelites in forsaking Jerusalem and the temple worship. In doing so they forsook God, and worshiped they knew not what. They claimed to worship God, but to reject his order is to turn from him. for salvation is from the Jews.—Salvation was to come through the family of Abraham of whom the Jews were the representatives. Salvation comes through the Jews that were true to the worship of God. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers.—Jesus came to introduce this worship that was spiritual. The heart of man was to be enlisted.. Man’ s spirit must lead to the service. This worship must be regulated by the truth of God. In this new covenant God said, “ I will put my laws into their mind, and on their heart also will I write,” and all the service must be from the heart. The introduction of it was future, now at hand. Jesus was even now introducing it. He more clearly tells them the hour now is when the true worshiper shall worship the Father in spirit and truth. This means the worship shall not be formal, local, and mechanical as it had been greatly among the Jews, but it should be from the heart. The heart shall be enlisted and the spirit molded by the truths of God, and that henceforth God will seek only the worship of those who worship him from the heart. This was bringing out the contrast between the worship under the law of Moses and of Christ. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.—He is not flesh and blood as men are. He is a Spirit and unseen by mortal eyes. The natural and seen are temporal and must pass away. The Spirit is unseen and eternal. God is Spirit and the spirit of man must worship God not simply an outward fleshly conformity to his law that seems to have satisfied the demands of the law of Moses. Although under the law of Moses a higher life of faith was possible and was accomplished by many. They who worship God must worship with the spirit or the soul and in truth. A spiritual being like God can be pleased with worship only when it comes from the heart and all worship to him must be guided by truth. 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things.—This thought seems to have been rather beyond the comprehension of the woman and she evades a di¬rect reply. The Samaritans, in common with the Jews, looked for a coming Savior. They still maintained a nominal wor¬ship of the true God while refusing to follow his laws. He is called in the scripture Messiah. Messiah is Hebrew; Christ, Greek; Anointed, English. Both the Jews and the Samaritans looked for the prophet to come that would make known the full and perfect law of God. The bearing of Christ and the revelation that he had made to her reminded her of this prom¬ise— not that she was ready to acknowledge him as Christ, but her mind had been led out to think of Christ by what he said to her. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.—This is the most direct declaration made by Jesus to one he was teaching that he was the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, the Prophet that was to come. He more frequently called himself the Son of man and left his works and teaching to declare him to be the Son of God. But this woman was a Samaritan, in many respects mentally and socially and in knowledge of the scriptures inferior to the Jews. She was fleshly, sensual, dull of perceiving spiritual truth, but frank and candid, simplehearted, ready to receive the truth, and Jesus met her in the same spirit of open and direct declaration of the truth suited to her wants. The pains and patience of Jesus to reach this woman with the stains on her character ought to be an assurance to his followers that such are open to salvation and frequently the first to be reached. Another thought worthy of consideration is when Jesus would reach the people of Samaria he did not seek the great, the noble, the intellectual. He met the humble, ignorant woman, who lived with a man not her husband and brought the truth to her heart and through her reached others. It is much more easy to reach the poor, simple-minded, open sinners than the self-righteous, who pride themselves upon their wealth, social position, or learning, and who cover and hide their sins. All who can be really reached by the word of God can be much more readily reached by Christians of this class than by those in what is called the higher circle of life. Man looks at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. When the heart is right, God uses the person, and works his own ends. REMARKS TO THE John 4:27-3827 And upon this came his disciples; and they marvelled that he was speaking with a woman;—[Christ’ s disciples had left him at the well while they went to the town of Sychar to buy food.] This conversation had occurred during their absence in the city. On their return they were surprised to find him talking with the woman because of the antipathy the Jews cultivated toward the Samaritans.yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why speakest thou with her?— But they have learned enough of him to know re-monstrance would be vain. Jesus never had a doubt or feel¬ing of uncertainty in what he did. 28 So the woman left her waterpot, and went away into the city, and saith to the people,—The return of the disciples seems to have interrupted the conversation, and the woman at once bethought her of the people in the city, and in the intensity of her feeling she seems to have forgotten her mission to the well and in her haste she left the waterpot she brought and hastened to the city. 29 Come, see a man, who told me all things that ever I did: —She told as she went that she had found a man who could tell her all she had ever done. [He had told her some things about her life and doubtless conscience had told her the rest. She felt all was known to him and naturally exaggerates by saying, “ He told me all about my life.” ] can this be the Christ?—This question was suggestive and led them to believe what Jesus had directly told her. [She did not say he is the Christ—“ Can this be the Christ ?” Had she asserted he was the Christ probably they would not have believed her, but her modest manner excited their curiosity and made them willing to see and hear.] 30 They went out of the city, and were coming to him.— This aroused enough interest or curiosity to cause the people to go out and see and talk with this newly-found prophet. [Her success was immediate. I take it they were not skeptical people, but were waiting for the Deliverer.] 31 In the mean while the disciples prayed him, saying, Rabbi, eat.—While she was going and the people were coming from the city, the disciples prepared the food and asked him to eat. [While the woman was spreading the news, the disciples were preparing and pressing upon the Master to eat the food they had secured.] 32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not.—[“ Man shall not live by bread alone.” He had been lifted above hunger by the eagerness of his success.] 33 The disciples therefore said one to another, Hath any man brought him aught to eat?—They had left him when they went into the city wearied and no doubt hungry. They had returned, prepared food, and now he declines to eat. Jesus told them he had sources of strength and satisfaction of which they were ignorant. 34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work.—[“ Meat” in the scriptures means not only flesh, but any kind of food.] The doing the will of his Father supplied the place of food and refreshed and strengthened him in body as well as spirit. Here are two persons becoming so interested in spiritual truths presented that they forgot their fleshly wants and external demands. One in teaching the truth of God, and the other for-gets the water for which she had gone to the well. Jesus forgets his weariness and hunger in the desire to save a soul and accomplish the work unto which he was sent. 35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they are white already unto harvest.—[In Palestine harvesting began about the middle of April. Jesus spoke about the middle of December.] It is thought that this was four months before the harvest timt; whether or not, it was an admonition that the spiritual harvest was always ready for the reaping. It teaches, too, that Jesus in his wisdom chose an humble, lowly sinner, one ready to confess her sins, rather than the rich and learned and self-righteous through whom to reach and influence a whole community. This is so unlike the wisdom of men which seeks the wealthy, the learned, the respectable through whom to reach communities. It teaches too that we ought to improve all openings and opportunities to preach the gospel no matter how unpromising they may appear. These lowly candid sinners are much more easily reached than the self-righteous, self-satisfied classes. They are also much more effective in carrying the truth to others. 36 He that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal; that he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.—One who improves all opportunities, who does not despise the day of small things, who is constant about the work of the Father will receive wages and in his work will bear fruit unto eternal life, both he who sows and the fruit he bears will enjoy eternal life. [They who reap a harvest of souls will receive spiritual wages; not earthly pay in money, such as reapers in harvest fields reap, nor of fame, or position, but the happiness of doing the greatest work on earth and a crown that fadeth not away in the world to come. “ Gathereth fruit” means souls that are gathered as the sheaves in the heavenly garner. There saved souls and the reaper rejoice together.] 37 For herein is the saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.—Jesus was now reaping what had been sown by others. He was reaping where Moses and the prophets had sown. Even this despised Samaritan woman had been prepared to look for the Messiah who would bring all things to their knowledge. 38 I sent you to reap that whereon ye have not labored: others have labored, and ye are etered into their labor.—Jesus sent his disciples to preach and reap what had been sown by others. This is the order of God in the natural and spiritual world. One sows; they who follow him reap. [“ Sent is a verb past and refers to an event previous to the present incident. The disciples had baptized “ more than John'’ (John 4:1), so many that John’ s disciples reported that “ all men come to him’’ (John 3:26). Christ’ s disciples who had baptized all of these (John 4:2) were reaping the fruit of John’ s sowing, to a great degree, supplemented by the labors of Christ. John had sown; they were reaping. While on earth Christ sowed and later at Pentecost, in Judea, and in Samaria, his disciples entered into his labors. See the reaping of what he had sown in Samaria. (Acts 8:5-8.) This principle is true now.] RESULTS IN SYCHAR AND ARRIVAL IN GALILEEJoh_4:39-45 39 And from that city many of the Samaritans believed on him because of the word of the woman, who testified, He told me all things that ever I did.—The woman was a dull, but candid, woman. She was living a life of adultery. This was probably so common among her people as not to incur the os¬tracism it has in later years. Her earnest and candid statement of what had passed between her and Jesus moved many to be¬lieve on Christ through her. The fervid earnestness of a can¬did person causes conviction frequently. [She had borne tes-timony of Christ as best she could. Though an humble woman, she had not preached Christ in vain. This demon¬strates what one poor soul can do for Christ.] 40 So when the Samaritans came unto him, they besought him to abide with them:—To converse with the woman in a social, friendly way, the willingness to accept a favor as small as a drink of water, the feeling of interest in her were matters of surprise to her and the disciples and encouraged the people to insist on his remaining with them for a time. and he abode there two days.—The remaining with them for two days as a teacher instructing them in the truth of God was no doubt a shock to the prejudices of the disciples and a surprise to the Samaritans. Yet the disciples submitted. The Samaritans felt flattered and induced them to hear him more readily. On the part of Jesus it was the beginning of break¬ing down the wall of separation between the different nations and peoples that would be completed in his death. [It was in¬deed a strange invitation for a Samaritan city to extend to a Jew, but no more strange than for a Jewish teacher to accept it.] 41 And many more believed because of his word;—The re¬sult of his stay was that many more believed in him through his teachings. [They heard for themselves his teaching re¬garding water of life and they recognized in him a divine teacher. He worked no miracle as at Jerusalem, but how dif¬ferent the course of the self-righteous Pharisee!] 42 and they said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.—The feel¬ing of the people toward the woman is shown in their think¬ing it more creditable to believe on Jesus from hearing him than from the report she gave of him. So they rather taunt her that they believed through the teachings of the Savior. But Jesus seems to have accepted the faith of both, and I can¬not resist the feeling that he was better pleased with those who the more readily believed on him, even through the poor woman. Only one point was needed to fix the faith in Christ. That is, is God with him, does he talk and act in divine au¬thority? If so, all he says or claims to be is to be believed. The readiness to believe, like Nathanael, the Israelite without guile, like this woman on the first clear evidence of superhu¬man knowledge and of those who readily received her testi¬mony, is the evidence of an artless and candid heart and soul and is more pleasing to God than those who are slower to ac¬cept the divine evidence or act on the simple instruction of the Savior. 43 And after the two days he went forth from thence into Galilee.—After the two days delay in his journey towards Galilee from Jerusalem he continued it. 44 For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honor in his own country.—Exactly what country he regarded as his own in this statement is difficult to determine. While born in Judea, he was generally regarded as a Galilean. It may possi¬bly have been spoken to show his approbation of his reception in Samaria on his leaving it. 45 So when he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all the things that he did in Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.—He had wrought miracles at the feast in Jerusalem. Many Galileans had been in Judea, saw the miracles he performed there and so were ready to receive him on his return to Galilee. They may have been the application of the adage stated above. These Gali¬leans had gone to Judea to hear of his great works. SECOND MIRACLE IN CANA John 4:46-5446 He came therefore again unto Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine.—Cana was not far from Nazareth where Jesus grew to manhood. There he had wrought his first miracle. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.—[Probably he was connected in some way with royalty, though not certain.] 47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son; for he was at the point of death.—[In some way he knew of the works of Jesus. His coming to Jesus shows that he was regarded as a prophet in Galilee.] 48 Jesus therefore said unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will in no wise believe.—The Jews generally sought signs and wonders. Jesus to call out a manifestation of the man’ s faith said, “ Except ye see these things ye will not believe.” 49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.—The earnestness of his entreaty and the anxiety for his son showed the sincerity and nobility of his faith. 50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth.—Jesus saw in his earnest entreaty the manifestation of an earnest and humble faith, and in response to this faith Jesus did more than he asked. He healed the son without going down. The man believed the word that Jesus spake unto him, and he went his way.—It was another manifestation of his trusting faith that he was willing to accept this assurance and to return home without Jesus. 51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him, saying, that his son lived.—The change for the better in the condition of the child was so marked that servants were sent out to assure him that his son was much better and doubtless that Jesus need not come. 52 So he inquired of them the hour when he began to amend.—That he might be sure that the healing was due to the power of Jesus, he asked the time of the change. They said therefore unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.—[Seventh hour is one o’ clock— being the hour Jesus spoke and the fever left.] 53 So the father knew that it was at that hour in which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth:—They told the hour at which the fever left him. It corresponded to the time at which Jesus said he lived. and himself believed, and his whole house.—This gave as¬surance to his faith, and his testimony caused the others of his household to believe with him. 54 This is again the second sign that Jesus did, having come out of Judaea into Galilee.—The miracle at Cana had occurred on his coming out of Galilee, and this was under the same conditions. [Jesus had worked miracles in Judea, but this was the second worked in Galilee. The first was in Cana; he was at Cana when he worked the second, but the beneficiary was at Capernaum.] This was a physical not a spiritual healing. In spiritual healing the spirit, the soul, the heart, the inner man, must enter into the service, must be molded into the likeness of God. This is done by faith in God. Faith is the medium be¬tween the heart of man and God, who is a Spirit. Then the teacher of the word must come into, and be accepted and con-formed to by, the spirit in man before his influence can be brought to bear on the spirit of man to mold and influence the man’ s spirit. The Spirit of God dwells in the church only to the extent that the word of God dwells in, is cherished by, and controls the heart of man. Being in the church, unless he cherishes the word of God, does not secure to him the presence of the Spirit of God. We are the temples of the Spirit of God only as the word of God dwells in and controls our hearts. The Spirit of God dwelling in the heart makes us Christians. When the Spirit of God dwells in the heart, we will obey the Lord Jesus Christ, not before. The truth saves by molding the heart, the soul, the character of man, into the likeness of Christ, into a fitness to dwell with him and his con¬genial spirits in the world of glory forever. Verse 1 This chapter relates the journey of the Lord and his disciples through Samaria (John 4:1-5), recounts the interview with the woman at the well (John 4:6-26), gives the conversation with the disciples upon their return (John 4:27-38), sums up the results of Christ's teaching in Samaria (John 4:38-42), narrates the continuation to Galilee, and records the performance of the second of the seven great signs (John 4:46-54). When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John. (John 4:1) The disciples of John the Baptist were already jealous of Jesus' success; and the Lord knew that the mighty acclaim hailing his efforts, if uninterrupted, would shortly bring upon him a premature confrontation with the Pharisees; and, in order to avoid it, he promptly switched the scene of his labors. The inference here is that if relatively friendly persons such as John's disciples were actively jealous of Jesus, the far more antagonistic Pharisees would be likely to take drastic action. Not long after these events, the Pharisees accomplished the destruction of John the Baptist; and, although their hand is hidden in the sacred account of his martyrdom, it is very likely that those wily hypocrites of the priestly hierarchy had maneuvered John into making the comment on Herod's unlawful marriage which resulted in his execution. The Lord, in time, planned to die for the salvation of all men; but, at that particular time, his hour had not yet come. Verse 2 (Although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples).See under John 3:22-26. An important deduction from the fact of Jesus' many baptisms, none of which were administered by himself personally, yet being referred to as his baptisms and his accomplishment, is this: All who are baptized in obedience to God's specific command, and by the hand of the Lord's disciples in harmony with his will, are truly baptized by Jesus! In the light of this undeniable fact, what becomes of the human allegation that would make of Christian baptism "a work of human righteousness"? It is no such thing, but an act of the Lord himself. Verse 3 He left Judaea and departed again into Galilee. And he must needs pass through Samaria.Samaria lay between Jerusalem and Galilee, the most direct route, therefore, going through Samaria. The boundaries of Samaria varied in history; but in the time of Christ it was a small province about twenty miles wide, north to south, and about thirty miles long, east to west. The eastern boundary was the Jordan River, and the southern line lay about seven miles south of Shechem. The capital was the city of the same name, occupying an impressive butte some six miles northwest of the area where the events of this chapter happened.[1]ENDNOTE: [1] Peloubet, Peloubet's Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 582. Verse 5 So he cometh to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave his son Joseph.Sychar ... was near Shechem and the piece of ground Jacob had purchased from the sons of Hamor for a hundred pieces of money. It was also the scene of the bloody episode revolving around Jacob's daughter Dinah; it was the place where Jacob dug that famous well and belonged to the sons of Joseph, to which son Jacob had bequeathed the property. When the children of Israel brought with them out of Egypt the bones of Joseph, here is where they buried them. Thus, although the scene of the events here recorded was not at that time a part of Israel, it had, nevertheless, figured prominently in their history. (See Genesis 33:18-20 and Joshua 24:32.) Significantly, Jacob had once constructed an altar there to [~'El] [~'Elohey] [~Yisra'el], "God, the God of Israel" (Genesis 33:20). Verse 6 And Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour.Jacob's well ... As Ryle noted, this reference contains all that is certainly known about this well, as to its origin; because the Bible nowhere mentions Jacob's digging a well, although it is recorded that Abraham and Isaac dug wells. Still, this reference is enough. The well is still there and is, in all probability, one of the few authentic places that can be identified as the place where Jesus sat. J. W. McGarvey, after visiting the well, wrote: Jacob's well is still there, about one hundred feet from Mount Gerizim, which rises high above it to the west. The well is a perfect cylinder, seven and a half feet in diameter, walled with stones of good size, smoothly dressed, and nicely fitted together, an excellent piece of masonry. Its depth was stated by the earliest modern who visited it (Maundrel) at 105 feet with fifteen feet of water. In 1839, it was found to be seventy-five feet deep with ten or twelve feet of water. All visitors of more recent date have found it dry and gradually filling up from the habit of throwing stones into it to hear the reverberation when they strike the bottom.[2]Jesus, being wearied with his journey ... The perfect humanity of Jesus is very evident in John. He alone recorded the saying from the cross, "I thirst!" and it appears that the apostle was particularly impressed with the bone-tired weariness of Jesus as he sat wearily by the well when the apostles departed to buy provisions. It would appear that the Lord's unusual weariness might have resulted from the fervor and enthusiasm with which the preaching and baptizing had been accomplished in the preceding days. It was the kind of letdown that every great campaigner feels when the effort is over; and the long march up from Judaea had intensified his weariness. Sat thus by the well ... Such a detail only an eyewitness would have included. It was about the sixth hour ... The ancient Jews reckoned time from sundown to sunrise, roughly twelve hours of darkness; and from sunrise to sunset, roughly twelve hours of daylight. The Romans and other ancients reckoned time from midnight to noon, and from noon until midnight. In this light, the "sixth hour" would have been about noon, six hours after sunrise, by the Jewish method of reckoning; or, by the Roman method, it would have been six hours after noon, or about six o'clock in the evening. For those interested in full discussions of the arguments on this question of the time of day, reference is made to the works of Westcott who favored understanding this as Roman time (6 P.M.),[3] and to the works of Ryle who favored Jewish time (noon).[4] One thing for sure, it was one or the other; and perhaps the best way to determine which it was is by the events related in the context. There is no necessity at all for supposing that John invariably used either method of reckoning time, probably using Jewish time in one episode and Roman time in another, as for example, when Roman courts were involved. To this writer, it seems that the extensive results that flowed out of this episode, such as the coming of the whole city out to meet Jesus, and their inviting him and his disciples to stay with them, indicate that the event happened at noon. Of weight in this preference is the fact of the woman's having come to the well alone, rather than with a group of women who, like herself, needed water. It is written of Abraham's servant that "He made his camels kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water" (Genesis 24:11). Now, if the woman had gone to the well at the usual time, there is the probability of the presence of others and the absence of the privacy evident in this narrative. Also, the social status of the woman suggests that she might have preferred to go at a time when she would not have encountered the neighbors. [2] J. W. McGarvey, The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Company, 1914), p. 56. [3] B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 282. [4] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), John, Vol. I, p. 198. Verse 7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. WITH THE WOMAN OF woman of Samaria ... The tragic story of the Samaritans and the contempt in which that unfortunate people were held by the Jews endow this incident with the deepest interest. Following the capture of the ten northern tribes by Shalmaneser (722 B:C.), the cities and villages of Samaria were totally depopulated and left to the wild beasts. Not wishing to let the land lie idle, the king of Assyria repopulated the area with people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avah, Hamath, and Sepharvaim. Of course, they brought their old idol worship with them; but they were introduced to the Jewish Scriptures in the following manner: the people were troubled by the marauding wild beasts, and the king of Assyria decided that the trouble might have been due to the new settlers having neglected the "god of the land." So he dispatched one of the captive priests of Israel to enlighten the people; and thus the Samaritans came into possession of the Pentateuch, the only part of the Hebrew Bible which they accepted. They set up a system of religion based partially upon the Pentateuch, but containing also a number of foreign elements. When the Jews rebuilt the temple, following the captivity of the southern tribes, the Samaritans desired to help, but were rebuffed. Animosity and hatred multiplied; and, at the time here spoken of, Jews had no dealings with Samaritans (although they traded with them); and, when the hierarchy referred to Jesus Christ as a "Samaritan," they had exhausted their vocabulary of invective. It is a matter of wonder and awe that the Dayspring from on High should have bestowed upon a woman of this unfortunate people the honor of the ensuing interview. Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink ... In this account, one is confronted with a contrast of remarkable dimensions: Here is a contrast between God and man. Here is a contrast between man and woman. Here is a contrast between royalty and commonality. Here is a contrast between wisdom and ignorance. Here is a contrast between the unmarried and the oft-married. Here is a contrast between purity and immorality. Here is a contrast between Jew and Gentile. These multiple contrasts of race, sex, religion, moral status, marital status, social position, ability, wisdom, etc., must be accounted the most dramatic and significant of any that occurred in our Lord's ministry. Yet, Jesus and that woman had one thing in common; both wanted a drink of water. Unerringly, Jesus saw the common ground between them and did not hesitate to stand with her upon that common platform of their mutual need. How loving, tender and considerate was our Lord in his attitude toward this daughter of Samaria! Give me to drink ... By these words, Jesus placed himself in the position of one requesting a favor, and by such a gesture assumed a social equality with her which astonished her and led to the conversation that followed. Jesus here did for her only what he did for all of wretched and fallen humanity; for he came from heaven to become a man, to take upon him the form of a servant, and to die for the sins of the whole world. All this is fully known; but, in this specific instance of it, the humiliation of our Lord becomes epic in its depth and intensity. Verse 8 For his disciples were gone away into the city to buy food.Hovey remarked that the disciples, for some reason, did not appear to have been as tired and weary as Jesus; but this is not strange. To the leader of such a campaign as they had just terminated, there is always the greater intensity, enthusiasm, and emotion exhibited by all great leaders; and, as noted earlier, this excessive fatigue on the part of the Master is exactly what was natural. Some insist that this weariness of Jesus suggests 6 P.M. instead of noon for the time of this interview; but it may be accounted for differently. Verse 9 The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, who am a Samaritan woman? (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)How is it? ... How? It was the Master's way of opening a door into her heart that he might give her eternal life. How? It was the Saviour's way of recruiting one of the most effective missionaries he ever had. How? It was Jesus' means of entry into that city as an honored guest for two days and nights. All of it began with this request for a drink of water. Who am a Samaritan woman ... For the origin of this people and the development of the hatred between them and the Jews, see under John 4:7, above. A Jew ... The first estimate of Jesus formed by this woman was stated in these words; but her knowledge and understanding of Jesus grew rapidly. Note the following: "A Jew" (John 4:7), "Sir" (John 4:11), "a prophet" (John 4:19), and "the Christ" (John 4:29). Verse 10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith unto thee, Give me to drink: thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.If thou knewest ... thou wouldest have asked ... This is the glory of that woman. These words show why Jesus accomplished this interview. He saw that the woman, despite her fallen life, would respond to a genuine opportunity to know the truth. In that precious quality, she was far superior to many of every age who indeed know the Lord of life but who will neither ask of him nor respond in any way to his mercy. Living water ... is a reference to the water of life, the spiritual realities that lead to everlasting life in the presence of God. The metaphor was probably suggested by the thirst which had brought them both to the well. Just as the body requires water, just so the soul, if it is to live, must drink at the everlasting fountain of God's word. The gift of God ... In this, Jesus referred to himself, the gift of God to all the world. Amazingly, the supreme gift of God from all eternity sat at that very moment on the ledge of Jacob's well; but the poor woman, dodging the scorn of neighbors, and coming to the well in the heat of the day, had suddenly confronted the Lord of life. Moses' discovery of the burning bush was not any more remarkable. What a pathetic thing it is to contemplate this woman standing face to face with God incarnate, and yet unaware of it. How blind are our eyes, how deadened our senses, how feeble our souls, when, face to face with God, we nevertheless cannot see him! Verse 11 The woman said unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then hast thou that living water?The woman's response shows that she did not understand what was meant by "living water," hence the question of its source, especially in view of the fact that Jesus had no rope. Whence then hast thou that living water ... indicates that the woman had already apprehended the fact that Jesus was not talking about the water of Jacob's well. This question of hers reveals that she understood at least a part of what Jesus was saying to her, and that she might have suspected, even at that point, the metaphorical significance of his words, as the next verse shows. Verse 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well, and drank thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle?Art thou greater than ... Jacob ...? Indeed a greater than Jacob was there, and a greater than Moses, and a greater than Jonah, and a greater than Solomon; and the very fact of this woman's employment of such a question is of deep interest. Some have understood her words as a scornful denial that Christ had any power to give the living water he had mentioned; but it appears that something far different from scorn was intended by this reply. Verse 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Every one that drinketh this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life.In this, Jesus defined the living water he promised as a spiritual power leading to eternal life. Such would satisfy the deepest thirst of the soul, and not merely for a time, but eternally. The source of such a blessing is uniquely in Jesus Christ; and it may not be earned or merited, but is a heavenly gift to fallen and sinful men. The gift, however, is conditional. The woman would not have given Jesus a drink of water unless he had asked it, nor would Christ have blessed her unless she had asked. The Lord will not endow any soul with living water unless that soul shall ask in the appointed way through compliance with conditions prerequisite to his blessing. Eternal life ... here plainly identified the blessing Jesus promised the woman of Samaria. It was impossible after these words for the woman to have misunderstood the direction of our Lord's remarks. It does seem, however, that she misunderstood the promised blessing as including a cessation of ordinary thirst also, which would have made it unnecessary for her to come again to the well of water. Verse 15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water that I thirst not, neither come all the way hither to draw.Some element of misunderstanding is evident in this request, but she rose to the height of asking the blessing in its fullest extent. Those who would be blessed should never wait until they know fully all that they ask; and, for the most spiritual person on earth, there is the likelihood that he, like this woman, would have many incorrect ideas of the ultimate blessing. The important thing is to ask; and, as Jesus said at the beginning of the interview, this woman was a person who would ask. May all men be just as diligent to ask of him who alone can satisfy the soul's deepest need. The woman, at this point, did not know that the blessing the requested involved moral surgery in her life, but Jesus quickly moved to enlighten her. Verse 16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband and come hither.Go, call thy husband ... The reason for Jesus' rather abrupt injection of this command into the conversation may have been complex. The gift of eternal life is not a blessing that anyone receives ALONE; it is always for others also; and those others always include, first of all, those who are members of one's family. Also, the gift of eternal life is never bestowed apart from the correction of the moral condition of the recipient. Perhaps both of these considerations may be understood as explaining the Lord's command, in which the Lord addressed himself to the woman's conscience, and in such a manner as to give her the opportunity of confessing her sins. Sins, however, are never easily confessed, and her reply fell short of revealing any moral fault. When any soul would turn to Christ and receive his inexpressible gift. the one desiring salvation is always confronted with a similar command with reference to his life. To the embezzler, the Lord says, "Go, bring thy records"; to others, he says, "Go, bring thy tax returns"; "Go, bring thy wife"; "Go, bring thy child, thy brother, thy sister"; or "Go bring anything in thy life that is contrary to divine law!" Verse 17 The woman answered and said unto him, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou saidest well, I have no husband.This, of course, was truth, but far from all of it. The Lord already knew everything in her life, and he had not asked for information but to elicit from her a recognition of her moral condition. Nevertheless, he commended, in part, her response. Verse 18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: this hast thou said truly.This was an astounding revelation to the woman that the stranger at the well knew all about her sinful and unhappy life; and yet this had not prevented his earnest conversation with her, nor his asking a drink at her hands. The marvel is that she did not fall upon her knees. Note that this woman had had five husbands, meaning five persons to whom she had been married, and that she was living with a sixth man without benefit of a marriage ceremony. Some deductions made from this passage fail to take these facts into consideration. It is easy to allege sin where it does not exist; and the sin uncovered here was primarily an immoral relationship with a sixth man, and not necessarily the fact of her having been so often married. The Lord left out of our sight the reasons for the break-up or termination of those marriages, some of which could have been due to the death of the husband, rather than to the wanton adultery of this woman whose heart hungered after eternal things. Let them who would charge her in such a manner sustain their charges if they can, it is the preference here to leave the matter of the multiple marriages covered. The present sin of this daughter of Samaria was fully exposed by the Lord's statement. Verse 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.Before the day ended, she would hail him as the Christ, but her perception at this point had not reached that height. Significantly, the confrontation of her own sinful conscience was the occasion of Jesus' rising so abruptly in her estimation. Only a few minutes earlier, she had recognized him only as "a Jew," who she had every right to suppose hated and despised her; but now she hailed him as a prophet. The more deeply conscious any person is of his sins, the higher Jesus rises in his sight. The woman did not deny or offer excuses or explanations, but let the implications of her sinful life stand naked and unadorned in his holy presence. There is a nobility in such an attitude that staggers belief. Verse 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.The view that these words were a mere device on the woman's part to change the conversation appears to be wrong. It reveals the deep religious interest of the questioner, and the presence of one whom she had just hailed as a prophet gave her the opportunity to learn the truth about a question that had troubled her heart a long time. What a commentary is this regarding the inner thoughts of some whom the world would count hopelessly lost. Deep within every heart the abiding question of how men "ought" to worship God is firmly implanted; and no encrustation of sin, however coarse, can fully eradicate it. There is nothing short of genius in this woman's going straight to Jesus with such a question. Christ is the source of finding the answers for all difficult and perplexing questions, none of which shall ever be answered until they are answered by the Master. It should be noted that the question was a valid and relevant one, that there was a proper answer, and that Jesus promptly gave it. Verse 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, and now is, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.Jerusalem had been until that time the correct place to worship God, but Jesus deferred that part of the answer in order to reveal that a totally new system was about to be initiated, in which the PLACE of worship would have no significance at all. God may be worshipped properly , provided only that the divine worship is tendered in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Verse 22 Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.Ye know not ... The Samaritan worship (see under John 4:7) was faulty in several important factors. It was founded upon only a part of the word of God (the Pentateuch), and even that part was not strictly obeyed. Also, many polluting elements of paganism had been incorporated into it. That which we know ... Thus Jesus affirmed the truth of the Old Testament and the validity of the covenant with the chosen people, affirming the authenticity of the Hebrew religion. Salvation is from the Jews ... God took hold "of the seed of Abraham" (Hebrews 2:16); the Jews were custodians of the Scripture (Romans 3:2); Christ was born "under the law." The Old Testament Scriptures are they which "testify" of Christ (John 5:39). Even the church today is the Israel of God, and all Christians are "the seed of Abraham" (Galatians 3:29). In the sense of origins and the typical nature of the Jewish religion, it is still true that "salvation is of the Jews." Verse 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers.The hour cometh and now is ... indicates that a new dispensation was about to be initiated by Jesus Christ. Within only four years after this interview, all of the regulations concerning the worship of God in Jerusalem were superseded by the ordinances and requirements of the new covenant. Jesus was already baptizing thousands who would, if they continued to follow him, soon receive the Holy Spirit (after Pentecost). It was the near approach of the new order. The true worshippers ... These contrast with the false, vain, ignorant worshippers of every age who have improperly worshipped God. Who are the true worshippers? They are they who worship God in spirit and in truth. See under John 4:24. For such doth the Father seek ... The initiative of God himself in man's salvation appears in the fact of God's actually seeking those of earth who will truly worship him as he has directed. Verse 24 God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.God is a Spirit ... The countless anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament probably caused Jesus to set such a statement as this over against them all. God may be spoken of in terms of the activities of men, such as walking, seeing, hearing, etc., but there is a sense in which God is not like man at all. God is a Spirit, eternal, immortal, invisible, omniscient, ubiquitous, omnipotent, and all-pervading. He is above all and through all and in all. Nothing can be hidden from God. He is the First Cause, himself uncaused, the Creator and Sustainer of everything that exists. He is nonetheless personal, hence the anthropomorphisms of Scripture. They that worship him ... Just what is worship? Is it the carrying out of any kind of ritual, the observance of any days or times, or the presentation of any kind of gifts and sacrifices? Despite the fact that worship, from the earliest times, has been associated with such things, actual worship is spiritual. WHAT IS WORSHIP? A good description of worship is that of Isa 6:1-8, an analysis of which shows that worship is: (1) an awareness of the presence of God, (2) a consciousness of sin and unworthiness on the part of the worshipper, (3) a sense of cleansing and forgiveness, and (4) a response of the soul with reference to doing God's will: "Here am I, send me!" In the New Testament, it is evident that the worship of God involved the doing of certain things: (1) meditating upon God's word in sermon or Scripture reading, (2) singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, (3) praying to God through Christ, (4) observance of the Lord's supper, and (5) the giving of money, goods, and services for the propagation of the faith and the relief of human needs. Very well, then, does the person who DOES these things worship God? Not necessarily, because an apostle spoke of certain persons who ate the Lord's supper in a manner unworthy of it, not discerning the Lord's body. Moreover, the singing and praying were commanded to be done "with the spirit and with the understanding also." From this: it is clear that the things done in the New Testament worship were the authorized channels through which the true worship flowed, and that worship has the same relationship to the channels that electricity has to the power line that carries it. This, of course, does not disparage the authorized channels, nor suggest that man may select channels of his own. See below under: "Two Ways to Worship." True worship is the soul's adoration of the Creator functioning obediently to the divine will. Must worship in spirit and in truth ... This speaks thunderously of the fact that the worship of God must be done properly, the two requirements being that it must be engaged in with utmost sincerity and as directed by the word of God. God has revealed the manner in which he should be worshipped, and those who hope to have their worship accepted should heed the restrictions. WORSHIPThe verse before us is a powerful prohibition. Also, Jesus said, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7). An apostle declared that "God ... dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything" (Acts 17:24-25). The author of this gospel wrote, "Testify unto every man that heareth the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18). And also, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (2 John 1:1:9). Jesus said of the Pharisees, "Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition" (Matthew 15:6). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Things done by the dis- ciples of Jesus and under his supervision, are said to be done by Him. The original word for disciples has the nominative inflection, giving it the meaning as if it said, "Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples did." The validity of baptism never did depend on the one doing the baptizing (except in the case of John the Baptist), therefore it was not necessary for Jesus personally to do this work. His first disciples had been baptized by John, who had come among the Jews to baptize them and prepare a people for the Lord. When Jesus took charge of these people prepared for him, it was proper that they should do the physical work of baptizing the new converts made under the teaching of Jesus. On the same principle, it was proper for the new disciples to assist in the work of baptizing the believers. 3 Envy is a terrible condition of the mind. The Pharisees did not have any great love for John, although they pretended to be interested in his work (Matthew 3:7), yet they could not bear to see Jesus having any special success. Rather than come out into an open conflict with them at this time, the Lord decided to leave Judea and go to Galilee, which was the home of his childhood and early manhood. 4 Samaria lay between Judea and Galilee, which is the reason this verse says he must needs go through Samaria. 5 The history of this transaction of Jacob may be seen in Genesis 33:19; Genesis 42:22; Joshua 24:32. When the Israelites took possession of Palestine, the territory later called Samaria was allotted to the sons of Jacob. 6 Wells were important improvements in ancient times, because it required much manual labor to produce one. Jacob either dug this well, or obtained it otherwise, and left it to his posterity. These wells had a curb extending above the ground for the protection of animals. It was on this curb that Jesus sat in his journey. Being wearied. This word is from KOPIAO, which Thayer defines, "to grow weary, tired, exhausted." We should always think of the Saviour as possessing a body that was just like ours as far as the laws of the flesh are concerned. It is true that he was the Son of God and possessed miraculous power, but there is not a single instance recorded where he used his supernatural power to relieve his personal needs. In all the trials and necessities of life, he met the circumstances in the same way that other righteous people are expected to do. (See Hebrews 4:15.) When Jesus became tired from walking, he sat down to rest for the same reason that other men would do it. It was about noon, so we may expect to see some people coming to the well for water. And since it was this time of the day, the disciples had gone to the city to buy food. 7 The city of Samaria was the capital of the region of Samaria (mentioned previously in this chapter). It was near this city where the well was located where Jesus was resting. The woman of Samaria was a resident of the city with that name, and she came to the well for water. Jesus was not too tired to use the opportunity for giving this woman some spiritual instructions. He always adapted his teaching to the circumstances of the occasion. Coming to the well for water indicated the woman was needing that necessity of her temporal life, and that would find her mind prepared to appreciate some thoughts on the subject of spiritual water of life. Jesus opened the subject by asking the woman for a drink. 8 This fact is referred to at verse 6. 9 The woman was so surprised at the friendliness of Jesus that she seemed to overlook the subject of water for the moment. She expressed herself to Jesus accordingly, giving as the basis of her astonishment the attitude of the Jews toward the Samaritans, that they had no dealings with them. One of the reasons the Jews had such a dislike for the Samaritans, was their inconsistent claims about their relation to the Jewish nation. Josephus gives us a description of this subject in his Antiquities, Book 9, Chapter 14, Section 3, as follows: "When they [the Samaritans] see the Jews in prosperity, they pretend that they are changed, and allied to them, and call them kinsmen, as though they were derived from Joseph, and had by that means an original alliance with them. But when they see them falling into a low condition, they say they are no way related to them, and that the Jews have no right to expect any kindness or marks of kindred from them, but they declare that they are sojourners, from other countries." 0 Jesus did not make any direct reply to the woman's remarks, but continued his own line about water. He went a little farther into the subject, and suggested that she would have been the one to ask for water, had she realized who it was who was talking to her. 1 The woman is still thinking of literal drinking water. It was evidently the practice for people to bring their own cord with which to draw water from the well. Seeing that Jesus did not have such, she could not understand how he would perform the act of courtesy for her. 2 Art thou greater. The last word is from MEGAS, which has a wide range of meaning. As it is used in this passage it means, "stronger or more able or better equipped." Jacob was certainly as well prepared as anyone need be to get water from this well, for he used it to supply his family and also his cattle. Yet even he had to use some means such as a cord to obtain the water. Father is from PATER, and Thayer's first definition is, "Generator or male ancestor," and it was in this sense the woman used the word, for the Samaritans claimed to have blood relation with the Jewish race. This was true to a limited extent, which may be learned from 2 Kings 17:24-33, which is commented upon in volume 2 of the Old Testament Commentary: 3 We have an excellent example of the proper way to approach a subject figuratively. Jesus did not launch upon the theme with the full comparison, for the woman would not have been able to understand it; instead, he unfolded it little by little. The woman needed only to be reminded that such water as the well furnished would not give permanent relief, but must be drunk of time after time. 4 The Bible does not contradict itself, and when it may seem to, there is always a fair explanation if we will search for it. Jesus pronounced a blessing on those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matthew 5:6), but here he says that if a man takes a drink of the water He provides, he shall never thirst. The word is from DIPSAO, and Thayer's first definition of it is, "To suffer thirst; suffer from thirst." A person can have a healthy desire for a drink of water, which will cause him to relish the water and feel satisfied afterward, and yet not have to be in actual suffering for it; such is the meaning of the statement of Jesus. The person who accepts the provision offered by Jesus need never be famished and suffer for the want of a drink, for he will have that well always with him, so that he may keep his desire constantly satisfied. That is what Jesus meant by the beautiful statement that it will be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life. 5 The woman was still somewhat in the dark as to the kind of water Jesus was offering her. She had the idea it had such qualities that it would take the place of that ,in the well. It is no wonder, then, that she requested the water from Jesus. 6 Having conducted the figurative comparison to the point where the woman was ready to make some personal application, Jesus concluded to arouse her to a sense of her own moral and spiritual defects. The subject of water will not be mentioned again. Jesus opened the next phase of the lesson by telling the woman to call her husband. This was not because He thought the man should receive some teaching also, for there is no evidence that he was ever called or appeared on the scene. It was the Lord's way of stirring up her conscience. 7 The woman said she had no husband, and Jesus agreed with her. 8 In this verse Jesus gave the reason for verifying the woman's statement in the preceding verse. This has been a stumbling block for many who have been in confusion over the Biblical position on the marriage relation. The only marriage "ceremony" that God ever gave for the institution is the fleshly union of one male with one female. That law is stated in Genesis 2:24, and verified by Jesus in Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:6-9, and by Paul in Ephesians 5:31. But the objector says this woman was thus joined to the sixth man, yet Jesus said he was not her husband. That is because the laws of man came in and required certain ceremonial regulations before a union would be recognized as legal. While the Lord did not originate this ruling, yet He recognized it, and requires his creatures to obey it. The confusion is caused largely by the term "husband," which is a legal one and not a natural one, and has been used by the translators to distinguish between a man who has complied with the legal regulations for marriage, and one who merely has relations with a woman without having done so. The terms "husband" and "man" are from the one Greek word ANER, and mean the same as far as the language is concerned. "Husband" is the wrong word to emphasize in this passage, for the word "man" would be as correct a translation as the other. So that, it would be just as correct for the verse to be translated, "Thou hast had five men; and he whom thou now hast is not thy man." All of these persons were men, but the one the woman was living with was not hers, because they had not complied with the laws of the land that would give her legal possession of this man. So if the reader will place the emphasis on the words "had" and "hast," which is where it belongs, showing ownership, he will be saved the confusion so prevalent over this subject. (See also my comments on Matthew 19:5-6.) 9 By a prophet the woman meant that Jesus possessed superhuman knowledge, and as such he belonged in the rank of Biblical persons who could interpret spiritual matters. She was convinced of this by what He said concerning her domestic life. To use popular language, she was secretly living with a man "to whom she was not married." 0 When the woman concluded that Jesus was a Jewish prophet, she also believed he would be informed in all the matters pertaining to the history and religious teaching of the Jews, which explains her remarks in this verse. Our fathers means the early ancestors of the Samaritan race and nation. The mountain referred to by the woman was Gerizim, about 25 or 30 miles north of Jerusalem. Smith's Bible Dictionary says, "Gerizim was the site of the Samaritan temple, which was built there after the captivity, in rivalry with the temple at Jerusalem." In the article "Samaritans," the same Bible Dictionary says the following: "The animosity of the Samaritans became more intense than ever. They are said to have done everything in their power to annoy the Jews. Their own temple on Gerizim they considered to be much superior to that at Jerusalem. Toward the mountain, even after the temple on it had fallen, wherever they were they directed their worship. . . . The law (i. e. the five books of Moses) was their sole code; for they rejected every other book in the Jewish canon" [accepted list of books]. This information from the authentic work of reference, explains the woman's reference to the two places of worship, and what the Samaritan "fathers," and the Jewish prophets (of whom she thought Jesus to be one) said about them. 1 Jesus did not enter into the controversy between the Samaritans and Jews as to which place was the more important. It was not worth while to do so, because He was going soon to set up a system of worship that would not depend upon any particular spot, geographically speaking, for its genuineness. That is why Jesus said, "neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem. Not that men would not be allowed to worship God in those places, but their services would not be accepted on the basis of where they were performed. 2 The Samaritans rejected most of the Old Testament, which ruled out all of the prophetic writings except the few passages to be found in the five books of Moses. With such a partial basis for their guide, Jesus declared they did not know what they were doing when they professed to perform their services. Salvation is of the Jews. Every writer of the Old Testament was a Jew except Job, and he had some of the blood of Abraham in his veins. (See notes on page 351, volume 2 of the Old Testament Commentary.) Since the entire volume of religious revelation from God was given through the Jews, they would certainly know something of the subject. (See Romans 3:1-2.) 3 Notwithstanding this advantage the Jews had, the time was near when all previous modes and places for religious activities were to be replaced with the final system of God, unto which and for which all those forms were instituted among men. The outstanding feature of the new system was to be its spiritual character, in contrast with the formal rituals and material requirements the old law provided. 4 God is a Spirit. This does not mean that He is not a personal God, but his personalities are spiritual, hence He expects the worship offered to him to be spiritual. Such worship would not depend upon literal mountains or walled cities as proper situations in which to perform it satisfactorily to the Lord. 5 Although the Jews and Samaritans had no dealings with each other, and notwithstanding the latter rejected all of the Old Testament except the five books of Moses, yet they had a belief that a great person known as the Messiah or Christ was to come. This belief would be in harmony with a passage in their own document; namely, the prediction that a prophet, was to come like Moses. (See Deuteronomy 18:18-20.) They believed this Messiah was to be a very wise person, who would be able to explain all of the points that pertained to the Scriptures. The woman must have partly suspected Jesus to be that great One, from the wisdom that he had been showing through the conversation. Doubtless she began to think along that line as far back as verse 19, when she recognized him as being a "prophet." But she finally brought Jesus to a personal acknowledgment of his identity by her remark about the Messiah to come. 6 Jesus made this "good confession" to the woman, that he virtually made later to Pilate (chapter 18:37), and that others are asked to make of Him. 7 The disciples marveled for the same reason for which the woman was surprised at the beginning of the conversation recorded in verse 9. There is no evidence they knew anything about her personal character, but they did know she was a Samaritan. The disciples were shocked, evidently, yet their respect for their Teacher held them back from criticizing him. 8 Having been convinced that the expected Messiah had come, the woman turned into a messenger, and left her original purpose that brought her to the well, and went into the city to speak to the citizens therein. 9 Told me all things. This is obviously an accommodative phrase. We have the conversation on record, and the part of the woman's secret life that Jesus told her is in verse 18. But if he knew the facts about her domestic life, something that she supposed no one but the man and herself knew, then certainly He could read her entire life as if it were an open book. And such a person, in her mind, had all of the essential qualifications of the one to be anointed, which means the Christ. 0 The people of the city accepted the invitation of the woman to meet the man who had told her so much. The result of the meeting will be seen later. 1 The disciples had gone to the city to buy food, hence it was natural for them to expect Jesus to eat. Apparently he did not show much interest in the food, after they had made the trip to the city for it, hence their insisting that He should eat. 2 Doubtless, the arrival of the people from the city, presented another opportunity before Jesus to en gage in something more important than partaking of temporal food. That is what He meant by the indirect or figurative remark about his having food of which they had no information. 3 The disciples thought Jesus meant temporal food, and that someone unknown to them had served it to him while they were in the city. 4 Jesus used meat (food) in a figurative sense. The word is from BROMA, which Thayer defines, "That which is eaten, food." He explains the way it is used in this passage to mean, "That which delights and truly satisfies the mind." The context justifies his explanation, for it would certainly satisfy the mind of Jesus to do the will of his Father. To finish His work meant to carry through to the end all that was in the mind of God when he sent his Son into the world. 5 Again Jesus uses some things in the temporal realm, to illustrate those in the spiritual. Temporal harvests are possible only after certain waiting periods, while the spiritual harvest is always ready to be gathered. That is because the souls of men are always subject to being gathered into the service of God. 6 Wages is used to represent the reward that all men will receive who do faithful work for the Lord. The production of a crop requires both a sowing and a reaping, but these are not always done by the same man. However, if they are working in harmony with each other, both will be benefited by the fruit produced. 7 Jesus only repeats the facts that are discussed in the preceding verse. It is a general principle, and the explanation will come in the next verse. 8 The other men means the Old Testament prophets and the work of John the Baptist. All of these servants of God had done much to prepare the way for the apostles to gather up the results. Paul teaches the same lesson in 1 Corinthians 3:6-8. 9 The Samaritans were a mixed race, and thus were "part Jew," hence they were not regarded strictly as Gentiles. Jesus made a distinction between them in Matthew 10:5, when he sent the apostles forth on their first mission. It also explains why the Gospel was offered to and accepted by the people of Samaria (Acts 8:5-12), when it is generally believed (and correctly so) that it was offered to the Gentiles for the first time when it was offered to Cornelius in Acts 10. 0 The Samaritans were so much interested in Christ, they urged him to spend some time with them. He did so, delaying his journey for two days. 1 The delay was profitable, for many more believed on Him. 2 There is no evidence that Jesus performed any miracle among these Samaritans. They explained their conversion on the ground of hearing His word. Jesus was able by his teaching to convince these people that he was the great One that was promised in the Scriptures and had been taught them by their leaders. 3 Galilee was an extensive territory, so that Jesus could go into that district, and yet not go into the immediate vicinity of Nazareth, which was originally considered his own country. (See Matthew 4:13; Matthew 13:54-57; Luke 4:23.) 4 Because of the truth stated here, Jesus came into that part of Galilee that contained Cana (verse 46), instead of that where Nazareth was located. 5 The Galilaeans (those not in the region of Nazareth) received Jesus, because they had seen his works at the feast of the Passover in Jerusalem. 6 Smith's Bible Dictionary says Cana was not far from Caper-naum, and the arrival at Cana was soon known at Capernaum. The miracle of making wine out of water had doubtless been reported generally, and the people of the neighboring towns were convinced that Jesus was able to accomplish miraculous cures. A nobleman was an officer serving next to a king, and therefore was an important person. 7 The nobleman went in person to Cana, and begged Jesus to come heal his son who was at the point of death from a serious fever. 8 As a test of the nobleman's faith, Jesus intimated that he would first perform some miracle, as evidence that he was able to accomplish healing the boy. 9 The nobleman was already satisfied about the ability of Jesus to work miracles. Of course Jesus knew his mind, but it is the Lord's will that people express their faith outwardly, and this was the way that Jesus brought forth the remark of the nobleman. It was natural for him to feel anxious, because it was his son who was seriously ill, hence he pressed his request very earnestly. 0 Jesus did not accompany the father back to his home, but bade him go on his way, with the assurance that his son would live. The nobleman was satisfied to leave for home alone, because he believed the word of Jesus. Had he lingered to repeat his request for Jesus to go with him, it would have indicated that he was in doubt. 1 The nobleman did not reach home until the day after his conversation with Jesus. His servants saw him coming and went to meet him with the good news. 2 He did not question the word of his servants, but wanted to check on the saying of Jesus; he asked them when the son began to improve. The seventh hour would be the same as our 1 P. M., and it explains why the nobleman was not able to reach home until the next day. 3 The report coincided with the hour in which Jesus assured him that his son would live. We note the servants said the fever left him at that hour, but his full recovery was a matter of some time. This should not disturb us, for Jesus only said "thy son liveth," and to start his improvement, He caused the fever to leave him immediately. His convalescence could be taken care of by nature, without any miracle. The case caused the whole household to become believers in Jesus. 4 Second miracle means in Cana; the first is in chapter 2. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Five A MIRACLE AND A IN Joh_5:1-47AN MAN MADE WHOLEJoh_5:1-91 After these things there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.—This feast is generally regarded as the Passover feast, although it is nowhere said to be so, and there is nothing so determining. If this be a Passover feast, it makes certain that the public ministry of Jesus lasted three and a half years. Without this there is no certainty about this. The attendance at the Passover feasts is the clearest indication of the time of his public ministry. John tells of his attendance at the feasts in Jerusalem, and of his teaching and work there much more fully than do the other gospel writers. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate—It is thought that this is the gate through which the sheep for sacrifice were generally brought. a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda,—This pool and its qualities are not mentioned by any other writer of the Bible. Its identity and locality have not been fixed with certainty. Whether there was real curative property in the waters is not certain. Among the superstitious people imagination is so active that reputation for healing is frequently kept up for centuries when the imagination does all that is done for them. The record here gives no intimation that Jesus thought the healing 3 In these lay a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, withered.—The sick would remain waiting for the moving of the waters. Multitudes were attracted to try the efficacy of the water in healing the diseases. The fourth verse is left out of the American Revised Version. It is thought by many that it was an intermittent spring, rising and flowing at regular times, then ceasing. Such springs are known in different parts of the world. It would not be difficult to give currency to the idea that an angel did this. 4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and troubled the water---whether the miracle actually occurred as stated, or that the people had a tradition on which they relied, is immaterial as far as the work of Jesus is concerned. That some periodical disturbance of the water took place need not be disputed. Jesus did not make any controversy about the doctrine of "Transmigration of souls" (Matthew 14:2), but healed the blind man independently of it. The writer does not show Jesus as even referring to the question of this agitation of the pool, therefore I shall comment on the remaining verses in their order. 5 And a certain man was there, who had been thirty and eight years in his infirmity.—The long affliction indicates the incurable nature and little probability of relief. 6 When Jesus saw him lying, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case,—Jesus knew either by inquiry or from his superhuman power of knowing things. The context does not show the source of this knowledge. His helplessness appealed to the Master. he saith unto him, Wouldest thou be made whole?—Jesus doubtless knew he wished to be healed and asked this question by way of introduction to the sufferer. 7 The sick man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.—This answer shows that something like the condition described in verse 4, in the Common Version, was supposed to exist. His poverty and his complete helplessness prevented his securing the benefit, whether real or supposed, of water. 8 Jesus saith unto him, Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.—Such a case especially commended itself to Jesus. 9 And straightway the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked. Now it was the sabbath on that day.—The man made the effort to obey Jesus. Jesus supplied the power and he was relieved of the infirmity. God’ s help always comes to those receiving it in the effort to obey him. JESUS ACCUSED OF SABBATH Joh_5:10-1810 So the Jews said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath, and it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.—It was contrary to the law of Moses to carry any burden on the Sabbath. The Jews raised the question of observing the Sabbath — first as to the healed man carrying his bed, and afterwards as to the sinfulness of healing on the Sabbath (John 5:16). (See Nehemiah 13:19; Jeremiah 17:21.) 11 But he answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.—The man wisely concluded that God was with one who could heal as he had been healed, and if he could heal he had authority to so far control him as to authorize him to carry his bed home. 12 They asked him, Who is the man that said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?—They were somewhat incredu¬lous about the healing and asked who had done it. It is a lit¬tle singular that the man did not find out when Jesus healed him who he was, but it was done quickly and brought great surprise to the healed man and Jesus quickly passed from his presence. 13 But he that was healed knew not who it was; for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in the place.—The man had to tell them he did not know who had wrought the great cure by his word as he had gone away. 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee.--Jesus on meeting him in the temple warned him if he sinned again greater evil would come upon him. This seems to imply that this evil had come upon him as the result of his sin. The Jews believed this, yet Jesus told his disciples (John 9:2-3) that neither the blind man nor his parents had sinned to bring on his blindness. 15 The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole.—On their meeting in the temple, Jesus made himself known to the healed man, and he seems to have sought the inquiring Jews at once and told them it was Jesus. 16 And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.—The persecution of Jesus for what they claimed as breaking the Sabbath began here and it resulted in the effort to slay him. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work.—Jesus justified his healing the man on the ground that his Father worketh hitherto or unto now, and following his example he works. It seems that “ on the sabbath” is implied as the charge was for working on the Sabbath. In what sense he meant to say that God worked till that time is not clear. It is certain that he did it through all the opera¬tions of the natural universe, and it seems probable that Jesus referred to this working. The point of Jesus was that God worked on the Sabbath and that he had the same right to set aside, if need be, the Sabbath law as God had done. 18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.—This claim to have the right to do what God did placed himself on an equality with God and more infuriated the Jews so they now sought to kill him. [They did not undertake to put him to death at once, but began preparing the way for his death. More than two years later he was condemned to death for the claim of being the Son of God.] JESUS ASSERTS HIS POWERJoh_5:19-2919 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.—Jesus dis¬avowed any authority or power to do anything save as the Father leads and enables him to do. He doubtless referred to his healing the impotent man. He could have done this only by the power of God. His effort was to show that God worked with and through him. [In answering them Jesus re¬tracts nothing, but reasserts his Sonship by asserting that the power of the Son comes from the Father.] 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel.—He insists that God loves him, reveals his own works to the Son, enables him to do what God does, and he promises that God will enable him to do even greater works than he had yet done in their presence. [This future work would be greater than the miracle just per¬formed.] 21 For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.—This verse explains the greater works promised in the preceding verse— the power to quicken the dead into life. [He gives his Father the credit of being the fountain of all life and that he can raise the dead to life and that he himself possesses the same power through the Father.] 22 For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son;—God Has committed the work of judging and quickening the world to his Son. He gave his authority and power into the hands of the Son. 23 that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.—The Father committing his authority and judgment to the Son and so empowering the Son to speak and act for him demands that the Son should receive the honor that the Father does. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him.—The only method of approach to the Father is through the Son and so he who rejects the Son rejects the Father. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment,—The emphasis is laid on the truth that hearing Jesus and believing in God through the words of Jesus would bring them to everlasting life. but hath passed out of death into life.—In accepting Christ and his word as our rule and guide we pass out of a state of condemnation into one of life— a state that leads to eternal life or life beyond the grave. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.—The knowledge of the resurrection was but slightly known. So Jesus plainly declares that the time was now coming that all the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who heard that voice would live. [We take it that the reference is primarily to those spiritually dead. It will also be true of those in the graves at the res¬urrection. (Verse 28.) Jesus demonstrated his power to give life by raising Lazarus.] 26 For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:—That life would be be¬stowed by the Son of God, since God had given the same power to the Son to make alive as he possessed. 27 and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.—He gave him power to execute judgment alike upon the godly and upon the ungodly. This must be executed in harmony with the laws that God committed to his hands. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,—He more directly points out that all good and bad shall come forth from the grave. 29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the res-urrection of judgment.—They that have done good or kept the laws will be raised to life eternal. They that have done evil to a condemnation of eternal death or banishment from the presence of God. [Jesus makes it clear that there is a judgment beyond the grave, and that there is also a general resurrection.] THE OF THESE CLAIMSJoh_5:30-4030 I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.—While to Jesus had been com¬mitted the work of judging the world, he is careful that all should understand that he and his Father are one because he sought to enforce no will of his own; but his Father’ s will and in doing this the Father was with him. 31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.—If he alone bears witness of himself, the witness is not to be ac¬cepted as true. This was also the law of Moses. Every charge was to be established in the mouth of two or three wit¬nesses. (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 19:15.) That it does not mean the testimony is false is seen by a comparison with 8: 14. 32 It is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.—In compliance with the law requiring two witnesses to prove a thing, Jesus announces that another beareth witness of him than himself, and Jesus knew that the testimony of this witness is true. 33 Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness unto the truth.—These people had nearly all been baptized of John. They had gone to him as a teacher, and he had borne witness that Jesus is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:36). 34 But the witness which I receive is not from man:—While he presents John as a witness in whom they believed, who bore testimony for him, Jesus referred to God as witness¬ing in behalf of Jesus. howbeit I say these things, that ye may be saved.—He re¬fers to these witnesses that they might believe in Jesus and be saved. 35 He was the lamp that burneth and shineth; and ye were willing to rejoice for a season in his light.—John was a teacher sent from God who taught the will of God and these Jews had followed him for a time. 36 But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me,—The works that Jesus did attracted the attention of the world and made the best men believe on him. Nicodemus said, “ No one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2.) All that Jesus did and suffered in his mission on earth was what his Father had given him to do. The miracles he wrought, and his own triumph over death and resurrection from the dead, were the especial works that substantiated his claim to be the Son of God. He “ was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” The kingdom in its unorganized elements— the head, laws, and subjects— in embryo was among [the works he was to accomplish], that the Father hath sent me.—The works that God .did through Jesus testified that Jesus was of God. The object of miracles was to prove that the person who wrought the mira¬cles was from God and spake by the power of God. 37 And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form.—When God spake, they refused to hear his voice, and they had not seen him. 38 And ye have not his word abiding in you:—[Proof of this fact was they did believe the testimony of John whom he had sent.] for whom he sent, him ye believe not.—[The preaching of John bore witness of him.] 39 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me;—The Jews claimed to believe and read the scriptures of the Old Testament, and thought that through them eternal life would be gained, yet they foretold of Jesus. He presents two witnesses, the works or miracles of Jesus and the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testament concerning him. [The scriptures that they searched contained the testimony of Christ. All the prophets had borne witness of him. The one of whom the scriptures spoke was light and life, yet they refused to come to him that they might have life.] 40 and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.—Not-withstanding these testimonies they refused to believe in him and come to him as his disciples. Jesus keeps it distinctly before them that through him alone they could receive spiritual life. [They rejected the light their own scriptures contained. “ Search” implies painstaking, exhaustive examination.] CAUSE OF JEWISH John 5:41-4741 I receive not glory from men.—Jesus did not rest his claims to glory on the testimony or witness of men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves.—But their disbelief in him and his works proved that they did not have the love of God in them. “ For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:3.) Only those who keep the commandments of God love him according to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. [He read their hearts and knew them.] 43 I am come in my Father’ s name, and ye receive me not:—Jesus came as the representative of his Father to stand in the place and do the work of his Father. This is the meaning of coming in the name of another, to take his place, do his work, and to work for and in place of another. To act for and in the name of another is to ignore self and selfish ends and to act in behalf of him whom he represents. Jesus acted in the name of and for his Father. if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.—These Jews rejected Jesus, but if another was to come act¬ing in his own name for himself, him they would receive. [They rejected Jesus, their only hope, but would accept with pleasure a deceiver. Their history shows that they did this.] 44 How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and the glory that cometh from the only God ye seek not?—One seeking the applause and praise of men and who does not seek the honor and praise of God cannot believe in Christ. His example of seeking the honor from God and not that from men would be so at war with their hearts and practices that they would not believe him as their teacher and exemplar. [Their seeking human glory and honor caused their unbelief in Jesus. They did not possess that lowly spirit needful for belief in Christ. ] Whenever a church or a preacher sets out to be respectable and influential by its worldly possessions and surroundings, or when a preacher is intent on using his posi¬tion as a preacher to gain worldly position or influence, they bid farewell to true usefulness to the world and would do well to cease to be churches or preachers of Christ. The honor of the world is incompatible with honor from God, and he who seeks one will forfeit the other. The rich and fashionable and those who are unwilling to sacrifice to Christ substitute money for personal service and sacrifice. Under this spirit money has displaced self-sacrific¬ing devotion as the chief factor in spreading the gospel. Those who rely on money seek those who have money and the poor are neglected. This spirit must be set aside or the churches overloaded with money will die. Indeed, the money helps to kill them. It is utterly impossible for one who de¬pends on money for social standing and respectability and en¬joyment to be a true Christian. It is equally impossible for one seeking earthly honor and greatness, whether he seeks it in the pulpit or in the political field or the legal forum, to be an earnest and true child of God and an effective worker in saving souls. The spirit of seeking and looking to wealth and worldly honor is so antagonistic to the spirit of Jesus he asks : “ How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another?” It is much easier to get the common people to do active service in the church of God than it is to get the rich, the educated, those who pride themselves on their worldly respectability. 45 Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope.—They claimed to believe in Moses as their teacher and ruler. They so vitiated his law that they would fall under his condemnation and Moses in whom they claimed to believe would be their accuser. 46 For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.—Moses prophesied of Christ, and those who properly understand Moses must believe in Christ. The fact that they did not receive Christ who was the end to which the law led was evidence that they did not believe in Moses or his writings. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?—To fail to understand and believe in the writings of Moses would lead to a rejection of Christ. In this chapter the teaching of Christ [is that he regarded the Pentateuch a genuine composition of Moses. Critics who claim that these books are frauds ought to learn a lesson from Jesus]. The Jews claimed to believe in Moses, yet Moses pointed to Christ and without Christ the writings of Moses are meaningless. [ Each proves the other to be true, and no one can accept the one and at the same time reject the other.] Verse 1 Like practically all of John, this chapter is a narrative of proof that Jesus is equal to God. Here, the proof is that of the healing of a long-time cripple at the pool of Bethesda on a sabbath day; following which, Jesus gave an organized testimony of his oneness with God and of his being the Messiah. Discounting his own witness to that effect, for the moment only, he appealed to the witness of the Father himself, the witness of his mighty works, and the testimony of the sacred Scriptures. This sign is the third in the great series of seven. THE THIRD SIGNAfter these things there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. (John 5:1) So much depends upon the meaning of "a feast of the Jews" in this verse that controversy has raged over it for centuries, the importance of it lying in this, that if the Passover is meant, then the ministry of Christ would be calculated at about three and one-half years; but if some lesser feast was meant then his ministry could be calculated as much shorter. The feast of the Jews ... is the reading of many ancient manuscripts (English Revised Version, margin), which, if allowed, would make this almost certainly the Passover. Without further attention to the extensive arguments of scholars on this, we shall construe it as a reference to the Passover, primarily because this would favor the longer ministry of Christ, and because it was the only feast of the Jews having sufficient importance to have demanded the presence of Jesus so soon after he had left Judaea. It is considered no great difficulty that John would have called so important a feast "a feast," since, writing so long afterward, he might quite accurately have so described it. The most convincing argument to this writer is by Trench: If this feast of the Jews was a Passover, then St. John will make mention of four Passovers, namely, this one, and in John 2:13; John 6:4, and the last. Thus, we shall arrive at the three and one half years, the half of a "week of years" for the length of Christ's ministry, which many, not altogether unreasonably, have thought they found designated beforehand for it in the prophecies (Daniel 9:27).[1]There are many things in the New Testament which cannot be determined except in the light of the Old Testament, as in the case of the piercing of Jesus' feet. Certainly, light from the Old Testament on the question before us is more dependable than fallible human opinion. ENDNOTE: [1] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1943), p. 264. Verse 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches.There is ... The present tense in this has led to the supposition that John was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; but it may be explained (1) by the pool's still being there after the ruin of the city, or (2) by the apostle's vivid memory of it leading to his use of the present tense, speaking of it as what he was actually seeing in retrospect. By the sheep gate ... The word "gate" is not in the text and was supplied by the translators. The gate was near the temple and was the portal through which the animals were brought to the sacrifices. Having five porches ... These were colonnaded areas, partially open, under which people could take refuge from rain or strong sunlight. They were ornamental, making this a highly decorated and popular pool; but, for all its reputation, it had not cured the cripple. Hunter tells us that "In 1931-1932, excavators laid bare 100 yards north of the temple what is almost certainly the long lost pool of Bethesda."[2] Hunter's thoughts on why this healing at Bethesda was made one of John's seven signs are interesting: Possibly because it involved his favorite symbol of water. The water of the pool, though it seemed to offer healing (newness of life), had yet failed to cure a man crippled for thirty-eight years. In the light of the Prologue and the preceding chapters (the water and wine of Cana, the new water which Jesus offered the woman of Samaria), we are perhaps meant to think of "the law given through Moses" and its failure to give life. Over against it, in this miracle, stands the life-giving word of Christ.[3]Of John's seven signs, the third and the sixth occurred at the pools of Bethesda and Siloam; the first was changing water into wine; and the fifth was walking on the water. In addition, John's "born of water" and "living water" of chapters three and four, make it clear that the apostle did remarkably stress "water" in his Gospel. There is also the "blood and water" of the crucifixion (John 19:34). [2] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 56. [3] Ibid. Verse 3 In these lay a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, and withered.In these ... that is, in the five porches of the pool. This pool was a popular health resort similar to such places all over the world, from Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Mineral Wells, Texas, to Bath in Somerset, England, where the father of King Lear was reputed to have been healed of leprosy.[4]Waiting for the moving of the water: for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water entered in was made whole, with whatsoever disease he was holden.Upon what would appear to be sufficient critical grounds, these words have been removed from the English Revised Version (1885); but it is well that they have been retained in the margin, because they explain the common conviction regarding the pool which resulted in its popularity. It would be no great thing to stumble at if indeed it was part of John's Gospel. Whatever healing ever occurred there would thus have been attributed to the power of an angel of the Lord, and what would be so unreasonable about that? The healing qualities of the waters at Hot Springs, for example; are they any less of God and his angels, merely because our chemists have analyzed them? Is there not here a tracing back to their true source phenomena which men are so ready to ascribe to secondary sources? Is not all healing of God; and do not the Scriptures teach that God's angels are servants sent forth to do service for them that shall be the heirs of salvation? (Hebrews 1:14). The spurious nature of the words here cited, however, is not to be denied. They were probably added by some scribe at a very early date to explain what was meant by the cripple's having no one to help him get into the water at the propitious moment. If there had been any virtue in the waters of the pool, it seems highly incredible that they should have been efficacious only at indeterminate intervals, only for such a short while, and, even then, only for the person who got into them first. The cripple of this narrative had surely found them without any value to himself. ENDNOTE: [4] Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, 1961), Vol. 3, p. 203. Verse 5 And a certain man was there, who had been thirty and eight years in his infirmity.The text does not say that he had been at the pool so long, but that his disease was of such lengthy duration. The Lord's attribution of his condition to the man's sin suggests that he had acquired the malady in his youth. Verse 6 When Jesus saw him lying, and knew that he had been a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wouldest thou be made whole?The omniscience of Jesus is again evident. The Lord did not need to inquire concerning the man's condition, its cause, or its duration, but knew all that inherently. Wouldest thou be made whole ...? This was an offer of the Lord to heal the man, but the form of the question implied that the desire to be made whole was prerequisite to his healing. There was a recognition here of the fact, known to every physician, that certain persons, long invalid, finding it more satisfactory to rely totally upon the services of others than to assume any burden themselves, do not really desire to get well. What is true physically is likewise true spiritually, that the will to be made whole sometimes subsides or disappears from the heart of the sinner. Regarding this, Howard noted that: His real difficulty lies precisely here (and so it is with us). We hear his promises, and our hearts run out to claim them; and we believe that we mean what we say. Yet this has happened time on time, and with some of us far longer than thirty-eight years, and this is all that has come of it. And why? Because we really do not want what we say we want and think that we want. "Men often mistake their imagination for their heart; and they believe they are converted as soon as they think of being converted."[5]ENDNOTE: [5] W. F. Howard, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), p. 541. Verse 7 The sick man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled to put me into the pool; but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.The sick man was not offended by the Lord's question, and his reply bears the interpretation that it was not want of will but want of ability that had frustrated him until that time. Verse 8 Jesus saith unto him, Arise, take up they bed and walk.The bed was likely a type of portable pallet, much like a camp bed, or the bedroll that cowboys carried on their saddles; but even so mild a burden could not have been lifted and carried by an invalid. This sign, like all the others, was accomplished by fiat; there was no "mumbo jumbo," waving of the arms, or shoutings and incantations. Jesus commanded, and it was done. Verse 9 And straightway the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked.Every soul has the power to do what Jesus commands, granted only that there is the will to obey him. The man was made whole at a word from Jesus; and the man's response was prompt and obedient. What if he had said, "Look, Lord, I do feel a lot better; and, later on, if I still feel this way, I'll try to do what you said"? Who can doubt that such a response would have forfeited his blessing? Now it was the sabbath on that day. So the Jews said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath, and it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.Christ had chosen deliberately to do such a deed on the sabbath as a platform from which to call attention to his authority and power, and also for the purpose of exposing the ridiculous extensions and additions to God's sabbath regulations which had been so mercilessly bound upon the people by their priests. Regarding the question if Jesus did or did not break the sabbath, it must be answered unequivocally that he did not break it. There are three legitimate grounds upon which all alleged guilt of Jesus in breaking the sabbath is totally removed. Thus: (1) It was well known among the Jews that a prophet might, for cause, set aside the sabbath; as the Prophet like unto Moses, Jesus had every right to do so; (2) as God incarnate, Christ had total authority, even referring to himself once as "Lord of the sabbath" (Matthew 12:8); and (3) the Lord's actions often referred to as breaking the sabbath, such as this man's carrying his bed, constituted no violation whatever of God's true law regarding sabbath observance, but only violated the hair-splitting interpretations of it so dear to the Pharisees. Strong disagreement is registered here with that school of expositors who make the Lord's actions, here or anywhere else a violation of God's sabbath laws. See a full discussion of this in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12. As Barnes said: The Jews extended the obligation of the sabbath beyond what was intended ... observed it superstitiously, and Jesus took every opportunity to convince them of their error ... This method he took to show them what the law of God really permitted on that day, and that works of necessity and mercy were lawful.[6]Also, Hendriksen, quoting Jeremiah 17:19-27 and Nehemiah 13:15, usually cited by those who would make this cripple's carrying his pallet a violation of the sabbath, noted that: In these passages, the reference is clearly to that type of burden-bearing which was connected with the performance of ordinary labor for gain, with trading and marketing. By forbidding a cured man to pick up his mat, as if that were comparable to a burden that he was carrying to the market-place in order to sell it at a profit, they were making a caricature of the law of God.[7]The divine law also permitted the securing of one's property as Barnes noted in the above reference; and the carrying of his bed was necessary to that. If he had walked off and left it, it would have deprived him of it; and the Master's blessing would have been partially nullified. But, as Jesus noted on another occasion, the healing and rescue of a beast which had fallen into a ditch was freely allowed by those hypocrites as legitimate on the sabbath day; but the Christ of glory they accused of breaking the sabbath by healing a man, born in the image of God, on the sabbath day! Their error was great indeed, but it is no greater than that of modern commentators who denominate the Lord a sabbath-breaker, basing their allegation on the testimony of those hypocrites who first accused him of it! Not a jot or a tittle of the law did Jesus ever break. The Jews ... who accused Jesus here were the Sanhedrinists, the ruling hierarchy of priests, including the Pharisees and the Sadducees, as well as all the leading persons of that class in the city. The words should not be read racially, for that is not the way John used them. [6] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 227. [7] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 193. Verse 11 But he answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up, thy bed and walk.There is a sharp distinction between the question of the priests who spoke only of the man's taking up his bed, but saying nothing of his being healed, and this answer of the healed man which confronted them dramatically with the wonder itself, namely, that he, a cripple for thirty-eight years, had been endowed with the power to do such a thing. With that clear understanding which belongs to all unsophisticated persons, the former cripple had already made the deduction that one with the authority to heal him surely had the power also to command him to take up his bed and walk. What a shame that the priests were so self-blinded that they could not see so plain a thing as that. Verse 12 They asked him, Who is the man that said unto thee, Take up thy bed and walk?An astounding wonder had occurred in the presence of a multitude; but those priests were not concerned with it. One of their petty little hair-splitting regulations had been violated, and that was all they cared about. Therefore, they ignored the healing and inquired only of him who had commanded to take up and walk. How nearly incredible it seems that such obduracy should have been in them that were the rulers of Israel. Verse 13 But he that was healed knew not who it was; for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in the place.We may not suppose that the cured man merely walked away without inquiring of the one who had healed him, for the initiative in their being separated is here attributed to Jesus. Due to the great throng, it was easy for Jesus just to disappear in the crowd. The man picked up his roll, looked around, but Jesus was nowhere to be seen. Verse 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and saith unto him, Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee.This explains the reason for Jesus' disappearance. He wanted a private interview with that man, sparing him the humiliation of having his sinful life exposed before all, a thing that would have been far less effective in the former cripple's case than what happened privately in the temple. Perhaps the man had gone there to praise God for his healing, but this is not stated. Sin no more ... This shows that sin was connected with the infirmity which had so long debilitated the cripple. There is indeed a connection between sin and suffering. In fact all human sorrows and sufferings, even death itself, head up at last in the fountainhead of the sin of Adam. This is far from teaching that all sickness or suffering is specifically related to the sin of the sufferer. Jesus himself stressed (John 9:3) that the blindness of the man he healed was not related to either his or his parents' sins. Nevertheless, an incredible amount of the world's woe is merely the sins af men returned at last upon their own heads. Trench expressed it thus: As some eagle pierced with a shaft leathered from its own wing, so many a sufferer, even in this present time, sees and is compelled to acknowledge that his own sin fledged the arrow, which has pierced him and brought him down.[8]Lest a worse thing befall thee ... What could be worse than being an invalid for thirty-eight years? The fate of unbelievers is worse. Also, there is a temporal application as well; because there is no condition of human wretchedness so bad that further sin might not aggravate and increase it. ENDNOTE: [8] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 276. Verse 15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole.What is to be made of this? Can it be that a man so blessed of the Lord would deliberately have identified him to his bitterest enemies with any view of helping them in their persecution of the Saviour? Against such a view is the fact that he spoke of Jesus' making him "whole," a word the Pharisees did not wish to hear. He might have hoped to encourage a better attitude of the priests toward Jesus; but whatever his purpose was in this identification, the immediate result was an intensification of the efforts against Jesus. Verse 16 And for this cause the Jew's persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.Those zealots who had made the word of God of none effect by their tradition were adamant in their refusal to allow the slightest possibility of any error on their own part. Their foolish and unscriptural sabbath regulations were so dear to them that they would crucify the Christ of glory rather than yield on the tiniest iota of their conceited interpretations. Note: John did not say here that Jesus broke the sabbath but that he "did these things," a far different thing from breaking the sabbath. Verse 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work.My Father ... Jesus here, as usually, affirmed the unique relationship between himself and God. He taught the disciples to pray "Our Father," but many times used "My Father" in his own reference to God. Jesus' argument here is that such an interpretation as the priests insisted upon would make God himself a sabbath-breaker! Does God not heal on the sabbath? Is not the maintenance of the universe a work of God going on every second of time, sabbath days and all? These are the implications of Jesus' words, "My Father worketh hitherto." Also, it should be noted that Jesus here, by the use of the first person possessive, "My Father," and by his statement that he also works (on the sabbath day) claimed equality with God, a claim made more dogmatically later on in the interview, but clearly visible here also. And I work ... By this, Jesus affirmed that he was doing exactly what God was doing. The Father had never ceased to work in the support and maintenance of all things, and therefore the Lord was in full character with the Father when he healed a man on the sabbath day. Furthermore, no sabbath regulation of any divine sanction had ever forbidden such an act. Verse 18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.He not only broke the sabbath ... is the allegation of the priests, not the statement of the apostle John. See under preceding verse. Making himself equal to God ... How strange it is that some can read the New Testament and then deny that Jesus claimed to be God. Even his enemies knew full well the implication of his words. Also, it was exactly upon this claim, which they construed as blasphemy, that they based their demands of Pilate that he be crucified (John 19:7). These two verses (John 5:17-18) are among the most important in Scripture, especially as they relate to the heresy of Arius (died 336 A.D.) and Sabellius (circa 230 A.D.), the former teaching that Christ was a created being, and the latter affirming that God, the Holy Spirit, and Christ are identical, and that Jesus was not God come in the flesh. As Trench wrote: Other passages may contain as important witness against Arian, other against the Sabellian, departure from the truth; but this upon both sides plants the pillars of the faith.[9]This open break between Jesus and the ruling hierarchy was sharp and irrevocable; and, fittingly, Jesus spoke upon this occasion at some length to his enemies in a vain effort to persuade them of the truth of his words and of his claim to be the Messiah. The rest of this chapter is taken up with this overwhelming testimony of the Lord Jesus concerning himself. ENDNOTE: [9] Ibid., p. 280. Verse 19 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for whatsoever things he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.In the words of Hovey, the action of Jesus here was: To convince his foes, if they will suffer themselves to be convinced that his action has been in harmony with the will of God. In doing this, he is not called upon to emphasize his personal distinction from the Father (that was admitted by his accusers), or to insist directly on his equality with the Father (for to do that would be to confirm their impression that he was a blasphemer), but rather, without denying either of these, to convince them, if possible, of his absolute unity with the Father in action.[10]All the actions of Jesus were in complete harmony with God's will; neither is the Son of God capable of doing anything contrary to it. The Son can do nothing of himself ... This stresses the obvious truth that no mere man could have healed the cripple, demanding the deduction that Jesus displayed the power of God in doing so great a wonder. But what he seeth the Father doing ... The divine insight of Jesus Christ is evident in this. He was not an observer, merely, of mortal deeds alone; but he beheld supernaturally all the works of God. These the Son also doeth in like manner ... Jesus' actions were in full harmony with God's actions, not only regarding their quality, but with reference to the manner of their being done. Jesus' words here are nearly the equivalent to the deduction of Nicodemus, "No man can do the signs which thou doest except God be with him" (John 3:2). ENDNOTE: [10] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 135. Verse 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth; and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel.The Father loveth the Son ... This fact should have been known to the priests, for God had so declared it vocally at Jesus' baptism. And showeth him all things that himself doeth ... It would be difficult to imagine a more powerful claim to deity than this. As Barnes wrote: From apostles, prophets, and philosophers, no small part of the doings of God are concealed. From the Son, nothing is hid. And, as God shows him all that is done, he must be possessed of omniscience, for to no finite mind could be imparted a knowledge of all the works of God.[11]Greater works ... By this, Jesus meant that the Pharisees had by no means seen the exhaustion of his mighty powers. In the very next verse, he indicated that he would even raise the dead. ENDNOTE: [11] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 230. Verse 21 For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.By this bold word Jesus sought to compel his foes to make a deduction which they should already have made, namely, that a being with the power to do what Jesus had just done possessed also the power to raise the dead. These words of Christ were fulfilled in the raising of Lazarus; and, in context: these words amount to a promise that Jesus would indeed raise the dead before the very eyes of his enemies. These words also have a spiritual application that Jesus stressed a little later (John 5:25). Verse 22 For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son.This is not a contradiction of Joh 1:17 f; for, in that place, the thing refuted by Christ was the false expectation that the Messiah would execute a military and political judgment against the Gentiles; and, with reference to that kind of judgment, Jesus came not to judge but to save. The judgment in view here is the eternal judgment, which God has made the exclusive province of the Son of God, all judgment having been placed in his hands. Here Christ plainly told his enemies that they were in the presence of the Judge who would judge them in the last day. Verse 23 That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.No stronger statement of the deity of Christ appears in Scripture. How is God honored? By the soul's purest adoration and worship. That is the way Christ should be honored. These words are equivalent to Jesus' saying, "I am God and am entitled to all the honor belonging to the Father?" Verse 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.Heareth my word and believeth him that sent me ... Hearing and believing Christ's word are equivalent to believing God who sent him. Believing Jesus is believing God! Thus, here is another skillful advocacy of his deity. Hath eternal life ... This focuses upon the true mission of our Lord's coming into the world, to bring men eternal life. The Pharisees, had they been the type of persons who are interested in such a blessing, might have been convinced by such a promise; but they were too busy with their earthly concerns to pay any attention to the great hope held out in these words. Eternal life is here spoken of as a present possession of the recipient; but that present possession must be understood as a title deed in the form of God's own promise of a state of bliss following the resurrection of the dead. Such an inheritance, though in a sense only prospective, creates such a profound change in the life of the possessor, coloring his entire life, transforming even sorrows and hardships, and providing the motivation of a higher life-style - so vast a change, in fact, that, in the sense intended here, the believer truly HAS eternal life. Cometh not into judgment ... This is the secret of how eternal life is made available to human beings. The great corollary underlying the promise of eternal life is that so great a blessing is inseparable from absolute perfection and holiness. It is inconceivable that God would perpetuate throughout eternity anything imperfect or unholy; and this clause furnishes the clue to the manner in which absolute perfection and holiness can become actual qualifies of them that are destined to eternal life. If people should come into judgment in their own names, standing in their righteousness alone, pleading their own identity and worthiness, none shall be able to stand. Every person who ever lived will fail in such a judgment as that - hence the profound promise of Jesus here that the saved "cometh not into judgment!" How can this be? Will not God judge of all men? Yes, of course; but those who believe and are baptized into Christ, and continue to be united with him, being found at last "in him" those persons shall not come into judgment in their own identity at all, but AS CHRIST! No one shall ever be saved upon the basis of his own personal merit or righteousness; but in Christ, and as Christ, all who are truly united with the Lord shall be saved, the grounds of their justification and redemption being nothing less than the perfect faith and obedience of the Son of God himself. See full discussion of this in my Commentary on Romans, pp. 108-111. But hath passed out of death into life ... Not having perfect identity with Christ, in Christ, and as Christ is a state of death; because, apart from Christ, the entire race of men is in a state of utmost condemnation. On the other hand, eternal life is in Christ. Thus, the soul that receives Jesus Christ as Lord passes out of death into life. Verse 25 Verily, verily, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.The three verses, of which this is the center, are among the most instructive in the whole word of God. There can be nothing less than the first resurrection, as the contrast of it with the final resurrection in the next verse proves. This is a spiritual rekindling of life, and that a physical resurrection from the grave. Significantly, the Lord announced that the spiritual resurrection was then in progress, that the Son of God is the author of it, that his word is the means of it, and that as his word was received or rejected men would or would not have a part in it. What a terrible warning to those foes who at that very moment were rejecting his word, not allowing even for a moment his true interpretation of God's sabbath law, but plotting to maintain their own ridiculous interpretations. Further, by rejecting Jesus' word in such a subordinate area as the sabbath regulations, the priests were light years away from receiving the profound teachings recorded in this paragraph. They would remain in a state of spiritual death, and the voice of the Lord of life would sound in vain upon the stopped ears of that evil company. Jesus saw all that; and the thought must have come to him: "Very well, my voice calling men to spiritual resurrection you will not hear; but I shall speak again on another occasion (that of the final judgment), and then you will hear!" In fact, such is the thought expressed later ( John 5:28). Verse 26 For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself.The Pharisees had already decided to kill Jesus (John 5:18) and were diligently seeking some means of carrying out their plans; and, in that context, these words carry the weight of Joh 10:17-18, where Jesus plainly said they would not be able to murder him, but that he would lay down his own life and take it up again. Jesus affirmed here that the Son is co-equal with God in the possession of life in himself. Verse 27 And he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a Son of man.Authority ... is the great word with reference to Christ. None of the apostles failed to be impressed with it. Matthew summarized it in Jesus own words as "all authority in heaven and upon earth" (Matthew 28:18). Because he is a Son of man ... God would not judge the intelligent creation whom he fashioned in his own image, until first he himself had become a man in the person of the Son, in order that his judgment would therefore be more merciful, righteous, and just. Verse 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.In John 5:21, earlier, Jesus had claimed power to raise the dead; but his statement there fell a little short of declaring emphatically that he would indeed do so (although it was clearly implied). These words, however, dogmatically declare that Christ will raise all of the dead on earth, that the dead of all the ages will respond to his voice, and that Christ will judge them and assign the eternal destiny for both the good and the evil. In John 5:20, Jesus had said "that ye may marvel," in his words with the priests; but that was not a reference to the final judgment in view here, being rather a prophecy of the raising of Lazarus. Come forth ... These are the words addressed to Lazarus (John 11:43) and show that Jesus had fully decided this early in his ministry to perform just such a wonder, in order to confront the unbelieving hierarchy in Jerusalem with a sign so absolutely beyond the power of any man that their unbelief of it would be utterly inexcusable. The sign when it came should not have been understood as an isolated wonder; because any power that could raise a man dead and buried four days can only be identified with God. Jesus made certain that even his enemies would have every opportunity to understand such an awesome sign in its proper relevance to his own eternal power and Godhead. The priestly community in Jerusalem ignored and belittled the healing of a man crippled for thirty-eight years; and, if Christ's miracles had terminated there, infidelity might have contrived some plausible basis of unbelief. Therefore Christ hurled a challenge in the face of his enemies by promising to raise the dead to life again; but even that, when it occurred, did not convince them, for their error was not a matter of intelligence or reason, but the error of a wicked heart. Resurrection of judgment ... For discussion of the eternal judgment and the final punishment of the wicked, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12:41-42; Matthew 25:29-41. In the teachings of Christ, one great assize is always in view. There will be a simultaneous judgment of all creation at a time already appointed, when absolute justice tempered with mercy for those in Christ shall be executed upon all. That Jesus referred to such a judgment here is implicit in the mention of the general resurrection that shall accompany it, as well as in the statement of the diverse destinies of the good and the bad. Such a concept is inherent in two indisputable facts of the spiritual world: (1) the eternal righteousness of God, and (2) the immortality of the soul. Given those two basic conceptions, and the necessity of judgment, reward, and punishment is demanded. Mortal life alone cannot provide adequate rewards for the righteous, nor deserved punishment for the wicked. Even such a thing as sanity on man's part must depend finally upon the assurance that God is righteous and that he will do what is right for every soul ever born on earth, and that even so small a thing as a cup of cold water given in the name of Jesus shall not lose its reward - and that means judgment. These verses contain a tremendous witness of himself, spoken by Jesus in such a way as to demand their acceptance by men; but the Master saw that the Sanhedrinists and their followers were adamant in their rejection of all that he was declaring, despite the signs he did. Such a rejection Jesus met by a change of tactic, and thus he at once marshaled other witnesses upon his own behalf. Verse 30 I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.Here Jesus changed his approach to the closed minds of the priests, still trying to induce them to believe. I can of myself do nothing ... These words have a double application: (1) I see that nothing I can say will have any weight with you, and (2) my signs should be interpreted by you as revealing that myself alone, apart from God, could never have done such a thing as cure the invalid. My judgment is righteous ... is the equivalent of "My witness of myself is absolutely true, because I am doing the will of God who sent me." If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true ... This means, "But you are rejecting my witness of myself because I am the one witnessing." It is as if Jesus had said, "Oh yes, I read what you are thinking, namely, that if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." Thus this verse is a line of the conversation which the Pharisees did not utter, but which Jesus read out of their hearts. Without for a moment yielding any of the authority of his own witness, the Lord immediately marshaled other witnesses. It is as if he said, "Well, all right, since you reject my witness because I gave it, we shall call other witnesses. The first to be called was God himself. See under John 8:13. Verse 32 It is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness he witnesseth of me is true.God was here referred to as "another witness," thus revealing a personal distinction between Jesus Christ and God. Equal to God, Jesus is; the same person as God, Jesus is not. Verse 33 Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness unto the truth.This has led some to suppose that the witness in the preceding verse is John the Baptist and not the Father; but the very next words of Christ reveal that this reference to John is parenthetical, introduced for possible benefit to Jesus' hearers, but not as that witness of himself needed or received in this context, because it was "from men." Ye have sent unto John ... refers to the deputation (John 1:19) sent out by the priests and to the positive witness of Christ which was borne by the great herald (John 1:19-35; John 3:23-36). The hierarchy should have believed John's witness: (1) that Jesus is the Christ; (2) that Jesus is the Messiah; (3) that Jesus is the Bridegroom; and (4) that Jesus is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Also John declared that "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). This passing reference to John's witness, however, is parenthetical. Verse 34 But the witness which I receive is not from man: howbeit I say these things that ye might be saved.From man ... Thus John the Baptist was not the witness Christ here called on his own behalf. The Saviour did not appeal to human testimony at all. That ye might be saved ... This explains the reason for the parenthetical statement regarding John, whose witness was indeed mighty and should have been received by the priests. The witness of the great Herald was for the benefit of Israel, and for that purpose Jesus repeated it here; but his office of Messiah rested upon more solid testimony than that of any man. Verse 35 He was the lamp which burneth and shineth; and ye were willing to rejoice for a season in his light.He was ... suggests that at this time John had already been cast into prison. Ye were willing ... shows that what willingness they had shown at first no longer existed. There is a subtle but powerful argument here which meant, "Look, you wrongfully changed your position regarding John the Baptist." Lamp ... light ... A lamp in not a light, but the bearer of light; but we may not make too much of this metaphor, since Jesus himself is called the "Lamp" of the eternal city by this same author (Revelation 21:23). Verse 36 But the witness that I have is greater than that of John; for the works the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.John performed no miracle; and there was a strong opinion within the very group Jesus was addressing, an opinion stated by Nicodemus that "We know that no man can do the signs thou doest, except God be with him" (John 3:2). Also, God had spoken out of heaven in broad open daylight in the presence of thousands saying, "This is my beloved Son." The works of Jesus, empowered by God, were the most fantastically powerful deeds ever done on earth, nor has there ever been any successful denial that such world-shaking signs were literally and actually done by him. Feeding a multitude, walking on the sea, raising the dead again, and again, and again - all men, like Nicodemus, should know that only God could have done such things. Verse 37 And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form.Another phase of the Father's witness regarded the Son of God himself, standing bodily before their eyes. His very presence on earth was a witness from God. Here was the Seed of woman, promised from the gates of Paradise; here was one whose birth was announced by the angels of God, one whom the sword of Herod could not slay, one whose life was sinless, perfect, and beautiful, one who spake as never man spoke, one whose questions as a twelve-year-old confounded the mightiest doctors of religion, and one whose delivery into the world had been since the days of Abraham the sole purpose of God's patient forbearance with the chosen people. Jesus' very person, in the full glory of his perfection, was truly the Father's witness of himself. Ye have neither heard his voice ... seen his form ... How blind they were and deaf, that, in the presence of Christ himself, they could hear nothing but the voice of their own prejudice and see nothing but a contradiction of their picayune sabbath rules. How insensitive are all who will not believe in Jesus! Verse 38 And ye have not this word abiding in you: for whom he sent, ye believe not.In the chapter heading, mention was made of the three witnesses of Christ presented here; but, in the ultimate sense, they are but one witness, that of God. Its three phases are: (1) the works given of the Father to Jesus, (2) the person of the Son himself, and (3) the sacred Scriptures themselves also of God. This verse introduces the third phase of the Father's witness, that of the Holy Scriptures. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Sheep market is from the Greek word , which Thayer defines, "the sheep-gate." The Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) uses the same word, and Donnegan defines it, "Pertaining to sheep, or to cattle, especially sheep." This spot is mentioned in Nehemiah 3:1; Nehemiah 3:32. Porch is from STOA, which the lexicon of Thayer defines, "a portico, a covered colonnade where people can stand or walk, protected from the weather and the heat of the sun." 4 The greater part of this paragraph is omitted from some translations, on the ground that some early Greek manuscripts do not contain it. I have consulted the information that is available to me, with the result that the subject is left in an indefinite state. Perhaps it is because there is little evidence of importance on the controversy. Various kinds of miracles were performed in ancient times, and the one described in this passage would not be entirely out of line with the Lord's manner of doing things. However, whether -the miracle actually occurred as stated, or that the people had a tradition on which they relied, is immaterial as far as the work of Jesus is concerned. That some periodical disturbance of the water took place need not be disputed. Jesus did not make any controversy about the doctrine of "Transmigration of souls" (Matthew 14:2), but healed the blind man independently of it. The writer does not show Jesus as even referring to the question of this agitation of the pool, therefore I shall comment on the remaining verses in their order. 5 This man's case was chronic, for he had been afflicted 38 years. 6 Of course Jesus knew the history of the case, but his approach to the patient was made in the spirit of a sympathetic well-wisher. The patient did not know the identity of Jesus (verse 13) until sometime afterward. 7 The impotent (weak or feeble) man had confidence in the curative properties of the water, whatever was the basis of that belief. He explained to Jesus why he was compelled to lie there from time to time, not getting any relief from his illness. 8 Jesus made no reference to the proposition in connection with the pool, but bade the man not only to arise, but to carry his bed as he walked. 9 A nervous person might be induced to bestir himself momentarily, by the influence of suggestion. But it would require something more than "mind over matter" to enable a man who had been physically helpless for 38 years, not only to walk, but to carry a bed that was large enough to support a man. His recovery was complete and immediate, because that was what Jesus willed to be accomplished in this case. In that of the nobleman's son (preceding chapter), Jesus only professed to start him on the road to recovery, which was done by causing the "temperature" to drop to normal. That feat was also immediate, for it was done the "same hour" that Jesus spoke the word. 0 The Jews were not candid enough to object to the curing of the impotent man, but pretended to be opposed to breaking the sabbath. 1 The man did not express any conclusion, but the facts he related implied one that could not be disputed. Anyone could tell a man to get up and carry his bed, but not everyone who might say that could enable the patient to do so. This combination of facts was the strongest kind of evidence that it was no ordinary person who had befriended the impotent man. 2 We are not told whether the Jews suspected who the man's benefactor was, but it is reasonable to suppose they did, in view of their hatred for Him. 3After Jesus cured the weak man, He took advantage of the crowd to disappear. Hence the former victim of the affliction told the truth, if he stated he did not know who it was who told him to carry his bed. 4 Sin no more. We are not informed what sin the man had committed, that brought on him the chronic case of physical prostration. And it did not have to be a miraculous punishment, although God did sometimes send physical Judgments upon people in the days of miracles. But there are some sins of a moral nature, that can result in serious consequences to a man's health. But if this man should be so ungrateful as to sin again, the Lord would not wait for nature to inflict a penalty upon him, but would send one Himself, that would be worse than the affliction he had this time. 5 The meeting of Jesus and the man in the temple, and the conversation which they had, revealed to the former impotent man who his benefactor was. He seems to have thought the Jews had asked him the question about the identity of his friend, for the sake of information. Now that he has learned who he was, he felt that he should give them the information he could not before. 6 The Jews evidently knew that Jesus was going about doing good to the people, and that he was likely the one who had healed the impotent man. But their envy of Him was made more bitter because the man had learned about the identity of his friend, and seemed to be interested in His work. The envy of the Jews became so active they had a desire to kill Him. 7 The Jews were so bitter against Jesus that they accused him of breaking the sabbath. Jesus made his reply by asserting his relation with God as his Father, and his cooperation with Him in the good work. The Jews made great claims of respect for God, and would never admit that He would violate the very day that he had declared to be holy. Now that Jesus claimed his work (even on the sab-bath) to be as a co-worker with God, it was more than they could stand. 8 A new cause for murderous hatred was furnished the Jews by the answer of Jesus. They pretended to be outraged at his claim of being the Son of God. 9 This verse expresses a situation that is generally true in principle. A dutiful son will logically imitate the actions of his father. Since God does not hesitate to bestow works of mercy on the unfortunate, even on the sabbath day, so the Son may properly do the same without being condemned as a breaker of the holy day. 0 On the principle set forth in the preceding verse, a loving and divine Father will take his Son into his confidence, and inform him of the great things that are being done through Providential benevolence. And there were to be still greater things done than the healing of an afflicted man on the sabbath day. 1 One of the works that are greater than healing a sick man, is that of raising a man from the dead. The Son was destined also to perform that great work of quickening the dead by the sound of his voice. 2 Hath committed all judgment unto the Son. This was said in prospect, looking to the time when the Son would complete the test. (See Matthew 28:18.) 3 Men are required to recognize the close relationship between the Father and the Son, in order to receive the favor of either of them. 4 The subject in the preceding verse is continued in this as to the close partnership between the Father and the Son. The passage adds the results for those who recognize that union, by showing a practical belief in the same. Death and life refers to spiritual matters, because all who refuse to accept God and Christ and obey their law will be condemned to everlasting death. 5 This passage pertains to the same death and life as that in the preceding verse. To hear the voice of the Son of God in the sense of this statement, means to heed and obey His requirements; a dead faith will not save. 6 A father transfers his characteristics to his offspring as an established rule. This relation between God and Christ is no exception to the rule, for Jesus is able to impart spiritual life to those who will accept it, because He is the Son of the life-giving God. 7 This inheritance that. Christ received from his Father, entitled him to be the executioner of the divine judgment upon the world. 8 Jesus passes from figurative and spiritual language, to literal or physical. The graves are the enclosures for the bodies of those who have died, through separation of soul and body. These dead shall be brought out of their graves literally by the call of Jesus on the day of the general resurrection. 9 There will be only one literal resurrection day, on which all of the dead will come forth. The fact of coming from the dead will not depend upon character or conduct, for the whole human family that has died will come forth. The hour that the voice of Christ calls is the one instant when the tremendous event will occur. But as to what will be awaiting them after coming to life again, that does depend on their conduct, as stated in this verse. This resurrection and what will follow is predicted in Daniel 12:2. 0 This is the same teaching as that in verse 19. 1 Bear witness of myself. This means if His testimony is by itself, and not in harmony with that of his Father. That is why Jesus always worked in harmony with God, so that their united efforts would verify each other. 2 Not only did God verify the Sonship of Christ (Matthew 3:17), but there was another among men who added his testimony to the divine witness, to be named soon. 3 John the Baptist was the other witness referred to above. The time the Jews sent to inquire of John is recorded in chapter 1:19-27. 4 I receive not testimony from man. This denotes that Jesus did not depend on human testimony for his authority. That ye might be saved. The standing of Jesus did not depend upon human testimony. However, the salvation of men does depend on their faith, and Jesus was willing to cite them to any truth that would strengthen their faith. The corroborating testimony of John was a help in that direction. 5 The Jews had once shown much admiration for the work of John. If they became cool toward that testimony, that would not weaken its truthfulness. 6 The works to which Jesus refers are those mentioned in chapter 20:30, 31. Had he been an impostor, he could not have performed these deeds. 7 No man in normal flesh ever saw the form or person of God, for to do so would mean his death (Exodus 33:20). But God wished human beings to have the testimony of Him, hence he furnished it by aiding the Son to perform the miraculous works. 8 The gist of this verse, is that all who will nourish the word of God in their hearts, will signify it by accepting that of His Son, whom he hath sent into the world in the form of human flesh. 9 As the King James translators word this verse, it sounds like a command or directive, telling the Jews to go and search the scriptures. Several other versions have the pronoun "ye" before the word "search," and the inflection of the word in the Greek composition justifies it. The context also bears out that form of rendering. Jesus was showing the Jews another of their inconsistencies. They professed to have so much confidence in the Old Testament that they would search its pages to find the conditions on which they could obtain eternal life. And yet, that very document had told the Jews that a person like Christ was to come. 0 The one person that their Scriptures predicted should come into the world to save it, these Jews refused to accept that they might be saved. 1 This could not mean that no man honored Jesus, for even the "common people (the crowds) heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37). It denotes that Jesus was not depending on human support for his standing. 2 This accusation that Jesus made was logical, and based on the close relationship and attachment that God and his Son have for each other. If they loved God from the heart (and not merely from the lips), they would necessarily love his Son, which the Jews did not, or they would not be wanting to kill him. 3 It is hard to understand why false teachers can have more suc cess in leading people than the true. Perhaps it is because such characters are unscrupulous about the means they will use to put over their theories. 4 Those who receive honor from men are selfish, and also feel obligated to "return the favor" to the others. Such worldly-minded persons cannot have much respect for the testimony of God, which requires them to disown themselves. 5 The thought in this verse is that Jesus is not alone in condemning these Jews. The giver of the law of which they boasted to be followers, already accused them by his predictions. In Deuteronomy 18:18-20, Moses predicted that a prophet was to come among the Jews, and we know that was Christ. In that prophecy, a condemnation is uttered against the man who would not hearken to the words of that prophet. 6 When the Jews rejected Jesus it was the same as rejecting Moses. 7 Reasoning back the other direction, Jesus concludes they are bound to disbelieve his words, when they reject the words of their boasted lawgiver. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Six A MIRACLE AND A IN GALILEE John 6:1-71 FEEDING OF FIVE John 6:1-141 After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.—The Sea of Galilee is known as the Sea of Tiberias and the Sea of Chinneroth. Around this sea the Jews that lived in Galilee very greatly collected. Several towns or villages sprang up on its shores. The chief of these was Capernaum. Jesus, after he began his public ministry, seems to have made this his home so far as he had a home on earth. Capernaum was situated on the western shore of this sea. 2 And a great multitude followed him,—The eastern shore was an uninhabited wilderness and to it Jesus frequently went and the people would follow him and in the quiet of the wilderness he would teach them. because they beheld the signs which he did on them that were sick.—They followed him, attracted by the miracles he performed; and while they did not believe in him, they brought the sick and afflicted, and he healed them. So far as the record shows, Jesus never left a soul in suffering that appealed for help to him. 3 And Jesus went up into the mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.—This mountain was on the east side of the Sea of Galilee. 4 Now the passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.—The feast of the Passover came on the fourteenth day of the month Abib or Nisan. If we count the feast mentioned in John 5:1 as a Passover feast, this is the third Passover since the baptism of Jesus. It shows that John recorded but little of what Jesus said or did in the earlier years of his public ministry. Only what is given in the fifth chapter is of what he did and taught during these years and yet Jesus was not idle. 5 Jesus therefore lifting up his eyes, and seeing that a great multitude cometh unto him, saith unto Philip, Whence are we to buy bread, that these may eat?—The country was dry, the temperature pleasant, and the people, accustomed to an outdoor and migratory life, followed Jesus without one idea as to how long they would remain and were detained by his teaching and became hungry. And Jesus saw fit to feed this multitude that had remained until hungry and weakend by the fasting. 6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.—He said this to try Philip and prepare him for what he intended to do. 7 Philip answered him, Two hundred shillings’ worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one may take a little.—Philip made a calculation of the number to be fed, of the amount they would eat, and of the cost. [Wisdom here for us in counting the cost before undertaking a thing. It equaled thirty dollars.] 8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’ s brother, saith unto him,—[Andrew’ s answer to the question of Jesus is recorded in Mark 6:38. He requested them to examine and re¬port the amount of food they had.] 9 There is a lad here, who hath five barley loaves, and two fishes: but what are these among so many?—They were in the wilderness where food could not be obtained, and Andrew suggested that they had these few loaves and fishes as the only chance for bread of which he knew. [Barley was the food only of the lower classes. Probably this was the whole stock of food at the command of the disciples— no more than enough for them.] 10 Jesus said, Make the people sit down.—There is no doubt in the movement or purposes of Jesus. Without ostentation or boasting he proposed and effected the most stupendous and impossible things with all the assurance and composure that others undertake the most commonplace affairs of life. So he seated the multitude. Now there was much grass in the place.—It was April, the time for grass and flowers. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.— [“ About,” not exactly five thousand. Mark tells that they sat down in companies. About one loaf to every thousand men. Matthew states “ besides women and children.” How many of these is not stated.] 11 Jesus therefore took the loaves; and having given thanks, he distributed to them that were set down; likewise also of the fishes as much as they would.—He gave thanks for all he received, and gave to his disciples, most probably his apostles, and they to the multitude. In the breaking it was increased and multiplied. [It is said that the Jews considered it was stealing from God to eat without first offering thanks. Jesus always offered thanks and so should all Christians.] 12 And when they were filled, he saith unto his disciples, Gather up the broken pieces which remain over, that nothing be lost.—Their hunger was satisfied, and as if to teach the sin of wastefulness he commands the disciples to gather up what remained. God in all the processes of nature avoids waste. What appears to be the waste of one creature is the life of another. One would think where things come apparently so easily there would be little use for saving [but God does not allow wastefulness at any time. Nature wastes nothing. Soil washed from the hills and mountains, God catches in the valleys and low places. It is the waste of man that brings want. It is by the waste of fragments that the great wastes occur. The waste of our nation is appalling. There is food enough for all if handled properly by man. God through nature will furnish it if man will use wisdom in producing and saving it. Christ bids us save; save the fragments.] 13 So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves, which remained over unto them that had eaten.—This was a miracle manifesting creative power. A miracle is the bestowing on others the power to do what God only can do. It is done to attest the presence and power of God in the person who performs the miracle to show that he acts and speaks for God, so in hearing him he hears God. There is no more power exerted in a miracle than is put forth in the ordinary provisions of nature. It did not require more power or wisdom to make this bread and these fishes than was used in devising and putting in force the processes of the material world by which men and animals have been fed through all the years of their existence. The difference is that this last is done in accordance with the fixed working, and points back to a wise Creator and Ruler, but does not definitely point out that Creator and Ruler. The miracle points out the person who represents and speaks for the Creator and Ruler of all things. This and all the miracles or signs that Jesus wrought testify to the world that he spoke and acted by the authority of God. [Simply feeding five thousand was no miracle; for the reason God fed them and the rest of the world the day before and the day following and all the time through natural laws. The way in which God did it constituted a miracle.] 14 When therefore the people saw the sign which he did, they said, This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world.—The conclusion reached was that he was the prophet that it had been foretold would come into the world by Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-19), and referred to by the delegation sent to visit John the Baptist (1: 21). This prophet was to be the king of Israel, the head of the kingdom of God on earth. They acknowledged: “ This is the Christ.” JESUS AND HIS RECROSS THE LAKEJoh_6:15-2115 Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king,—The Jews sup¬posed that this prophet was to be a king that would deliver them from bondage, and they went about to make him a king. The faith of these Jews seems to have been impulsive and mo¬mentary. When they saw the manifestation of power they were aroused, but when cooled down their faith passed away. They went about to make him their king, hoping that he would deliver them from bondage to the Roman rulers. Jesus felt the human love of power, was flattered by the favor shown him, and felt the human temptation to yield. Paul says that he “ hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15.) He resisted the temptation, sent away his disciples (Matthew 14:22), and [he went into the mountain alone. Convinced that he was Christ, they sought to proclaim him king, to raise his standard, and establish his government.] withdrew again into the mountain himself alone.—For a season of prayer and communion with his Father. When Jesus was tempted and tried, overcome as a human being with labor, or had important work pressing on him, he sought the seclusion of the mountain and the coming of night for contin¬ued seasons of prayer to God. (Luke 6:12 Luke 9:28.) 16 And when evening came, his disciples went down unto the sea;—[Matthew (14: 22) says Jesus sent them away by boat, then sent the multitude away, and he withdrew into the mountain to pray.] 17 and they entered into a boat, and were going over the sea unto Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.—[It was a small fishing boat, but large enough to carry at least twelve. It was propelled by oars. Mark says to Bethsaida, but this was on the way to Caper¬naum. Mark specifies the first landing place and John the end of the journey.] 18 And the sea was rising by reason of a great wind that blew.—The Sea of Galilee, a comparatively small body of water, about six miles wide, could be quickly thrown into high waves by the winds that would come down from the sur¬rounding mountains. 19 When therefore they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs,—There are eight furlongs in a mile. Had they gone in a straight course they would have been about the center of the sea. Owing to the winds and waves they were doubtless thrown out of their course. Some think they drifted along the east shore from which they started. they behold Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the boat:—After they had gone this far they saw Jesus coming. Matthew (14: 25) says it was in the fourth watch, or between three o’ clock and day. He walked on the sea while it was agitated by the winds and the waves rolled. Matthew (14: 26) says they thought it was “ a ghost,” a disembodied spirit. It is a new work in which to see Jesus. and they were afraid.—[Mark reports that they cried out in fright.] 20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.—They were familiar with the tone of his voice and his speech allayed their fears. 21 They were willing therefore to receive him into the boat: and straightway the boat was at the land whither they were going.—Matthew (Matthew 14:28-33) tells of Peter’ s request to come to Jesus on the water, his attempt, Jesus entering into the boat, the allaying of the storm, and their landing whither they were going. [Christ was their salvation. He can also calm the troubled soul and carry it safely to heaven.] THE JESUSJoh_6:22-2722 On the morrow the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other boat there, save one, and that Jesus entered not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples went away alone—Some of the people seem to have been at the same place the next day. They had seen the apostles leave without Jesus, and had known of no way of his leaving, so expected to find him at the place they had left him. 23 (howbeit there came boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks):—The other boats that came later were those still there, and in which the people in some of them crossed over to the other side. 24 when the multitude therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they themselves got into the boats, and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.—The people, knowing that Jesus did not go with the disciples and having no other means of going, took the boats that were there and came to Capernaum seeking him. 25 And when they found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when earnest thou hither?—Their curiosity to know how he crossed the sea was uppermost in their minds. The multitudes that he had fed sought him on the east side of the Sea of Galilee, where he had fed them, and not finding him they crossed over to Capernaum and found him on the west side of the sea— the other side from where they had eaten. They did not understand how he came, as they knew he did not come with his disciples, so asked the question how he came over. They addressed him as “ Rabbi.” This means “ teacher” or master in the sense of teacher. It was ap¬plied by the Jews to their teachers, and frequently to Jesus as a recognition of his wisdom and superiority as a teacher. As applied to Jesus, it was a recognition that he was a teacher sent from God. Jesus did not answer their question but re¬sponded : 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled.—Instead of gratifying their cu¬riosity he sought to reprove them for seeking him for the food he gave them. While not answering their question, he tells them a truth that laid bare their hearts— that is, that they were not interested in the miracles he performed as manifesta¬tions of divine presence, but because they ate of the food and were filled. They were not interested in the great truths as was teaching as affecting their spiritual and eternal interests and God’ s glory and honor. That class of people exists yet and in our country. Have a meeting at which food is abun¬dantly provided and many will attend who take no interest in the preaching, but are attracted by the dinner provided. They are not specially vicious people, but fleshly people, who are satisfied with enough to fill the belly. 27 Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed.—He diverted their minds to the great spiritual truths that he would give them as meat that would endure unto eternal life. The Father owned and confessed him as his prophet to teach the world. He makes use of this occurrence to impress the importance of seeking spiritual good that will result in eternal or imperishable blessings. The material food they ate per¬ishes ; the body sustained by this food perishes, but the spirit lives forever, and the food which sustains and promotes its well-being is spiritual food that perishes not. Jesus was drawing the distinction and contrast between the body and the spirit, and between the food that sustains the vigor of the body and that which promotes the well-being of the soul. REMARKS ABOUT THE BREAD OF LIFEJoh_6:28-4028 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God?—They recognized that when he said, “ Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life,” he began to tell them to do the work of God that they may have life. They recognized that God’ s work would endure forever, and to do the work of God was to labor for the meat that will endure forever, so they asked what they should do in order that they may do that work. They understood, too, that to do what God required them to do was to do the work of God. The meaning then was: what does God require us to do that we may inherit everlasting life? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.—The work that God requires of them is to believe in Jesus Christ whom God hath sent to represent him. Believing in Christ is the work of God because appointed by God. It is to be done by man, for man must believe. This is a work performed by the inner, spiritual man. A careful study of this truth will help to solve several difficulties that give trouble in the religious world. The question of salvation by works has troubled the world. A clear understanding of the different senses in which the term works is used would help to settle this difficulty. It is used in two distinct senses— the works of God and the works of man. Salvation is often attributed to the former: never to the latter. The works of God are those works ordained by God for man to do, not works which God himself does. The works of man are those devised by man. A work ordained by God for one dispensation or for one class of persons, taken from this and transferred to another class, becomes in this latter a work of man. The verse illustrates the truth that the works of God are works ordained by God to be performed by man. 30 They said therefore unto him, What then doest thou for a sign, that we may see, and believe thee? what workest thou? —They understood that he meant they were to believe in him as the Son of God. “ If we are to believe on you, what sign, or miracle, do you give as evidence on which our faith in you may rest?” It was rather singular to ask this question when they had just seen the loaves and the fishes increased to feed the thousands and they had eaten of it. They ask again, “ What workest thou?” What miracle, or sign, do you work that we may believe on you? This was demanding testimony while refusing to believe that already given. 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.—They follow up this request by referring to the manna that God gave to the fathers in the wilderness. This was a work, or sign, given the fathers that they might believe on God. Now what kind of work do you do that we may believe on you? It is probable that they expected him to feed them, without labor on their part, through life as a sign. 32 Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven.—Je¬sus seizes this reference to the manna to show that this manna was not real spiritual bread sent down from God. He again emphasizes the truth he tells them. “ It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven.” The bread Moses gave you came not from heaven. It was material (earthly) bread for the support of the body. “ My Father giveth you the true bread.” The true bread that God gave from heaven was spiritual, and will bring spiritual life. In verse 49 he tells them, “ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.” Hence, it could not be-the spiritual bread that comes from heaven. Verse 50: “ This is the bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” In verse 51 he says: “ I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.” The manna that Moses gave the fathers was an earthly (perishable) food— a type of the true bread that comes from heaven in the person of Jesus Christ that brought eternal life to man. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world.—He follows up this thought by the assurance that he was the true bread from God and he came to give life to the world. The bread that would strengthen their souls and give to them eternal life was Jesus Christ, which came down from heaven, and who giveth life to the world. Jesus Christ “ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” (2 Timothy 1:10.) “ I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6.) Jesus came to earth to make known to man the life— the immortal life at the right hand of the Father, and to guide men into this life. He alone can give life to man. 34 They said therefore unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.—When they heard such great good would come from it they asked for this bread that they might not die, but live the fleshly life forever. This is the same effect it had upon the woman at the well in Samaria. She asked for the water that she might have to draw no more, for the well was deep. These people desired the bread that would perpetuate life without labor, but they had no conception that it meant to give up all the fleshly enjoyments and to deny self and live the life of holiness that Jesus lived. “ Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (Verse 66.) The desertion was so general that Jesus asked of his apostles, “ Would ye also go away?” Simon Peter answered, “ To whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” The meaning is, these people were willing to eat the food he provided, and to enjoy the blessings he bestowed, but when they saw that his teaching meant a denial of self to serve and honor him— a walk with Jesus in a life of humility and self-denial— they forsook him. It is yet true that the great masses of mankind are willing to enjoy the blessings of God, but not to obey him. They are willing to reign with him, but not to suf¬fer with him. But none may reign with him unless they are willing to suffer with him. None can enjoy the blessings un-less they are willing to serve him here. 35 Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that com¬eth to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.—Jesus is the spiritual bread and will give spiritual and eternal life to all who obey him. They, like the woman of Samaria, found it difficult to rise above the thoughts of their fleshly body and its appetites and desires. This is an explanation of what is meant. Jesus himself was the bread of life. To believe on him with an earnest, living faith was to eat his flesh and drink his blood. So he that came to him by faith and submission to him would never hunger, and he that believed on him should never thirst— that is, he who comes to Jesus trusts in him, is led by him, does his will, as did the Father’ s will, shall have all the wants of the soul satisfied. This was an important lesson and brought the requirements of self-denial home to his followers so that all fair-weather followers forsook him and followed him no more. 36 But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not.—The reason they could not receive that life was that he had shown himself in his teachings and many works he had done in their presence, yet they refused to believe in him so refused to do the work of God. 37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; —There is a recognition in the scripture that certain classes of persons with honest hearts desirous to know and do the right are God’ s people, and will do what God desires them to do. That class is here represented as given to Christ by God. In the tenth chapter Christ speaks of having sheep not of the flock then with him, referring to the Gentiles who would receive him when he was preached to them. Again, at Corinth God told Paul, “ I have much people in this city” (Acts 18:9-10) before any of them had confessed him. Certain persons fitted in character to receive God’ s word are called his people before they confess him. This explains the calling and pre¬destination of the Bible. God has called and predestinated to eternal life all willing to receive him. and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.—All that class Jesus receives. Some who are not of this class re¬ceive him temporarily, but lack depth of character and under temptation fall away. Judas was an example of this character of people. 38 For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.—The end of all God’ s dealings with men is to bring them to do the will of God. Jesus came from heaven to earth to lead men in this way. tie had no will of his own apart from the will of God. To do that will was the supreme and only object of Jesus and should be of his followers. 39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.—God’ s will was that Jesus should save all who would believe and follow him. This he does. That some start out to follow, turn back, walk with him no more, and are lost does not disprove this truth. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that be-holdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.—It is God’ s will that all who will obey Jesus should have eternal life. These Jesus will raise up at the last day. They have the faculties to see and believe that God desires them to use them in believing the truths he presents them. If they refuse they damn themselves. THE PEOPLE MURMUR AND JESUS Joh_6:41-5141 The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, I am the bread which came down out of heaven.—The Jews did not understand his meaning or see how he could be the bread of life. They looked at it all from a materialistic standpoint. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I am come down out of heaven?—They knew his earthly origin, his reputed father and mother, and how could the claim be made? It seemed impossible and absurd to them. 43 Jesus answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.— [This is a rebuke. They were not honest inquir¬ers, but cavilers.] 44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.—None could come to Jesus unless taught and drawn by the Father. [Two elements are concerned in coming to Christ. Namely, the mans will and the divine drawing. No man comes unless he wills to come. “ Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.’ ' (John 5:40.) Jesus said to Jerusalem, “ How often would I have gathered thy children . . . and ye would not. Man can refuse to come and God does not compel, but he says “ he that will, let him take the water of life freely.” This is the human side. On the divine side God “ draws,” not so as to force man’ s will, but to induce the desire to come. The gospel “ is the power of God unto salvation.” It is the drawing power. It draws by its manifestation of the love of God, by its revelation of the crucified Savior, and his adaptation to the needs of the soul. If man’ s will consents, and he yields to the drawing power, he comes. If he “ will not,” and refuses to be drawn, he does not come. God will not force him. No one comes to Jesus unless he yields his own will and is drawn by the love of the Father manifested in the gospel. He draws men to Christ by the gospel, then Christ takes up the work and will raise them from the dead “ in the last day.” ] 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God.—God through all the ages of the past had been trying and making ready a people to receive the Christ when he came. None could receive him save those who had been taught and prepared by God. [Jesus is more explicit how the Father draws men to Christ. It is by teaching men. All taught of God, who have heard and learned of the Father, come to Christ.] Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.—This means the same, “ If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46.) Those who had in faith received the teachings of Moses and the prophets were prepared to receive Jesus. God drew them by the teachings he gave them. And those who had received these teachings of God received Jesus when he came. [It is what one learns from the teaching that makes him will¬ing to come.] 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he that is from God, he hath seen the Father.—The drawing of God was through his servants, the prophets, and teachers he had sent into the world. [We do not learn of God by seeing and hear¬ing him personally, but we learn of his will from Jesus.] 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life.—Jesus came into the world to give eternal life to those who believe in him. They have it in promise, and the germs of eternal life are implanted in the heart through faith in Christ Jesus. These germs need to be treasured and culti¬vated that they may bear fruit in the resurrection. [Jesus af¬firms that faith in him is the source of life.] 48 I am the bread of life.—Jesus is the means and source of spiritual and eternal life as bread is the source and support of material life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.—The manna was the bread given them to support them through the journey to the earthly Canaan, as Jesus was to support them in the journey to the heavenly Canaan. But the manna was not life giving, for those who ate of it died. 50 This is the bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.—Those who partook of the true bread of heaven should never die. 51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven:—Jesus himself possessed life and could impart it to others. His life was spiritual and eternal. if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.—To make his will our will and to live according to his will is to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood— make his life our life. To do this is to eat his flesh and drink his blood and his life he gave for the life of the world. MORE AND ANOTHER Joh_6:52-5952 The Jews therefore strove one with another, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?—The Jews in the grossness of their nature could not perceive the spiritual truths and so murmured over the impossibility of the truths. 53 Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.—Insisted on the truth he had told them and that unless they made his life their life they would have no life— the life he gave— in them. 54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.—He who makes the life of Jesus his life hath eternal life and Jesus will raise him up to the enjoyment of eternal life at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.—The making of the life of Jesus one’ s life indeed or true spiritual life. 56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.—He who makes the life of Jesus his life abides in Jesus and Jesus is in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father;—The Father has eternal life. He “ only hath immortality,” and Jesus receives life from him and lives by or through him. so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.— As Jesus receives life from the Father and lives by him, so the disciples were to receive life from Christ and live by or from him. As Jesus made the Father’ s will his will and so lived by the Father, so we make the will of Jesus our will and live by him. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven: not as the fathers ate, and died; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.—He as the bread from heaven possesses the eternal life and those who receive this life from him will never die, but with him live forever. [The food the fathers ate in the wilderness sustained temporary life for a season, but could not impart it, for it was dead food. The bread from heaven is en¬dued with life, and therefore gives eternal life.] 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.—Capernaum was now the home of Jesus and these things were taught in the synagogue there. BY THE John 6:60-6560 Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?—Many who claimed to be his disciples and after a kind believed in him when they heard these things were dissatisfied and turned back and no more followed him. These people really believed in him with the power of faith they possessed; but lacked depth of character or strength of character to withstand the fleshly desires and so turned back. 61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stum¬ble?—Jesus’ knowledge of their fleshly appetites called out this question. [The disciples could not take in what had just been said. They expected an earthly king, not a crucified Savior. Hence, they murmured and were offended.] 62 What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before?—Jesus knowing he would return to the Father from whom he had come asked this question to inti¬mate that they would see or know this, and what would they think if they should see him do it? 63 It is the spirit that giveth life;—The trouble was in getting these people to see and understand that he was telling them great spiritual truths and not material and fleshly. The spirit in man is the permanent and abiding principle of his being. God’ s spirit quickens this spirit of man, giving life to it— eternal life. The flesh and fleshly relations are temporal and will pass away. the flesh profiteth nothing:—The flesh gives no real profit. The fleshly relation to Abraham on which they relied was no profit. the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life.—The words of Jesus were the teachings of the Spirit and would bring life to them who received them. In Christ Jesus the Spirit of God dwells. He is the ever-present representative of the Godhead dwelling in his body here on earth. (Ephesians 2:2.) After man sinned and the world was sin-defiled, God found no true dwelling place on earth among men until the spiritual temple was built. Then, through the Spirit, he dwelt in that temple with his children on earth. There was a material, typical building, the earthly temple; but this was only a shadow of the heavenly power or essence. His word is full of spirit and imbued with life-giving power. “ The word of God is the seed of the kingdom.” In the seed the germinal, or life principle, dwells. (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23.) The germinal principle of life dwells in the seed, and the word of God is an incorruptible seed; it never can be despoiled of its life principle. The Spirit of God dwells in and works through the laws he has given. (Romans 8:2.) The quickening principle dwells dormant in the seed until it comes into favorable surroundings, then it germinates or is quickened into a new being. The word of God, as the seed, is received into the heart and it germinates into life. The Spirit of God not only quickens into life, but promotes the growth of the life imparted. 64 But there are some of you that believe not.—Notwithstanding all the works and words of Jesus to the Jews, there were many that disbelieved, and he explains it directly to the disciples and the chosen twelve. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that be¬lieved not, and who it was that should betray him.—Jesus knew who was lacking in that strength of character that would cause him, when the temptation came, to betray him. 65 And he said, For his cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.—Because many would forsake him, and Judas would betray him, he gave them this warning that none could come except the Father draw him. This class was not drawn by the Father in that they had not hearkened to his teachings. God had given them to him. See verses 44 and 45. JESUS BY ALL BUT THE TWELVEJoh_6:66-7166 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.—Many who were his disciples followed him, learning of him and believing in him, but could not endure the difficulties presented. Their faith was not strong enough to lead them to endure the teaching he presented and turned back from following him. 67 Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, Would ye also go away?—A feeling of depression and temporary despondency seems to have crept over the soul of Jesus when he asked this question of the twelve. It would indicate that the great number of his other disciples had left him and gone away. 68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? —Peter with his accustomed boldness and frankness responds. He knew of none other who could bring eternal life. That is the only thing worth living for in this world. This indicates the depth of his thoughts and his appreciation of the teaching of Jesus. thou hast the words of eternal life.—Only the words of Jesus can give us the words of eternal life. [The world may well ask this question. If it turns from Christ, to whom shall it go? He only has the words of eternal life.] Many followed for a time, especially when the loaves and the fishes abounded, but when self-denial was required the multitudes turned back and “ walked no more with him.” A feeling of discouragement seems to have crept over Jesus and he turned to his disciples and asked, “ Would ye also go away?” Of the multitudes that were taught by him during his mission on earth, only a few were with him at his betrayal and death. A multitude welcomed him to Jerusalem when he came to the Pass¬over feast with shouts of “ Hosanna to the King!” In a few days the multitude cried, “ Crucify him, crucify him!” One of his chosen twelve betrayed him, another denied him, and all forsook him. 69 And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.—He here gives his full appreciation of Jesus and his mission of guiding to eternal life. 70 Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?—As Peter had confessed Christ and had given assurance of the confidence of the twelve in him, he in turn assures them he had chosen the twelve as his followers and his disciples and they had the promise of the life that he gave; but that one of the number would fail and be lost. [The shadow of sorrow is still upon his heart.] 71 Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.—It was not yet known among the disciples or even Judas that he would betray him. The apostle John writing this years after¬ward told that Judas was the man whom Jesus knew from the beginning possessed a demon and would betray him. [Peter having made this confession for himself and the rest of the apostles that they would not depart from Jesus whom they believed to be the true Messiah, the Son of the living God; Christ intimates to Peter that his charity was something too large in promising so much for them all; for there was one traitor among them whose heart was as open to Christ as his face was to them. He meant it of Judas, of whose treachery he gave them warning at this time. Jesus knew Judas was a hypocrite at this time, but did not rebuke Peter for having a better opinion of him than he deserved.] Verse 1 Christ the Bread of Life is the theme of this grand chapter. First, there was the fourth great sign (John 6:1-14), then the people's efforts to make him King (John 6:15), the fifth of the seven signs (John 6:16-21), next the discussions on the other side of the lake and the extended metaphor of the bread of life (John 6:22-51), then the "hard saying" regarding the eating of his flesh, etc. (John 6:52-59), and also the turn downward in the Lord's popularity (John 6:60-71). THE FOURTH SIGNIn the feeding of the five thousand, we have a miracle ranking with the resurrection itself as the only wonders recorded by all four Gospels. From the synoptics, it is clear that John passed over practically a full year of the great Galilean ministry which lay between the second and third Passovers. The synoptics record this sign as the culmination of a series of wonders, but John seems to have presented it for the sake of the discussions that flowed out of it; and it also fitted his design of stressing Jesus' deity. Regarding the allegation of discrepancies between John and the other Gospels in the narration of this wonder, it should be remembered that if the Gospels had been mere verbatim accounts there could have been no advantage of four independent witnesses. All of the alleged "contradictions" are easily explained through a little study, or would disappear completely if all the circumstances were known. As William Taylor's quotation from Alford indicates: I repeat the remark so often made in this commentary, that if we were in possession of the facts as they happened, there is no doubt that the various forms of the narratives would fall into their proper places, and the truthfulness of each writer would be apparent .... The humble and believing Christian ... will admire the gracious condescension which has given us so many independent witnesses whose very difference in detail makes their accordance in the great central truths so much more weighty ... That every detail related had its ground in historical fact we fully believe. It is the tracking it to this ground in each case which is now beyond our power; and here comes in the simplicity and reliance of faith.[1]In this connection, a sharp differentiation should be made between the natural variations in narratives by independent witnesses, and contradictions. Variations there are; but contradictions there are not. ENDNOTE: [1] William M. Taylor, The Miracles of Our Lord (New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1930), p. 271. After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberius. (John 6:1) After these things ... is an indication of an indefinite time lapse, in this case a whole year. The Lord's reason for withdrawing beyond Galilee was probably complex. His disciples needed rest and recuperation; John the Baptist had been put to death by Herod who was desirous of meeting Jesus, with inevitable overtones of danger to our Lord; and it seems likely that these and perhaps other considerations caused his decision to cross Galilee, thus taking himself beyond Herod's jurisdiction. Which is the sea of Tiberius ... At the time John wrote, near the end of the first century, this was the common name of Galilee, hence the explanation. Hendriksen stated that: It had many names: Sea of Chinnereth (Numbers 34:11), Sea of Chinneroth (Joshua 12:3), Lake Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), and the Sea of Tiberius (as here). The latter name, which in its modified form is still used, was derived from the city of Tiberius which was founded on its western shore by Herod Antipas in the year 22 A.D.[2]ENDNOTE: [2] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 217. Verse 2 And a great multitude followed him, because they beheld the signs he did on them that were sick. Insatiable human curiosity combined with the holiday atmosphere of the Passover season (John 6:4) to bring great throngs of people to Jesus. None knew any better than the Lord the undependable nature of such crowds and the essentially mundane motives and aspirations of the people. Regardless of their shortcomings, Jesus loved them, a fact very evident in what followed. Verse 3 And Jesus went up into the mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.The great crowds did not honor Jesus' wish to retire for a rest and recuperation with his disciples, but simply ran around the north end of the lake and gathered around him at Bethsaida Julius. Bethsaida Julius and Bethsaida of Galilee, although in two provinces, were separated by a narrow stream and were practically one town, situated on both sides of the Jordan as it enters the sea of Galilee on the north .... On the plain of Butaiha, a mile or two to the east, the five thousand were fed.[3]The mountain ... refers to the massive headland overlooking the grassy slopes where this sign was wrought. ENDNOTE: [3] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet's Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Co., 1925), p. 91. Verse 4 Now the passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.This is the key to the chronology of the chapter and shows that about a year had elapsed since the healing at the pool of Bethesda, just mentioned in the preceding chapter. The passover ... explains the great throngs of people and also points to the Exodus when the Passover was set up, and making it an extremely appropriate time for the teaching on the bread of life, contrasting with the feeding of the people in the wilderness. Verse 5 Jesus therefore lifting up his eyes, and seeing that a great multitude cometh unto him, saith unto Philip, Whence are we to buy bread that these may eat?In the synoptics, it was recorded that the disciples approached Jesus with this problem, but that was probably at a much later hour. Why Philip was confronted with the problem may be seen in Jesus' desire to help that disciple to greater spirituality in his thinking. Philip, however, does not appear to have benefited much. This same disciple showed the same lack of perception later (John 14:8). Verse 6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.John did not wish to leave an impression that Christ needed to ask such a question merely for information, hence the explanation. The Lord discerned the thoughts of all men; and one evident purpose of this Gospel is to bring into sharp focus the divine, supernatural character of the Lord Jesus. Verse 7 Philip answered him, Two hundred shillings' worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one may take a little.This coin was worth about eight pence half-penny, or nearly seventeen cents (the English Revised Version's margin); but the true value more accurately appears in the coin's being the amount of a day's wages (Matthew 20:9). Even a partial supply of bread for so many would have required the amount of money a man might have earned by 200 days' labor! Verse 8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him, There is a lad here, who hath five barley loaves, and two fishes; but what are these among so many?The finding of this lad with his small supply did not take place until after Christ had commanded the disciples to feed the people (Matthew 14:16-17); and even that they did not bring to Jesus until commanded to do so. Barley loaves were not the bakery-size loaves of our own times, but small flat cakes associated with the diet and eating habits of the poor. The small fishes were used as a relish with the bread. Andrew ... shines in the New Testament as the apostle who "brought to Jesus" the loaves and fishes (as here), his own brother (John 1:41), and the Greeks (John 12:22). His key role in this sign was important. Many a difficult problem has been solved by bringing it to Jesus. But what are these among so many ... is a plaintive plea to the effect that it was impossible for them to feed the crowds as Jesus had commanded. Human resources were not sufficient to meet the tremendous need before them; and it is a rare disciple of Christ who has not similarly felt the utter lack of human ability to carry out the Lord's commands, especially in such an area as evangelizing the whole world. Their perplexity was like that of Moses: Moses said, the people are six hundred thousand footmen; and thou hast said I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month. Shall the flocks and herds be slain for them? or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered for them, to suffice them? And the Lord said unto Moses, Is the Lord's hand waxed short? Thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not (Numbers 11:21-23). See under John 6:14, below. Verse 10 Jesus said, Make the people sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.Regarding the abundance of green grass in a "desert" place, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 14:13. It was a manifestation of faith that they all sat down with no visible store of food in sight. The Lord's simple command was a sufficient reason for their obedience. Verse 11 Jesus therefore took the loaves; and having given thanks, he distributed to them that were set down; likewise also of the fishes as much as they would.Having given thanks ... emphasizes the need for giving thanks at meals, such a duty being constant; nor is the widespread neglect of it any excuse for omitting it. He distributed to them that were set down ... suggests that only those who sat were fed. It is not recorded that any refused to sit down, but it may be received as true that if any had refused to obey the Lord's command, they would have forfeited the blessing. Note that Christ was not the waiter on that occasion, but the provider. All spiritual benefit of all ages comes, like that bounty came, from Christ the provider THROUGH HIS (2 Peter 3:2). Verse 12 And when they were filled, he saith unto his disciples, Gather up the broken pieces which remain over, that nothing be lost. That nothing be lost ... If Jesus was solicitous regarding the mere crumbs left over from his creation, how much more would he desire that no human soul whatever should be lost. Broken pieces ... refers to crumbs as well as larger pieces. Thus Jesus disregarded the popular superstition of the times that demons lurked in crumbs. Verse 13 So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves, which remained over unto them that had eaten.For a fuller discussion of this and related material from the parallel account in Matthew, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 14:13-36. Verse 14 When therefore the people saw the sign which he did they said, This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world.Nothing sheds any more light on the wonder recorded here than this deduction from it by the people who saw it. The prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15 f) with whom they identified Jesus is the Christ. This perception of the multitude exposes the fraudulence of rationalistic "explanations" of this event. One device of the rationalistic commentators is to make the entire thing a psychological experience! Jesus, so they say, took a lad's contribution, pointed out his willingness to share with others, and thus shamed them into sharing whatever they had with others. The good will spread like a contagion; and suddenly they all had a feast out of what they already had! Those unbelievers who offer such an "explanation" deny the sacred record. TWO WAYS OF MEETING A . The difficulty analyzed. An immense throng of five thousand men, besides women and children, had followed Christ to an uninhabited area on the northeastern shore of Galilee. A. The situation was aggravated by the absence of markets and insufficient money. B. The Saviour's bold claim that he was indeed "that prophet like unto Moses" had provoked the memory of how God had fed Israel in the wilderness; and that memory turned all eyes upon Christ with the question, "Could he do it?" C. Bitter enemies of the Lord hoped for his downfall; and they must have gloated that he had at last been trapped into a situation from which there could have been no recovery. D. Added to all this was the wavering attitude of the apostles themselves who seemed to hold the solution impossible. II. The human method of meeting the difficulty. A. The first human proposal was made by Christ to try the apostles. Whence should they buy bread was his question. Whence indeed, if not from God? Whence cometh all things? B. The next proposal was: "Send the multitude away" (Mark 14:15). That is the usual human proposal for solving difficulties. Send it away! Thus America solved the Indian problem, the slave problem, and the Mormon problem; and now the Mormons are sending missionaries to us! C. The next approach was to count the pennies and declare the project impossible (John 6:7). Where is the money coming from? was a cry that rang harshly enough on the ears of five thousand hungry men on the slopes of Butaiha, and time has not mellowed the cry. As Spurgeon said: Some men are always ready at counting the pennies they do not have. Whenever there is a holy deed to be done, our mathematically minded unbelievers are prompt with their estimates of the cost and their prudent forecasting of grave deficiencies. We are great at calculations when we are little at believing. How can the needful amount be raised? It is so much a head among so many members. But the heads do not yield the poll tax, and the money does not come, and confidence in man leaves us weeping by the broken cistern. Alas for these calculations about pennyworth![4]Philip's calculations resulted from his failure to believe that Jesus could handle the situation. Thus he failed the test the Lord gave him. D. Belittling the known resources: "What are these among so many?" was the next approach (John 6:8-9). How long will it be before men learn that a little consecrated to the Lord is more than enough for all their needs? Christians need to remember the barrel of meal and the cruse of oil (1 Kings 17:16); and the lesson is reiterated in the wonder recorded here. III. The divine way of meeting the difficulty. A. First, the responsibility for meeting it was fixed: "Give ye them to eat!" (Matthew 14:16). "Go ye into all the world" (Mark 16:15). B. Next, there was an inventory of resources. The disciples could think of nothing that could be done, but Jesus asked, "How many loaves have ye?" (Mark 6:38). God helps only when men have gone as far as they can themselves. Like the apostles of old, many have found that their resources were greater than they thought. C. "Bring them hither to me ..." (Matthew 14:18). A little with Jesus is always enough, provided only that it is given to him in absolute trust D. Command the multitude to sit down, and go forward with the feast! It is always in doing that strength is increased; it is in giving that the wherewithal to give is multiplied. ENDNOTE: [4] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sermons (London: Funk and Wagnalls), Vol. 16, p. 106. Verse 15 Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone.No rationalistic explanation of this sign could account for such a reaction on the part of the multitude. They were fully convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, and they proposed to make him king and move against the Romans! With the Messiah feeding them, as God had done so long ago, the problem of the quartermaster was solved! It was time to throw off the yoke of Rome; and they would have violated the sacred wishes of Christ himself to further their own schemes. Israel never learned in the long pre-Christian ages, nor in the times of Christ, that an earthly kingdom was never in God's plans from the very beginning, nor then, nor ever. Yes, they had been granted an earthly state with a king; but at the moment of its inception God had warned them: And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign (be king) over them (1 Samuel 8:7). Throughout the ages, the earthly monarchy of the Hebrews was their project, not God's; and, although God accommodated himself to it, it was never his will. Ironically, that same obsession for their earthly kingdom was what blinded their eyes to the Messiah when he came. The great sign just done before the people, instead of setting their hearts upon the Messiah's teachings, only set on fire their earthly ambitions for the restoration of Solomon's throne, a project that was never for one moment contained in the purpose of Christ. Christ had been fully aware all that day of what was going on; and there is more than a possibility that the apostles themselves had been infected with the virus that had seized the crowd. The Lord counteracted it by compelling the disciples to get into the boat, despite threatening weather, and go back to the other side of the lake (Matthew 14:22). Jesus rejected the efforts to make him king, by sending the apostles away and then withdrawing up into the mountain, leaving the vain frenzy of the mob to frustrate itself in the gathering darkness. Verse 16 And when evening came, his disciples went down into the sea; and they entered into a boat, and were going over the sea to Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.THE FIFTH SIGNHere, and through John 6:21, is recorded the fifth great sign, that of Jesus' walking on the sea. In a sense, the trouble in which the apostles soon found themselves was of their own doing. If they had been less inclined to cooperate with the unspiritual mob in their efforts to crown Jesus king, it is not likely that the Lord would have sent them away. It is clear that they did not wish to leave (Mark 6:45). Mark mentioned their going to Bethsaida, but that was a suburb of Capernaum, and the direct route lay through the latter. And Jesus had not yet come to them ... suggests that the Lord had promised to join them, but it is not stated where or when he had planned to do so. In any event, they were surprised at the manner of his joining them. Verse 18 And the sea was rising by reason of a great wind that blew.The weather which had resulted in the great wind could have been anticipated by the disciples and thus have reinforced their wish to remain with Jesus; but their sympathies with the "king" movement made it absolutely mandatory that they be sent on ahead. Verse 19 When therefore they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they beheld Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the boat: and they were afraid.About ... reveals that the Holy Spirit did not supply technical data, such as the exact distance, but gave only such information as men needed. A furlong was approximately twice the length of a football field (582-600 feet) or 0.11 mile. Thus the distance the apostles had rowed was between 2.75 miles and 3.3 miles, or, with reference to the size of the lake, about halfway across. Jesus walking on the sea ... Moses, as God's servant, divided the sea; Jesus, as God's Son, walked upon it! Of course, rationalism refuses to accept this, saying, "There was really no miracle; the disciples were mistaken; the Lord was only walking on the shore near the vessel; and the superstitious fear of the disciples made them think he was walking on the sea; and that they put ashore and took him on board, etc., etc." Such views are impossible of reconciliation with the New Testament records of what happened. Three New Testament writers recorded this miracle, John and Matthew having been eyewitnesses of it; and Mark was very close to Peter who also had witnessed it and even participated in it himself! See parallel account in Matthew for this writer's comments on this miracle, Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 14:13-36. As Ryle stated: If the disciples were in "the midst of the sea" and two or three miles from shore, how could they possibly have seen the Lord walking on the shore at night and during a storm? They would not have distinguished anyone on shore, even supposing they were not two miles off .... It is absurd to suppose they could have held a conversation with anyone on shore. [5]Unless people are prepared to say that Matthew, Mark, and John gave inaccurate and fraudulent accounts of that evening's events, it is impossible for honest and unprejudiced minds to escape the conclusion that a mighty miracle actually occurred. And, if those sacred writers gave fraudulent and inaccurate accounts of this sign, they are not to be trusted anywhere; and their recorded testimony of Christ is worthless. As Ryle said, "If a man begins with throwing overboard the miracles, he cannot stop logically until he has given up the Bible and Christianity."[6]And they were afraid ... The fear of the apostles sprang not merely from the weather and the dangers of the sea but also from their lack of harmony with the Lord. It was thus intensified when they saw him approaching the vessel. [5] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan), p. 344. [6] Ibid., p. 345. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Curiosity as well as genuine interest, drew great crowds after Him. 3 According to Mark 6:31, Jesus took his disciples and went into the mountain for relief from the crowds, for they interfered even with their meals. 4 This is the third occurrence of the Passover in the course of Christ's public ministry. The fourth and last is in chapter 13. 5 The diversion from the crowds was never very long. The compassion of Jesus was always present, and at this time he realized that the people would need food, being out in the unpopulated place. Jesus aroused the interest of one of the apostles by suggesting that they provide food for the multitude. 6 Prove is from PEIRAZO, and Thayer's definition at this plate is, "to try, make trial of, test." He then explains his definition to mean, "For the purpose of ascertaining his quality, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself." Jesus did not have to use any such means for his own information (chapter 2:24, 25), but wished to make it a test for the sake of an example. It was a test of faith, for the apostles had previously seen Jesus perform miracles as great as feeding a multitude. 7 Philip's remark showed that the "proof" Jesus used was testing him. 9 Another apostle was being as sorely tested as Philip. He spoke as if the Lord expected them to feed the multitude with their personal supplies. John does not record any of the conversation that Jesus had on the merits of the test. But on another occasion, where this event along with another took place, He accused them of having little faith. (See Matthew 16:8-10.) 0 There was much grass. This fact is mentioned to show the propriety of asking the people to sit down. It would have required another miracle to provide seats for five thousand people, hence it was perfectly reasonable to have them sit down, when there was an abundance of the green grass on which to be seated. 1 Jesus gave thanks, which was equivalent to "blessing" the bread. 2 That nothing be lost. This is the only instance of feeding the multitude, where the reason is given for gathering up the scraps. Jesus would never need them in his future service to the people, for even these materials had been miraculously produced. The reason for the instruction was to teach a lesson of economy. 3 People who are still hungry do not stop eating as long as there is yet something to eat at hand. The fact of having this much left after eating, proves that the multitude had a sufficiency of food. 4 The miracle served two purposes; it satisfied the hunger of the people, and also presented a proof of the personality of Jesus. This was one of the purposes of all miracles performed by Jesus. (See chapter 20:30, 31.) 5 Take him by force sounds as if mere human beings could overpower the Son of God by superior strength. Of course we know that is not the idea, for He who could calm the storm and the raging sea, could certainty prevent any physical effort to take Him. But the people meant well in their intention to "draft" Jesus for the position of king. However, that was not the manner in which He was to come into his kingdom; besides, it was not the time for such a move. But rather than offend their good motives by overpowering force, Jesus quietly moved out and went into a mountain. 1 See the comments at Matthew 14:22-34. 2 The people did not see when Jesus got out of the crowd to go into the mountain (verse 15), yet they realized He was not among the passengers on this boat. 3 These other boats came after the event of feeding the multitude. John mentions this to make the story clear to the reader. The people knew that Jesus did not get into the boat with the apostles. It might have been thought that Jesus was probably in one of these other boats. This is why John explains that the other boats came there after Jesus had given thanks, which would mean that He disappeared in some manner unknown to the crowd still remaining at that place. 4 Seeing that neither Jesus or his disciples were at that spot, they made use of these boats that had just come, and went across the sea to Ca-pernaum, seeking for Jesus. They had no direct information that Jesus would be in Capernaum, but went to that city as the place most likely to find him, that being his residence. 5 The surprise indicated by these people in their question was doubtless sincere. However, Jesus knew their chief motive in following, and rebuked them for it. 6 The leading motive of these people was their temporal appetite. Jesus did not mean it was wrong for a person to seek to satisfy his desire for food, for such a desire is natural and needs to be gratified. 7The Bible does not contradict itself, hence an apparent conflict in its language will be understood when all the passages involved are considered. Ephesians 4:28 directs men to labor for the necessities of life, so we are to understand our present passage to mean that our desire for them must not be our chief purpose in the world; it should all be regarded in the light of Matthew 6:33. Sealed is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, "To confirm, authenticate, place beyond doubt." The idea is that we should seek the food that the Son of man offers which will lead to everlasting life. This is assured since the Father has placed his seal or stamp of approval on his Son's work. 8 The people were interested to the extent of making inquiry about carrying out the advice of Jesus that he had given for their benefit. 9 Much of John's account of the Gospel shows Jesus using temporal meat and drink to illustrate the spiritual. Work . . . that ye believe. Jesus meant that if a man really believes in Him, he will do the work that is required of him. 0 These Jews were still thinking of literal food, and were somewhat confused about how any improvement could be made over what God had provided for them in the wilderness. They called for some evidence that Jesus had anything better for them. 1 The Jews specified the provisions from God to which they referred in the preceding verse. They meant the manna that came down from heaven, a phrase quoted from Nehemiah 9:15. The Hebrew Old Testament has but one word for the English word "heaven," whether the writer means the place of God's personal abode, or that in the material universe that surrounds the earth. It is true that the manna came literally from the latter heaven, but its true source was the Heaven of God. All of this led these Jews to think that no better food could be offered them. 2 In this verse Jesus distinguishes between the two kinds of bread. He does so by terming that from the Father as the true bread. 3 Jesus was presenting his comparisons in such a highly figurative form, that he drew the terms toward the application very gradually. In this verse the spiritual food is referred to as a person, without stating who that person is. 4 Give us this bread. This request seems to by-pass the highly figurative personal pronoun, and hold to the thought that the bread Jesus was talking about was something to be given and received, which indeed it was, except they appeared not to suspect what it was. 5 The Jews should have been prepared by this time for the direct application of the figures of which Jesus has been speaking, hence he came out with the unusual statement, I am the bread of life. However, this only brought the comparison far enough along to tell them for whom he of verse 33 stood. As to what sense in which He could be called the bread of life is still to be seen. For the meaning of never hunger and never thirst, see the comments at chapter 4:14. 6 All through the years that Jesus was in his public ministry, the controversy between him and the Jews revolved about His divinity. They pro-fessed to have great love for God, yet were averse to the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. That is the thought in this verse, for Jesus accusses them of refusing to accept the testimony of their own eyes. 7 The manner in which the Father gives people to his Son will be brought out further on in the chapter. The point to be noted now is that being given to Jesus, and coming to him, are virtually the same. I will. in no wise cast out. These words express the perfect cooperation between Jesus and God. 8 This verse is more along the line of cooperation between Jesus and his Father. Jesus came into the world to do that very thing (Hebrews 10:9). 9 Whatever was included in the Father's will was included also in the purpose of the Son when he came into the world. That comprehended not only the replacing of animal sacrifices (referred to in the quotation from Paul), but the personal interest in the salvation of those who were persuaded to come to Christ. That personal interest is to continue even unto the resurrection day, when the dead in Christ shall be raised in His likeness, never to die again. 0 Man cannot see God and live, but he can see the Son, and if he will follow up that seeing with sincere belief, Jesus will bring him out of the grave to enter into life everlasting. 1 The Jews continued to stumble over their literal interpretation of the statements of Jesus. He used several terms that should have taught them that something besides material bread was meant by the subject under consideration. All of these were ignored, and they went back to the introductory sentences of the conversation. 2 The Jews could see no one in Jesus but the Galilaean, whose family relations they knew. Considering Him as a man like all others, they were in a critical mood over the claim that he came down from Heaven. 3 Murmur is from GOGGUZO, and Thayer defines it, "To murmur, mutter, grumble, say anything in a low tone." That explains why Jesus added the words among yourselves. On many occasions Jesus read even the minds of his objectors and told them about it. It is perfectly right to hold certain subjects in confidence, but when people are making complaints against what they regard as wrong doing in another, the fair thing to do is to approach that person openly. 4 Advocates of the theory of unconditional predestination make much of this verse, but they do it by perverting it, and ignoring the rest of the teaching in connection with the subject. Verse 37 is virtually on the same thought, but the scriptural explanation is not given as directly as it is in the following verse. 5 It is written. The prophecy may be seen in Isaiah 54:13 and Micah 4:2. God draws mankind to his Son by teaching them about the ways that He would have them live. But the teaching offered to man will not avail anything unless he hears or heeds the things taught. This is the explanation promised the reader at verse 37. 6 See the comments on verse 40. 7 Verily, verily, has the idea of "most assuredly." To believe on Jesus so as to obtain life everlasting, one's faith must be proved by good works. (James 2:26.) 8 See comments at verses 33, 35. 9 The argument of Jesus in this verse, is that the manna which their fathers ate in the wilderness was not the bread that would produce everlasting life, seeing that all of those ancestors were dead. 0 The pronoun this means the kind of bread Jesus was talking about. Not die is said in the same sense as never 'hunger in verse 35. 1 In this verse the Lord takes another step in his application of the figures that he has been using. Here the statement is made that man must eat of bread that is called the flesh of the Son of man. 2 The preceding verse makes the first move toward introducing the very important matter of eating the flesh of Jesus. Of course Jesus knew the Jews would make a literal application of the statement. That would call for the true explanation of the subject, which will include several verses because of the deep spiritual significance of the topic in hand. The reader should patiently follow the comments through this interesting group of verses. 3 When people persist in making a literal application of some declaration, it may help them to see their error to repeat the statement, but do so in a still more unusual form. The Jews should have known that it would be impossible to drink literally of the blood of Christ. That was true for two reasons; namely, that blood was to be poured out on the ground beneath the cross and never recovered. The other reason was the fact that the blood of Christ was that of a dead man when it was shed, and such blood will produce death instead of life. (See Revelation 16:3.) 4 Literal flesh and blood will not produce endless life, hence they should have begun to understand that Jesus was not talking of that kind of material. 5 This is the same thought as the preceding verse, but in another form. 6 There is an old saying that "man is what he eats." That is true, and it applies to this verse, for if Christ dwells in the man who eats of his flesh, then the adage means that if a man eats the flesh of Christ, part of that man is Christ. 7 In this verse the general thought pertains to the merging of three beings into one; the Father, the Son and the devoted partaker of Them. 8 Jesus intersperses his speech with contrasts between the literal manna in the wilderness, and the bread that he was really considering. This is done to keep their minds alive to the main thought that it was considered necessary to impress on them. 9 The synagogues were structures erected by the Jews, and used principally for the reading of the law, and for teaching and exhortation. 0 Not only the Jews in general, but even the disciples were puzzled over this strange (to them) speech that Jesus was making. Who can hear it. By this the disciples meant they could not understand it. 1 The disciples did not make their complaint audibly, but Jesus always knew what was in the mind of men. He let them know about it by asking them if they were offended or caused to stumble at what they herd. 2 See the comments on verse 53. The same principle is carried out in this verse, except it is in a still more baffling form. By suggesting an event that would make it impossible to eat of the literal body of Christ, the disciples ought to see the point finally, that their Lord did not mean his fleshly body. Hence he indicated that he was going to ascend to Heaven, and that they would see it occur. 3 Many brethren use the latter part of this verse as if Jesus said, "The words that I speak unto you, they are the Holy Spirit." Such a use of this passage is not only a perversion of it, but it misses the very point that Jesus was making all through the chapter from verse 26. The Bit,le is nowhere spoken of as the Holy Spirit. It has been given by the work of the Holy Spirit, and it is the sword of the Spirit, but it is not the Holy Spirit itself. Jesus has been patiently laboring to show the disciples and the other Jews, that man must eat bread or die. But he wishes them to understand he does not mean temporal bread. After a number of statements along the same line, he concludes it is time to come out with the direct conclusion to his discourse on the subject of spiritual food, and he does so in this verse. It is as if he had said, "I have not been talking to you about literal flesh or literal bread, for that 'profiteth nothing.' I was meaning spiritual food; and to make you know just what I mean by that kind of food, I will inform you what it consists of. It is my words or teaching, for they are spirit (ual) and will sustain your spirit in the life for me." 4 But . . . some . . . believe not. This shows that eating the kind of food that Jesus had been discussing, meant to believe the words he had been saying. Jesus had specific reference to Judas, for he knew that he was going to be his betrayer. Judas had the same opportunity of hearing the words of Christ as the other apostles, but he did not heed and believe them, therefore he was considered as an unbeliever. 5 Jesus then went back to the forepart of his speech (verses 44, 45), and made a specific application of that passage to Judas. It is not given to any man by the Father to come to Christ who will not accept the words of his Son. Judas refused to believe them in the sense of heeding them, therefore God would not permit him to be attached to his Son in the great work of human redemption. 6 The disciples who went back were not very much interested in spiritual matters. They were the kind described by Jesus in verse 26. 7 This pathetic question that Jesus asked the apostles doubtless was intended as an inducement to obtain an expression from them. The all-important discourse that Jesus delivered was for the benefit of all hearers, but it was especially needed by the twelve. They were the ones expected to take the same teaching to the world. 8 Peter's answer showed he had caught the point in the speech of Jesus. Thou hast the words of eternal life. This was the very thought with which Jesus concluded according to verse 63. The words received from the Lord constituted the spiritual food that he offered as the meat that would sustain mankind unto life everlasting. 9 In this verse Peter was speaking for the group of apostles, and as far as he knew, all of them were favorable to the teaching of Christ. 0 Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him, but he did not point him out to the others yet. A. man with the kind of heart that Judas possessed, deserved to be called by the term which Jesus used. 1 Should betray him is worded, "was to betray him," by Moffatt. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Seven JESUS AT THE FEAST OF Joh_7:1 to John 10:21AFTER DELAY HE GOES TO THE FEASTJoh_7:1-131 And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee:—After the conversation narrated in the preceding chapter, he went to Galilee. The Jews in Judea were more zealous as they thought for the law of Moses than those of other sections of the country. They misapprehended what the law taught, and in their misapprehension were bitter against Jesus to prepare for whom the law was given. A false conception of religion frequently hinders the reception of the truth more than a failure to know the truth or to be religious. for he would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him.—Religion intensifies the feelings and actions of a person. If his feelings and actions are wrongly directed, it intensifies the wrong feelings and actions. So those who misunderstood the law of Moses were more embittered against Jesus than were those who were not very zealous observers of the law. 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the feast of tabernacles, was at hand.—The feast of tabernacles commemorated the camping out of the Jews in their journey from Egypt to Canaan. It was combined with the feast of ingathering and began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month and continued seven days. 3 His brethren therefore said unto him,—There is no proof that Mary and Joseph did not have other children. God ordained the marriage relation for the good of the human family and for his own glory. It is no derogation from the character of Mary as the mother of Jesus for her to have fulfilled the office of wife to Joseph and have borne other children. Nor is there the least evidence that she did not. Quite a number of expressions in the Bible indicate that she did fulfill the duties of wife and mother. Depart hence, and go into Judaea,—While these brethren seem to have regarded him as something above ordinary men and were willing to see him show his powers, they yet lacked a strong faith in him and his claims to be the Son of God. that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest.—They thought if he could do anything he should show it on these occasions of the feasts when the multitudes of the Jews came together at Jerusalem. He had some disciples at Jerusalem who had been made at other visits to the city. 4 For no man doeth anything in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly.—[No prophet and inspired teacher. The claim that such teachers seek the multitudes, after which, and in their presence, in the most public manner, exhibit their supernatural power.] If a man expects the world to honor him he must keep himself and his work before the world was the idea of these brethren of Jesus. This is the world’ s idea. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world.— (“ If” implies that his brethren were doubters and the follow¬ing verse asserts that they were unbelievers.] 5 For even his brethren did not believe on him.—[Note that a clear distinction is made between his brethren and his disci¬ples. The distinction is more clear in Matthew 12:47. Later they became believers. (Acts 1:14.)] 6 Jesus therefore saith unto them, My time is not yet come;—His time for fully manifesting himself to the world had not yet come, so he could not then go up to the feast. [He had by slow degrees and in different ways manifested himself to the people, but the time for the great and final lesson of the cross, the grave, the resurrection, and ascension had not come. His full and complete manifestation to the world will be at his second coming when “ every eye shall see him.” ] but your time is always ready.— They with no special mission save to follow the world could go to the feast at any time. [He who has a mission must make ready for it. He who has a message for the world must educate it to receive it.] 7 The world cannot hate you;—[For it would, in that case, hate those who have its spirit and were of it. It will not hate itself. It only hates those who rebuke its sins and oppose its ways.] but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its works aye evil.—He expected when he went to Jerusalem to call out the hatred of the world by his condemnation of the evil of the world. As they were of the world and did not condemn the world, the world would not hate them. [It has always hated those who expose and denounce its sins. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist all suffered because they rebuked sin in high places. When Jesus came exposing the corruptions of the priests, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the worldliness and debauchery of the Sadducees and Herodians, it was inevi¬table that he should be hated, persecuted, and put to death. But the world still hates him. The hate of such men as Voltaire, Tom Paine, and Ingersoll, and of all their followers is due to the fact that Christ and his church are a rebuke to, and condemnation of, their lives.] 8 Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast; be¬cause my time is not yet fulfilled.—They could go when they pleased. There were reasons why he could not then go. His time was not fully come. [He uses the present, not future tense. The thought is, I am not now going. It would have doubtless defeated his purpose had he gone with those who were determined that he should make an exhibition of himself. It cannot be determined from this whether he had yet pur¬posed to go at all.] 9 And having said these things unto them, he abode still in Galilee.—What the reasons were are not known, but he remained in Galilee. 10 But when his brethren were gone up unto the feast, then went he also up, not publicly, but as it were in secret.—His brethren went to the feast while he for the time tarried in Galilee for a day or two, and then quietly, without showing himself to the world, went up. 11 The Jews therefore sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?—The report of the works of Jesus was spread abroad, and at such a gathering it was the general expectation that he would be present and do wonders. Both his enemies and his friends inquired concerning him whether he would come to the feast. 12 And there was much murmuring among the multitudes concerning him: some said, He is a good man; others said, Not so, but he leadeth the multitude astray.—He had im¬pressed many of the people that he was a good man, sent from God, others that he was a deceiver. [Truth preached always stirs up the opposition and false charges.] 13 Yet no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.—This was the talk in a private way among acquaintances, none speaking publicly because the rulers of the Jews had condemned him. [They feared that open discussion would bring condemnation upon themselves from the rulers.] CHRIST TEACHES IN THE TEMPLE AND REFERS TO HIS FIRST VISITJoh_7:14-2414 But when it was now the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.—About the third day of it. Jesus threw off all secrecy or privacy and went into the tem¬ple and began openly to teach the people. 15 The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?—The familiarity of Jesus with the Jewish law and his readiness in applying it and ex¬plaining the teachings were matters of wonder and surprise to all, as these things were usually learned in some of the schools. As Paul attended the school of Gamaliel, Jesus at¬tended none of these schools, hence his teaching in these things was a surprise to all who knew it. 16 Jesus therefore answered them, and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me.—The teaching of Jesus was not from himself. It did not originate with him. It was not derived from studying and learning of men. It was bestowed upon him by God who sent him. Jesus again brings out that he brought no theory or system or will of his own, but he came to do the will of his Father who sent him. 17 If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.—If any one really desires to do the will of God, he shall be enabled to know that this doctrine is from God and did not originate with Jesus. Does it not involve the conclusion that if any one in the world really desires to do the will of God, he will be brought to know that will and that it is of God and not of man. Is it possible that God would give his Son to die to open the way of salvation to man and then leave one to die in ignorance of that way who would accept it if he knew it? The great hindrance to many knowing the truth is they do not desire the truth and will not walk in it when they know it. 18 He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true,—One reason by which he will know the truth is of God is that he who speaks from himself as the author of his teaching seeks his own glory. In doing the will of God it will be so manifest that there is such a complete self-denial and glorification of God that he will know that the teaching did not originate with man. and no unrighteousness is in him.—The one who denies self and seeks the glory of him sending him gives undeniable testimony that he did not originate his teaching, and that he is righteous. 19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me?—The leaders of the Jews had determined to kill him for breaking the law of Moses. Moses did not make that law. He received it from God and gave it to the Jews, as Jesus received it from God and gave it to them. None of them kept the law, yet sought to kill him on a charge of breaking the law in healing a man on the Sabbath. 20 The multitude answered, Thou hast a demon: who seeketh to kill thee?—At this time they were keeping their pur¬pose to kill him secretly until an opportunity to do it should occur. Some perhaps did not know of it, and they charge him with having a demon in cherishing such a thought. 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I did one work, and ye all marvel because thereof.—Jesus referred to the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath day. 22 Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man.—Moses whom they claimed to honor had commanded them to circumcise their children and it had come down from Abraham. In obedience to Moses’ law they circumcise a child on the eighth day, even if it fell on the Sabbath. Why should setting aside the Sabbath law to heal an afflicted man be worse than setting it aside to circumcise a child? 23 If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath?—If God through Moses could set aside the Sabbath law to circumcise a child, why may not God through Jesus set aside the same law to heal an afflicted man? [The law of mercy was older than either circumcision or the Sabbath. His accusers were, therefore, inconsistent in their indignation against him because he had performed an act of mercy in healing a man. Mercy was God’ s eternal law.] 24 Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.—Do not judge by the external appearance, but by the real standard of righteousness. [The Jews judged by “ appearance” when they condemned Christ for healing the man on the Sabbath, and forgot the eternal principles of righteousness. Some times one law is broken in order to obey a higher law. They should have asked whether this was the case or not before they condemned Jesus, and then “ judge with righteous judgment.” ] A AMONG THE PEOPLEJoh_7:25-3625 Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he whom they seek to kill?—Some from Jerusalem not of the ruling order knew of their purpose to kill him and were astonished at his boldness. 26 And lo, he speaketh openly, and they say nothing unto him. Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the Christ?—[They are bewildered. They neither condemn or approve the purpose of the rulers, but they cannot understand why it is not carried out. Is it possible that the rulers have found out that this is the Christ? Is this the reason for their failure to carry out their purpose?] 27 Howbeit we know this man whence he is; but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is.—The difficulty came up that when Christ came none would know whence he came, and they thought they knew whence Jesus had come. 28 Jesus therefore cried in the temple, teaching and saying, Ye both know me, and know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.—Jesus knew what was passing in their minds and agreed that they knew in one sense whence he was, yet insisted that he had not come of his own will and they did not know him who had sent him. In that sense they did not know whence he was, or did not know God his Father. 29 I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me.—Jesus alone knew the Father and he had come to make known God and his will to the people. 30 They sought therefore to take him: and no man laid his hand on him, because his hour was not yet come.—The Jews were anxious to arrest him, but circumstances hindered. These circumstances were controlled by God. [No one could as yet do him harm, for the set time had not come.] 31 But of the multitude many believed on him; and they said, When the Christ shall come, will he do more signs than those which this man hath done?—His teaching, his works, his bearing convinced many that he was divine, and if not the Christ would the Messiah do more miracles than Jesus had done in his mission? [They were convinced that he was a teacher from God and were ready to follow him, yet not sure he was the Christ to come. Jesus did not proclaim himself to be the Christ. He demonstrated it by his works.] 32 The Pharisees heard the multitude murmuring these things concerning him; and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to take him.—The exchange of thoughts concerning Jesus was quietly talked among the common people. The Pharisees purposed to arrest him and stop all such talk. [They did not want it to spread.] 33 Jesus therefore said, Yet a little while am I with you, and I go unto him that sent me.—In a short time Jesus would by his death be taken away from them, and after the crucifixion and resurrection would ascend to God who had sent him. 34 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, ye cannot come.—After a time evil would fall upon them and then they would seek him. He would be with God and to him they could never come. [This is plain to us in the light of divine history, but it is not strange that his audience on the other side of the cross did not understand his saying.] 35 The Jews therefore said among themselves, Whither will this man go that we shall not find him? will he go unto the Dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?—Many Jews were scattered from Judea among the Gentiles, and it was either in ignorance or to ridicule him that they ask this question. [Would he teach them and the Greeks, as well as the Jews of Judea, and the Galileans?] 36 What is this word that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am, ye cannot come?—[They could not comprehend. It seems that this bore on their minds. They were perplexed. See verse 34. CHRIST’ S SPEECH ON LAST DAY OF THE FEAST AND ITS EFFECT John 7:37-4437 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.—The feast lasted eight days and the last day was a holy convocation, and it had come to be the greatest day of the feast. On this day he called to all who thirsted to come to him and drink the waters of salvation. [The eighth or last day of the feast probably was devoted more to rejoic¬ing and thanksgiving for the blessings of the year and for the hope of Israel. It was called “ the great day of the feast.” ] 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water.—The Holy Spirit would come as the representative of God on earth after his ascension to his Father and this he foretells under this figure. [“ Believing” is equal to “ coming” in verse 37, showing that faith is the means that brings us to Christ. It is a live, active faith; not a dead or inactive one.] 39 But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive:—[This makes Acts 2 the best com¬mentary on verse 38. Luther says, “ So St. Peter, by one ser¬mon on the day of Pentecost, as by a rushing of water, deliv¬ered three thousand men from the devil’ s kingdom, washing them in an hour from sin, death, and Satan.” ] for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified.—[Observe (1) that the Holy Spirit was not given until after the death and ascension of Christ; (2) the disciples of Christ did not become “ rivers of living water” until the Spirit was sent. This marks Pentecost as the beginning of the preaching of the gospel authoritatively by his disciples. Peter’ s sermon on that day was the first sermon under the great commission, the first declaration of the condition of the gospel, the first preaching by men as the Holy “ Spirit gave them utterance.” It was after Jesus was glorified that he sent the Spirit, and on Pentecost it was declared, “ He hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.” [The Holy Spirit would come to take up his abode in and with men only after the ascension of Jesus to his Father. Jesus said to his disciples: “ 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 go, I will send him unto you.” (John 16:7.) 40 Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, This is of a truth the prophet.—[Conflicting views arose among the people. Some said he was “ the prophet,” spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:15, and referred to in John 1:15. All agreed that a prophet was to come at the Messianic period, but some held that he was to be the Messiah himself, and others that he was to be the forerunner. Hence three ques¬tions were put to John—“ Art thou Elijah? Art thou the prophet? Art thou the Christ?” ] 41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee?—[The opposition denied that he was the Christ, basing their opposition, not upon his character or teaching, but upon the fact that he came from Galilee. Jesus, reared at Nazareth, coming to Jerusalem from Galilee, was supposed by the Jews to have been born there, and they were well aware of the fact Christ was to be born at Bethlehem.] 42 Hath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?—[The Talmud explains Micah 5:2 as declaring that Bethlehem should be Christ’ s birthplace. The wise men who came to Jerusalem seeking the young Babe heard the same thing from the priests. It was prophesied that he should be of the seed of David. (Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Psalms 89:36.) ] 43 So there arose a division in the multitude because of him. —[They were rent into two parties and there was sharp con¬tention.] The teaching of Jesus impressed his hearers vari¬ously. Some thought he must be a prophet, some that he was the Christ, others could not see how he could be the Christ, for the Christ was to come out of Bethlehem. The very prophecies to which they referred to prove him not the Christ really confirmed that he was the Christ and only their igno¬rance of where he was born obscured the proof or what really confirmed the truth to those who knew the facts hid the truth from those ignorant of these facts. It is not infrequently so with men. Their ignorance often changes proof of what is true into evidence against the truth. 44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.—The division among the people seems to have secured him from arrest. AMONG CHIEF PRIESTS AND Joh_7:45-5245 The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Phar-isees; and they said unto them, Why did ye not bring him?—The Pharisees had evidently sent officers to arrest Jesus. While waiting their opportunity to do it privately, they had listened to him and in common with the people were surprised and pleased with his preaching. 46 The officers answered, Never man so spake.—When they returned without him, they gave his teaching as the reason of failure to arrest him. 47-48 The Pharisees therefore answered them, Are ye also led astray? Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or of the Pharisees?—The Pharisees seemed to think if no Pharisee or officer was carried away with the preaching none should be. These subordinates ought to defer their faith to those of the honored classes. This spirit prevails largely among religious teachers in this age. [Have any of the rulers believed? By rulers are meant the Sanhedrin. In the matter of deciding on the claims of the Messiah they hold that the judgment of the “ rulers” must be decisive.] 49 But this multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed.—In their estimation those who did not thus defer to them were accursed. They are ignorant of the law and are accursed. On account of their ignorance they are easily led astray.] 50 Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before, being one of them),—Nicodemus who came to Jesus to hear of him (John 3:1-15) appears upon the scene the second time. He was not one of the rulers preparing to arrest Jesus. He was a friend of Jesus, but not one of his worshipers. 51 Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from him¬self and know what he doeth?—The law of the Jews required this fairness as all just and fair laws do and Nicodemus ap¬peals to this law as a benefactor to Jesus. 52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Gali¬lee? Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.— Without answering his objection as to the law, they assume that he is a disciple of Jesus and object to the claims on the ground that the Christ would not come out of Galilee, ignorant of the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. [“ Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” is an untrue statement. Jonah was of Galilee (2 Kings 14:25) ; Elijah probably so (1 Kings 17:1); and Nahum also (Nahum 1:1).] 53 And they went every man unto his own house.—[The session of the Sanhedrin broke up and each member went to his own home.] Verse 1 John 7-10 record the great controversy that raged around the name of Jesus during the last six months of his ministry. It was October, at the beginning of this chapter, a full six months having elapsed since the tremendous events of chapter 6; and, during that intervening period, the Lord had continued his work in Galilee, beyond the reach of his enemies in Jerusalem. The synoptics reveal that in this same interim, the Lord had repeatedly schooled his disciples concerning the approaching Passion and his resurrection. Peter had confessed him (Matthew 16:13 f); he had fed another great multitude (Mark 9:1-9); and the transfiguration had been witnessed by the inner circle of the Twelve (Luke 9:28 f). It was time to face eventualities in the capital city, the account of which events comprises the rest of John. A short break would again occur (John 10:4-42) at the end of this section of controversy, in which the Lord briefly withdrew to await the final Passover. This chapter relates the events related to the feast of tabernacles in October, prior to the Passover in April at which Jesus was crucified. The rapids begin to roar in this chapter; the rising storm of hatred against the Lord would not diminish until a cross arose upon Golgotha. The marvelous value of this section (John 7-10) is in the surgical manner of John's exposing all the complex elements leading up to the crucifixion. Jesus never allowed others to signal the time of his actions; and just as he rejected the suggestion of his mother at Cana (John 2:4), he here rejected the suggestion of his brothers regarding attendance of the feast, attending not all of it, but the last half of it (John 7:1-13). He defended himself against a charge of sabbath-breaking (John 7:14-24); a feeble attempt to arrest him failed (John 7:25-36); he spoke of the living water (John 7:37-44); and Nicodemus spoke a word in his defense (John 7:45-52). And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him. (John 7:1) See under chapter heading above. The plot to kill Jesus had been in existence about eighteen months already (John 5:18). Verse 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the feast of tabernacles, was at hand.This feast was the equivalent of a harvest festival, "tabernacles" referring to booths, or arbors made of tree branches, in which the people camped out in commemoration of the wilderness sojourn of Israel (Leviticus 23:34-36). It occurred in October, indicating that John here passed over a full six months of Jesus' Galilean ministry. Verse 3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest.His brethren ... contrasting with "disciples," compels the understanding of this in the ordinary sense of his human brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55), who were, in all probability, additional sons of Mary and Joseph (See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 13:55-56). His brothers at this time did not believe in him (John 7:5), having a carnal view of his work. They said, in effect., "Get on down to Jerusalem and perform some more miracles to encourage the people down there who believe in you." Verse 4 For no man doeth anything in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world. For even his brethren did not believe on him.For no man doeth anything in secret ... was their way of saying that Jesus was merely wasting his time in Galilee. If he wanted recognition, in their view, Jerusalem was the place to get it. If thou doest, these things ... shows that they did not believe in him and recalls Satan's words (Matthew 4:3). Verse 6 Jesus therefore said unto them, My time is not yet come; but your time is always ready.In due time, Jesus would reveal himself in Jerusalem, by means of his death and resurrection; but that would have to await the time appointed by the Father. The true passover would be sacrificed on the Passover, not at the feast of tabernacles. Although out of tune with Jesus' will here, these brothers eventually became followers (Acts 1:14). Verse 7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its works are evil.Jesus' brothers and their friends had not broken with the hierarchy in Jerusalem; and thus it was all very well for them to go up to the feast; but Jesus had broken with it, and they were plotting to kill him (John 5:18). For the Lord to have walked boldly into the trap laid for him in Jerusalem would have been folly. The Lord had dared to instruct them on the proper method of observing the sabbath, exposing the sin of their regulations imposed in place of the divine law; and therefore the priests were determined to kill him. Verse 8 Go ye unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled.I go not up unto this feast ... was true in the sense that Jesus attended only half of it. Jesus did not say, "I will not go," the present tense meaning that "at that time" he would not go. Tenney's comment that "Jesus told the brethren that he was not going, and then promptly went"[1] is not true. A delay of a full three and one-half days is not "promptly" going to the feast. Besides, in the Jewish sense, one attending only half of it was not said to have attended it. Strict attention to the grammar shows what Jesus meant. For further discussion of "go up" in this verse, see under John 7:33. ENDNOTE: [1] Merrill C. Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), p. 130. Verse 9 And having said these things unto them, he abode still in Galilee.The brothers went on to Jerusalem without him, leaving the Lord free to enter at a time and circumstance of his own choice. The Pharisees were laying a trap for Jesus, but they would find themselves in his trap before the week was over. Verse 10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then went he also up, not publicly, but as it were in secret.JESUS GOES UP TO THE FEASTPeople from all over Palestine were at the feast, including, no doubt, many from Galilee who had witnessed the marvels there; and, besides, it is certain that many still remembered the healing of the man at Bethesda, over a year earlier. This strong favorable attitude toward Jesus among the populace was balanced by the hatred of the leaders, whose plot to kill the Lord was known; and, through fear, many considered it unsafe to speak of the Lord openly. As it were in secret ... Friends of Jesus would have aided his quiet and unobtrusive entrance into the city; but it must not be thought that Jesus was, in any sense, hiding from the authorities. He was determined to go just as far as possible without precipitating a premature crisis; and, in such a design, the time factor was all-important. Three and one-half days was not enough for the Pharisees to accomplish their purpose of killing him. Verse 11 The Jews therefore sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?The Lord's name was on every tongue during the first half of the feast when he did not appear. His enemies sought him but found him not. Verse 12 And there was much murmuring among the multitudes concerning him: some said, He is a good man; others said, Not so, but he leadeth the multitude astray. Yet no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.Christ's name was upon all lips; his mighty deeds were the biggest news that ever happened in Jerusalem; the people loved him; the leaders hated him; and conversation buzzed all over the city; but if any of the Pharisees appeared, the conversation ceased. The threat of murdering the Son of God lay like a mantle of poison gas over Jerusalem during that feast. There was a dreadful air of impending disaster; Satan was in control of the government of the Holy City, reminding one of Paris in the terror: A spell of horror seems temporarily to have fallen over the city of Paris, a nightmare in which all communication with reality was suspended. It is impossible to read of this period without the impression that one is here confronted with forces more powerful than those controlled by men.[2]In this great controversy, cosmic forces struggled for domination; and the war between Christ and Satan was never more dramatic than here. ENDNOTE: [2] Stanley Loomis, Paris in the Terror (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1964), p. 328. Verse 14 But when it was now in the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught.JESUS APPEARS IN THE TEMPLEOnce more the messenger of the covenant came suddenly to his temple (Malachi 3:1); and such boldness frustrated and unnerved the Lord's enemies. They did not know how to deal with it. His learned dissertations in the temple were persuading many to believe on him; and the Pharisees were unable to reconcile such wisdom with the fact of Jesus' never having attended the rabbinic schools. Verse 15 The Jews therefore marveled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?The Jews marveled ... but what people have marveled about ever since is the bigotry that said, "How could he know anything if he did not learn it from us?" Their bigoted opinion was either repeated in Jesus' hearing, or he read it in their hearts, promptly replying to it. This man ... has the meaning of "this fellow" and was intended to place Jesus on a lower level than the rabbis and priests. Nicodemus, having a higher opinion of Christ, referred to him as "Rabbi" (John 3:2). Verse 16 Jesus therefore answered and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me.By this, Jesus claimed that his own words were the words of God, and, in the light of all that has occurred in the intervening centuries, it is clear enough that Jesus did indeed deliver the words of Almighty God to mankind. It was this quality of identifying his teachings as God's teachings that infuriated the leaders. See under John 12:49. Verse 17 If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.As in John 3:19-21, Jesus here again made the ability to believe on himself to turn on a question of will, and not of intelligence alone; and these remarks are the equivalent of his saying, "Look, if you really want to do the will of God, you will recognize that it is God's will, and not mine own, that I am proclaiming," There could also be further implications of this verse, as David Lipscomb noted: Does not this involve the conclusion that if anyone in the world really desires to do the will of God, he will be brought to know that will? Is it possible that God would give his Son to die to open the way of salvation, and then leave one to die in ignorance of that way who would accept it if he knew it?[3]The difficulty of finding out what is right in religion is a common complaint among men. They point to many differences among Christians and profess to be unable to decide what is right. (Such a person) should use what little knowledge he has got, and God will soon give him more.[4]The source of knowing God's will is the Bible; but reason, intelligence, experience, obedience, and love are among the instruments by which true wisdom from its sacred pages may be won. And even more important than those instruments is that of the human will to know the truth. Many accept blindly whatever teaching they received as a child without ever striving to know if it was really God's will that they learned. Ruskin warned against this: Of all the insolent, and foolish persuasions that by any chance could enter and hold your empty little heart, this is the profoundest and foolishest, - that you have been so much the darling of heaven, and the favorite of the fates, as to be born in the nick of time, and in the punctual place, when and where pure divine truth had been sifted from the errors of the nations; and that your papa had been providentially disposed to buy a house in the convenient neighborhood of the steeple under which that immaculate and final verity would be proclaimed! Do not think it, child; it is not so.[5][3] David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Co., 1960), p. 111. [4] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 440. [5] James Hastings, The Great Texts of the Bible (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark), p. 307. Verse 18 He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.The third person, instead of the first, indicates the statement of a general principle of truth. In all ages, those ministers who proclaimed God's word, relying on the inherent authority of that word to win people - those have been true ministers. Another class of teachers, cutting and plucking at the word of God with their scissors and editing pencils, claiming for themselves the right to declare what is or is not the word of God, glorifying themselves with their revisions and theories - such men are of Satan. Verse 19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me?Thus Jesus publicly exposed the plot to kill him on a trumped-up charge of sabbath-breaking, pointing out at the same time the paradox of such notorious violators of Moses' law, as were the Pharisees, plotting to kill Jesus for, of all things, breaking the sabbath. None of the Pharisees kept the sabbath strictly, enjoying a hundred petty little exemptions from the rigorous rules they imposed on others, deserving the comment Jesus made of them: "Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger" (Matthew 23:4). Keep the sabbath day? Of course, they did not. They circumcised on the sabbath; and they had devised some kind of a bypass for practically all of the sabbath restrictions. For example, with reference to walking no more than seven-eighths of a mile, which was the allowable distance according to their rules for a sabbath's journey, they often walked long distances, pausing each seven-eighths of a mile to partake of a bite of food previously cached there in anticipation of the journey, and thus taking any length journey on the pretext that they had changed their residence at each pause! Here, Jesus openly charged them with not keeping Moses' law. Why seek ye to kill me ...? Why such men would seek to kill the holy Son of God is a part of the mystery of iniquity. Verse 20 The multitude answered, Thou hast a demon; who seeketh to kill thee?Many of the multitude were ignorant of the murderous plot of the priests who had sought to conceal their intentions. Thou hast a demon ... For a list of the slanders against Jesus, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 11:18-19. Verse 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I did one work, and ye all marvel because thereof.This reference to healing the man at Bethesda, eighteen months earlier, which, even by their judgment, was a single violation of the sabbath (though actually not so at all) was made by Jesus for the sake of contrasting that lone act of mercy performed on the sabbath with the continual and constant violation of the sabbath on the part of the Pharisees by circumcising on the sabbath. Verse 22 Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man.This and John 7:23 establish the fact that circumcision is an older ordinance than the sabbath (Nehemiah 9:13-14), the sabbath having been given through Moses, and circumcision having come before Moses. These verses are the end of any notion that the sabbath goes back any further than Moses. Jesus was here pointing out that if a circumcision, commanded to be performed on the eighth day, fell on a sabbath, the Pharisees allowed it to be done (Leviticus 12:3), demonstrating the great truth that works of necessity and mercy were never intended to be forbidden by God's law regarding the sabbath. Verse 23 If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath?If a man ... is a reference to a child eight days old. As Barnes noted: "This is not an adult man, but a man child (see John 16:21): `She remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.'"[6]The Lord here contrasted an operation on one member of a person's body with an operation on the whole person, as well as a cutting off with a making whole. Every whit whole ... indicates that Jesus had cured the entire man, soul and body, thus making it all the more necessary and righteous that the Lord should not have delayed such a blessing another day in order to avoid doing it on the sabbath. ENDNOTE: [6] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 257. Verse 24 Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.Jesus here charged his foes with having made a false judgment, based solely on the fact that Jesus had broken the sabbath; but here he explained that the performance of an act of mercy and salvation took precedence over sabbath law, a principle which they recognized in connection with a far lesser thing, the rite of circumcision. Thus, their judgment that Jesus was worthy of death as a sabbath-breaker was an evil judgment, based solely on superficial and unsound premises. Jesus, by this discussion, also replied to the ignorant denial of some of the people that there was any plot to kill him. By openly discussing the charge on which they sought to put him to death, Jesus did two things: (1) showing that the multitude was ignorant of the truth, and (2) exposing the falsity of the charge on which they wanted to kill him. Verse 25 Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he whom they seek to kill? And lo, he speaketh openly, and they say nothing to him. Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the Christ?And they say nothing to him ... means that they were not attempting to interrupt or forbid his teaching. They were indeed saying something to him, as the conversation here recorded proves. Jesus' strategy was accomplishing its purpose. The Pharisees could not stand before Jesus in open debate and hold their ground; he won every argument, as in the case of the sabbath discussions; and the multitude came slowly to realize that the rulers did know that Jesus was actually the Christ. Any insinuation that those evil rulers did not know whom they crucified should be rejected. Jesus said publicly of them in a parable: "The husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come let us kill him, and take his inheritance!" (Matthew 21:23). They knew he was the Christ; but, because he was not the kind of Christ they wanted, they murdered him. True, they did not know that Jesus was God in the flesh; and it was of that ignorance which Paul spoke when he declared, "Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians 2:8). Verse 27 Howbeit we know whence this man is: but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is.The evil rulers made many arguments against the Messianic claims of Jesus: (1) Here they argued that the Messiah would have some mysterious origin; and, of course, they pretended to know all about the origin of Christ, although they did not. (2) They insisted that no prophet could come out of Galilee, because none ever had come from Galilee; but, in their arrogance, they were wrong on both counts, Jonah having come from Gath-Hepher, only three and one-half miles from Nazareth (2 Kings 14:25), and the Christ himself hailing from there! (3) They insisted that Elijah must first come; but they ignored John the Baptist's being the fulfillment of that prophecy. No one knoweth whence he is ... This notion was a spin-off from the casuistry of the Pharisees and deserves a little more attention. As Adam Clarke said: The generality of the people knew that Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem ... But from Isaiah 53:8, "Who shall declare his generation?" they thought that there should be something so peculiarly mysterious in his birth, or in the manner of his appearing, that no person could fully understand. Had they considered his miraculous conception, they would have felt their minds relieved on that point.[7]The Pharisees had evidently talked with Joseph and Mary; but, if so, it is certain that those devout souls would have told those nosey representatives of the ruling class nothing whatever of the visit of the angel Gabriel, nor of the miraculous birth of our Lord. Whatever investigation the Pharisees had conducted, it failed to reveal either (1) the fact of Jesus' birth at Bethlehem, or (2) the miraculous conception. Their arrogance in pretending to know all about Jesus, and then daring to make their presumed "knowledge" the basis of rejecting him as the Messiah is an example of human self-deception and conceit unsurpassed in the history of the world. ENDNOTE: [7] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible (London: Mason and Lane, 1837), Vol. V, p. 571. Verse 28 Jesus therefore cried in the temple, teaching and saying, Ye both know me, and know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.Ye both know me ... This is sarcastic irony. If they had known Christ, they would have known God who sent him; not knowing God was proof enough they did not know Christ in any sense whatever. Whom ye know not ... The leaders did not know God; and that was the basis of their failure to know Jesus. Verse 29 I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me.Jesus' oneness with God was the burden of the teaching of his entire ministry. As God's Son, he brought God's message, spoke God's words, did God's works, and was in fact God come in the flesh. Verse 30 They sought therefore to take him: and no man laid his hand on him, because his hour was not yet come.Confounded and openly contradicted by Christ, the Pharisees were furious and eagerly wanted to take him; but the press of the people around him was so great, and there were so many who believed in him, that considerations of prudence restrained their evil purpose. His hour was not yet come ... also implies a supernatural restraint imposed upon Jesus' enemies. An overruling providence prevented his arrest, despite the fact that they actually sent a company of men to take him. Verse 31 But of the multitude many believed on him; and they said, When the Christ shall come, will he do more signs than those which this man doeth?The tragedy in view here is that the vast throng would gladly have hailed Jesus as the Messiah, but out of deference to the leaders they hesitated. How great was the blame of those evil rulers: who not only rejected the Lord for themselves but were the principal cause of a nation's failure to receive him! Verse 32 The Pharisees heard the multitude murmuring these things concerning him; and the chief priests and Pharisees sent officers to take him.Having decided months earlier to kill Christ, they were here spurred to action by the growing sentiment of the people that would have hailed him as the Christ. Their strategy of meeting such an event was to attempt his arrest; but the power of God restrained them until his "hour" had come (John 7:30). Verse 33 Jesus therefore said, Yet a little while I am with you, and I go unto him that sent me.Yet a little while ... It was October, and Christ was appointed to die at the Passover in April. During that intervening six months, all the powers of hell were not sufficient to have harmed the little finger of Jesus. Finally, when the blow fell, it was with our Lord's full knowledge and consent. I go unto him ... The words" I go" in this place are like those in John 7:8; and the perceptive words of Hunter shed more light upon what might have been the meaning there. He wrote: Possibly the Greek word meaning "to go up" carries here (in John 7:8) not its usual geographical sense but the one it has in John 3:13; John 6:62 and John 20:17. It would then refer to Christ's ascent to the Father by way of the cross: "I am not going up (to my Father) at this feast."[8]I go unto him that sent me ... These words are Jesus' way of speaking of his approaching death and resurrection. ENDNOTE: [8] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 79. Verse 34 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, ye cannot come.According to Hovey, this language means: That their (Israel's) longing and looking for the Messiah will continue after the rejection and crucifixion. Vainly will they expect the great Prince foretold in their Scriptures; and bitter will be their disappointment, from age to age, because he does not appear. But clinging to their false hope of what the Messiah should be, and hardening themselves against the evidence that he has already appeared in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, they will never find the deliverer whom they seek.[9]Where I am ye cannot come ... means that men who reject God's Son can never come into God's presence while rejecting the Saviour. Jesus is the only way to the Father; and men shall come unto God through Christ, or they shall not come to God at all. I am ... here is prophetic tense, used in the sense of "shall be." ENDNOTE: [9] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 177. Verse 35 The Jews therefore said among themselves, Whither shall this man go that we shall not find him? will he go unto the Dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks? What is this word that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am, ye cannot come?This man ... means, "This strange pretender ... The pronoun here in the Greek carries an accent of surprise and contempt."[10]The Dispersion ... refers to the Jews who were scattered abroad among the Gentiles; and the suggestion that perhaps Jesus was planning to go to them has the effect of saying: "Why, a crazy Messiah like he is, might even go to the Dispersion and try to build a following among them." It was an evil thing which they meant by this. What is this word which he said ... There is an element of puzzlement on the part of his foes in this. They rejected what he said, as a matter of course, but their minds kept returning to it in wonderment of just what could have been meant by Jesus in the clauses they murmured over and over. Again, from Westcott: "In spite of all, Christ's words cannot be shaken off. They are not to be explained away. A vague sense remains that there is in them some unfathomable meaning."[11][10] Brooks Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 122. [11] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 122. Verse 37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.THE EVENTS OF THE LAST DAY OF THE FEASTThe feast of tabernacles was concluded on the final day, thus: A high point in the ritual of Tabernacles was the pouring out in the temple court of a golden pitcher of water from the Siloam Pool. This libation was held to symbolize the future outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Messianic age.[12]In such a context, Jesus' cry for men to come unto him and drink was the equivalent of his promising the Holy Spirit to all who would follow him. Thus, in this Gospel, there is another recurrence of emphasis upon water. See comment under John 4:2. ENDNOTE: [12] A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 84. Verse 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water.It is of interest that in the preceding verse Jesus said, "Come unto me and drink"; while in this he said, "He that believeth on me ... from within him shall flow, etc." We reject the comment of Tenney that "`Let him come unto me and drink,' and `he that believeth on me' are practically synonymous terms."[13] On the other hand, the expressions are poles apart in meaning, faith being an action of the mind and heart, and coming being an action of both soul and body. Faith is subjective; coming is objective. Faith is allied to thought; coming is allied to deeds. That this is certain appears from writings throughout the New Testament. These two verses (John 7:37-38) refer to Christians receiving the Holy Spirit (John 7:39); and when this promise was fulfilled, they received the Spirit "after they believed" (Ephesians 1:13), and after they repented and were baptized (Acts 2:38 ff and Galatians 4:6). Therefore these two verses are a reference to the future giving of the Holy Spirit to Christians in consequence of and subsequently to their believing in Christ and obeying the gospel, obedience being the meaning of "come unto me" in John 7:37, and believing being the thing mentioned in John 7:38. Both are required. ENDNOTE: [13] Merrill C. Tenney, op. cit., p. 135. Verse 39 But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified.This verse is the proof that the first portion of John 3 is spoken of Christian baptism, not at that time commanded, but anticipated by the Lord's remarks there, just as the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost is anticipated here. The commentators who make such a big thing out of the great commission's not having been given when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus should take note of this. True, John did not spell it out in that interview, as he has here, for the reason that it was such an obvious reference to baptism that no explanation was thought to be necessary. This verse also sheds light on John 6:55. Glorified ... refers to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, Jesus' fulfillment of all the prophecies in those and related events being truly a glorification of God whose words were thus fulfilled. Verse 40 Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, This is of a truth the prophet.The prophet ... refers to the prophet of Deu 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:19, where the term "prophet" was applied prophetically to Christ. Verse 41 Others said, This is the Christ. But others said, What, doth Christ come out of Galilee?Galilee ... was indeed the residence of Jesus, but the people seemed ignorant of the fact that he was born in Bethlehem as the prophet had foretold (Micah 5:2). It seems that they merely assumed that since he lived in Galilee he had also been born there. Also, added to the difficulty of the people was the slander of the Pharisees that no prophet had ever come out of Galilee; but they were wrong about that also, Jonah, the first of the prophets, having come from Galilee (2 Kings 14:25). See underJohn 7:52. Verse 42 Hath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was born?See under preceding verse. The priestly conclave, if they knew of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, denied it by their distorted emphasis on the place of his residence in Galilee. They were not above falsifying a matter of that kind, even trying to deceive Pilate through their reference to Galilee. Verse 43 So there arose a division in the multitude because of him.See under John 7:13. Although the multitude continued to be divided, the division within the Sanhedrin was rapidly diminishing, as the hatred of practically all of them hardened toward Jesus. Verse 44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.See under John 7:30-33. Although the purpose of the Pharisees was set upon taking Jesus and destroying him, God restrained them until the appointed time. Verse 45 The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why did ye not bring him? The officers answered, Never man so spake.THE OF THE The arresting detail met Jesus face to face and were so taken aback by his marvelous powers that they aborted their assignment and returned without him. Since God had predetermined that the Lord would suffer at the following Passover, it must be concluded that even if they had tried they could never have physically apprehended Jesus. His hour had not yet come. Needless to say, the Pharisees were furious, nor did they like the answer they received regarding the failure to arrest him. Never man so spake ... There is a necessary inference here in these words that Jesus was more than a man. Otherwise, their words would have been, "No OTHER man ever so spake." This implication was not lost on the Pharisees. Having detected such a tender little bud of faith in the officers, they moved against it with all the savage ferocity of a wild boar. Verse 47 The Pharisees therefore answered them, Are ye also led astray? Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or of the Pharisees? But this multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed.This defense of their position with the arresting party suggests that the detail sent to take Jesus contained a number of priests. Certainly, the persons addressed in these two verses would seem to have been among them that were considered knowledgeable concerning the law. The arrogant sophistry of the Pharisees had entrenched itself in this position: "Nobody should dare to believe in Jesus as long as we Pharisees have not done so; we are the people; we decide what is true or false." Notice their pronouncement against the multitude as "accursed," such a statement exposing the loveless, selfish, and hateful character of that evil company. This was the same multitude upon whom it is written that Jesus "had compassion." But there was no compassion, no sympathy, not even any honesty in the devices which they employed against Jesus and anyone who might dare to believe in him. Verse 50 Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before, being one of them), Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?Not all of the Sanhedrinists were evil men, Nicodemus being one of the notable exceptions. He had already been to Jesus (John 3:1 ff) and was obviously out of harmony with the satanic spirit prevailing in the Sanhedrin. Such men as Nicodemus, and there may have been a considerable number of them, were helpless regarding the policies of the organization. The members were divided in their views and would continue to be divided, perhaps until the very end; because there is no evidence whatever that the final meeting of the Sanhedrin that condemned the Saviour had a full representation of its members or even a legal quorum. The men who controlled that body had already decided eighteen months earlier to kill Jesus (John 5:18); and, at the point of Nicodemus' objection, Satan was already in charge of the hierarchy. It was far too late to reverse the purpose of murder in their hearts. Nicodemus apparently knew that his question would be shouted down, and that probably accounts for the mild manner in which he stated it. Anything stronger would have brought their wrath upon him. Verse 52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.Religious error must defend itself; and, even if no honest defense exists, a shouted lie will serve well enough for the hardened heart. Those bigots demanded that Nicodemus search the Scriptures; and such a demand sounded like they knew what they were talking about; but this whole ploy was a bold unqualified lie, an unscrupulous bluff, the same being one of Satan's favorite disguises, that of a "roaring lion." If Nicodemus knew the answer to their lie, he did not have the courage to reply. Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet ... The first of the prophets was Jonah; and he had come out of Galilee, having come from Gath-Hepher which was only three and one-half miles from Nazareth! But that is not all. The one prophet whom God made a type of the Messiah was this same Jonah. Christ himself had spoken to the multitudes regarding the "sign of the prophet Jonah" (Matthew 12:38-41), making it absolutely certain that Jesus appealed to Jonah as a type of himself. It continues to be an amazement that religious literature gives so little space to the typical importance of Jonah. Note the following: Both Jesus and Jonah were asleep in a ship at sea in a storm. Both were awakened, Jesus by the disciples, Jonah by the captain. Both were involved in the ship's security, Jesus for safety, and Jonah for peril. Both freely gave themselves to save others, Jesus to save all men, Jonah to save the sailors. Both produced a great calm, Jesus by fiat, Jonah by being cast into the sea. Both passed through that "three days and three nights" experience mentioned by Christ (Matthew 12:38-41). Both converted Gentiles, Jesus through the apostles, Jonah by his preaching at Nineveh. Both were from Galilee (2 Kings 14:25). Despite all this, they shouted Nicodemus down with the lie that no prophet ariseth out of Galilee. No prophet? Well, only the Messiah(!), that great prophet like unto Moses, whose coming out of Galilee was typified by Jonah, the first of all the prophets and a type of Christ! Questions by E.M Zerr For John 71. Why did Jesus avoid Judea? 2. What feast was at hand? 3. State the advice of his brethren. 4. Does this mean his religious brethren ? 5. What reason given why his works should be public? 6. What prompted this speech of his brethren ? 7. Why had he yet not worked more publicly? 8. Whose opportunity was always present ? 9. Why did the world hate Jesus ? 10. State his direction to his brethren. 11. Why not do this himself? 12. Where did he do this waiting? 13. In what way did he finally attend the feast? 14. Who sought for him? 15. What sentiments were expressed concerning him? 16. Why were they not spoken openly? 17. What did Jesus finally do? 18. At what did the Jews marvel? 19. How did Jesus account for the situation? 20. How might a man test the doctrine? 21. What indicates a man seeks his own glory ? 22. State the contrast in the conduct of Jesus. 23. What were these people seeking to do? 24. In so doing what command would be violated ? 25. Who did he say had given them this law? 26. How did they resent the accusation of Jesus ? 27. What was the “ one work” of 21st verse? 28. With whom did circumcision begin? 29. What had Moses done about it? 30. How about circumcision and the sabbath ? 31. In what were the Jews inconsistent? 32. What constitutes unrighteous judgment? 33. State the inquiry some made. 34. What were they observing ? 35. What did they ask of the rulers ? 36. Concerning whom did they express doubt ? 37. On what familiarity was this doubt based? 38. What did Jesus say about this common knowledge 39. Tell whom he said they did not know. 40. Why did Jesus know him? 41. What did they then seek to do? 42. Tell why they failed. 43. How were many of the people affected? 44. State their significant question. 45. Whose ears did these remarks reach? 46. Upon hearing them what did they do? 47. Tell the announcement Jesus made to the officers. 48. In what did he say they would be disappointed ? 49. Who were confused by this statement? 50. What explanation did they suggest among themselves 51. On what subject did Jesus now speak? 53. How far along is the feast? 53. Who is antecedent of "his” in 38th verse? 54. What was he going to bestow ? 55. Upon whom? 56. Why had this not yet been bestowed ? 57. At this saying what did many people remark? 58. Why did others question it? 59. Explain their confusion at this point. 60. On their return what was asked the officers? 61. Give their explanation. 63. What answer did the Pharisees make to this ? 63. State their anxious inquiry about the rulers. 64. Upon whom did they pronounce a curse? 65. What counsel did Nieodemus express? 66. With what argument did they reply to him ? 1 After these things refers to the happenings unfolded in the closing verses of the preceding chapter. Jesus walked in Galilee means he continued to walk there, for he was already in that territory. Jewry is another form of "Judea," and Jesus avoided going there, at least for the time being, because of danger from the Jews. 2 This feast is described in Leviticus 23:34-43. It brought many Jews to Jerusalem, hence the risk to his life caused Jesus to remain in Galilee for a while. 3 His brethren means what the word usually does, and not his disciples as the Romanists teach, for the disciples are mentioned also in the same verse. He was in Galilee, the home territory of his family, and thus it is clear why his own fieshly brethren would be near him. 4 His brethren made their suggestion in a critical mood. They implied that Jesus was inconsistent in avoiding publicity. If he wished to be known by mankind as the Saviour of the world, he should not be acting in such a secret manner. 5 John explains the criticism of these brethren by saying they did not believe in him. It doubtless was on the principle stated in chapter 4:44. 6 Jesus explained his plans on the ground that it was not time yet for him to come out entirely in the open. Jesus was never afraid of man as far as his own comfort was concerned, but in his wisdom he never did anything prematurely. The brethren were not in any danger, hence their time (to appear in the gathering) would be whenever they wished to go, without waiting for the feast even to get started. 7 Cannot hate you does not mean it was literally impossible for the fleshly brethren of Christ to be hated. But it was wholly unlikely to occur, because all of the conditions were against It. They were regarded as ordinary citizens along with other men and were not "out on the firing line" as teachers against sin as was Jesus. 8 This verse has the same thought as verse 6, and states the reason why Jesus was not in any hurry to attend the feast. 9 Having explained his reason for not going to Jerusalem with the others, Jesus continued his stay in Galilee for a short time only. 0 After the brethren of Jesus were gone, he could go up unnoticed, being alone. This secrecy was maintained for the reason expressed in verses 6 and 8. 1 It was natural to expect Jesus at the feast, for it was a national occasion for the Jewish race. Where is he is explained by the state ment in verse 10. Jesus did not intend to be prominently visible for a while. 2 The people were divided in their sentiments about Jesus; some for and others against him. While his presence was still generally unknown, the conflicting sentiments created an atmosphere of unrest among the crowd. The murmuring was as far as those sentiments exhibited themselves which is explained in the next verse. 3 The undercurrent referred to in the preceding verse was caused by fear of the Jews. Not knowing just what course they would take as to the treatment of Jesus, people did not commit themselves on the subject, for fear of finding themselves in an embarrassing situation when the issue came out entirely into the open. 4 The feast was about four days along when Jesus came out of his "hiding" and appeared first in the temple. It being the capitol of the Jewish religious system, it was proper for Jesus to show up there in order to do his teaching, which was the main purpose he had all the time he was among the people. Taught is from DIDASKO, which Thayer defines at this place, "To hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic [instructive] discourses." So Jesus did not merely utter some single sentences, but continued his speech to the extent of displaying a general knowledge of important subjects pertaining to the salvation of man in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Letters is from a Greek word that means something that has been written by an educated person. Jesus had never taken a course of instruction in any of their institutions of learning, hence it baffled the Jews to hear him speaking like an educated man on matters of such great concern pertaining to human conduct. 6 This verse answers the questions of the preceding one. Jesus was teaching the doctrine of his Father, and did not need the instruction coming from man. 7 The construction of this verse might seem to have things backward. We would think it to be necessary to know of the doctrine before one could do his will. That is true; however, if a person is not disposed to do the will of God, he will stumble and waver and be so unfavorably disposed toward the truth, that he will fail to grasp it when it is presented to him. 8 A man might be found who claimed to be from God, yet if he depended on the instruction given in human institutions, it would show his desire to make a display of his attainments for his own glory. 9 The particular part of the law of Moses that Jesus refers to, is the sixth commandment which is the one against murder. The sabbatarians try to make a distinction between the law of God, which they say is the Decalogue or ten commandments, and the law of Moses which is the "ceremonial law" as they call it. But here is Jesus referring to one of the ten commandments and calling it the law of Moses. All of this shows how inconsistent people will be when they wish to defend an unscriptural theory. 0 Thou 'hast a devil was their way of saying that Jesus was possessed with a devil (demon), and it had rendered him demented; they denied any desire or attempt to kill Jesus. Their memory seemed to fail them, for chapter 5:16 says that the Jews "sought to slay him." That was after he had cured a man on the sab-bath day, which they claimed was a violation of the law. But the law about the sabbath was a part of the same Decalogue that contained the commandment against murder, the very crime they sought to commit against Jesus. 1 Jesus was soon to remind them of the occasion when they sought to kill him. He first comments on the case by referring to their astonishment at the one work that he had done, while they also would do something even on the sabbath day that was as certainly a work as curing a sick man would be. 2 The Jews pretended to have great respect for Moses, whose law they accused Jesus with violating. In specifying a work they did on the sabbath, Jesus mentioned circumcision which also came from Moses. However, lest they misunderstand the real history of that ordinance, he interposed an explanation that it had been given to the fathers of old before the time of Moses. Notwithstanding this, they professed to regard the law of Moses so highly, that they insisted on performing his ordinance of circumcision, even though it should be done on the sabbath day. 3 The act of performing circumcision, which was a surgical one, was certainly as much a manual labor as was that of curing an invalid. Yet they condemned Jesus for doing that, while they persisted in doing the other. 4 There are people who resent being penalized or even criticized for their wrongs, and then will try to make a defense for their acts by quoting Matthew 7:1. If they wanted to be fair in the matter, they would consider all that Jesus said on the same subject. In the present passage, the Lord gives more specific information on the act of judging others. Appearance is from oPsis, and Thayer defines it in this passage, "The outward appearance, look." Robinson defines it, "External appearance, show." The Englishman's Greek New Testament translates it by the single word "sight." The outward or mere appearance of a situation does not always provide all the facts in the case, hence the honest thing to do is to investigate and get the whole truth. Then a judgment rendered on that basis will be a right-eous judgment, and not the kind the first part of this verse says not to do, and the kind that Matthew 7:1 says not to do. 5 These people of Jerusalem were local citizens, who knew about the plans of the rulers to kill Jesus. They thought they recognized Him as the victim who was to be slain, and were puzzled that he was still at liberty. 6 These people observed that Jesus was speaking boldly without being molested. They wondered if the rulers had concluded that Jesus was actually the Christ who was predicted by the Scriptures, and that they better not interfere with him. 7 There is a vein in the human mind that discounts a "home product" as being of little special value. That is why Jesus said what he did in chapter 4:44 and similar passages. It was true these people were acquainted with the earthly surroundings of Jesus as a man, and there is no information that anything of a supernatural or even unusual nature occurred in his home life. That was because his divine personality was not to be manifested until the proper time, which would be after his baptism and he was ready to enter upon his public ministry. Another thing, these people had an idea that is not explained in any work of reference that I have, that. the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament was to make his entrance into this world in some mysterious manner (which was true, but not in the way they meant), and that he would come from some unknown territory. 8 In the first part of this verse Jesus agrees with their statement, that they knew him and whence he had come. However, that applied only to his earthly family life, which is commented upon in the preceding paragraph. But as to his divine origin and personality, they did not know him because they did not know his Father. 9 The reason Jesus knew God was that he had sent his Son into the world. When Jesus came he was not in the dark as to why he had come. (See Hebrews 10:5-9.) 0 It seems that any reference to the divinity of Christ always stirred up the anger of the Jews. Jesus asserted again that he had come from a source with which the Jews were unacquainted. That could only mean to them that the one they were hating was claiming to be of a higher origin than they. It was more than they could stand, but they were not able to do anything about it. The explanation for it is in the words his hour was not yet come. As long as the work of Jesus was unfinished, the Father saw to it that nothing would seriously interfere with it. 1 The people were not all as prejudiced against Jesus as were the Jewish leaders or rulers. Seeing the miracles that he was performing, they could not understand why there was any reason for looking for another to come as the Christ. On the strength of this, many of the people believed on him. 2 Heard that the people murmured. The last word usually means to complain in a low or undertone kind of voice, but it does not have that meaning always. One phrase in Thayer's definition of the original word is, "say anything in a low tone." The people had actually expressed themselves favorably toward Jesus, but they were doing it in a subdued voice. But the Pharisees heard about it and were envious of the kindly attention that Jesus was receiving, and decided to stop his work by arresting him. The outcome of this attempt will be learned near the close of the chapter. In the meantime Jesus delivers one of his wonderful discourses, the several verses whereof will be commented upon in their order. 3 This was a notice that the work of Jesus on earth was about to end. 4 As Jesus expected to return to his Father, he meant those unbelievers would not be able to follow him, even though curiosity might prompt them to desire to. 5 Since these Jews did not believe that Jesus came from the presence of God in the first place, they now would not grasp the thcught that, he was going back to Him. They wondered, therefore, if he meant he was going to disappear among some people that were beyond their visible association. Dispersed refers to the Jews who were scattered throughout various Gentile countries. Smith's Bible Dictionary says the following on the subject: "The Dispersion was the general title applied to those Jews who remained settled in foreign countries after the return from the Babylonian exile, and during the period of the second temple." 6 The whole subject was baffling to the Jews of Jerusalem. 7 Last day, great day of the feast. The day is described in Leviticus 23:36. It is called a great day because certain religious activities were done on that day that were not done on the seven other days. Also because the closing day of any important period is regarded with special attention. The Jews had been engaged for a week, having a time of rejoicing, and enjoying the good things produced by their fields and flocks. It was hence an appropriate time for Jesus to call their attention to something else of which they might partake, that was of vastly more importance than these temporal blessings. Jesus offered to give the blessing of spiritual drink to any man who would come to him for it. 8 The original word for belly is defined by Thayer in this place, "The innermost part of a man, the soul, heart, as the seat of thought, feeling, choice." Robinson defines it virtually in the same way. The pronoun his refers both to Christ and to anyone who accepts the living water that he offers. Christ is the source of living water, and if a man opens his heart or inner being (here translated belly), that stream of living water will enter therein. Then such a man in turn will become a source of that, precious water, supplying both himself and those he influences, with that which will contribute to his spiritual life and growth. This verse is the same in thought as the teaching of Jesus which he gave the woman of Samaria at the well. (See the comments on that instance in chapter 4:14.) 9 The living water to which Jesus had specific reference, was the spiritual instruction to be given through the kingdom of heaven that he had been promising. That instruction would require a means of delivering it to the members of the kingdom, which was to be the Holy Ghost or Spirit. But that gift was here spoken of in prospect only, for it was not the will of God that it be sent upon the disciples until Christ was glorified, which was to be after he returned to his Father. 0 Jesus fills so large a place in the scheme of human redemption, that it takes many terms to comprehend the various parts that he was to play. Hence he is referred to as Christ which means "anointed," because he was to be a king. He is called Jesus which means "saviour," because he was to save the people from their sins. And he is termed a prophet, because he was to teach and prophecy. All of these functions and characteristics were predicted of Him, in one form or another in the Old Testament. The Jews knew about these various predictions, but did not realize they referred to the same person. For that reason we read about their mention of the different offices of Jesus as referring to separate persons. In the present verse they speak of him as the prophet, meaning the one predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18. 1 Others thought of Jesus as the Christ or anointed One which means king, who had been prophesied to sit on David's throne (Acts 2:30). But some of them rejected this idea on the ground that such an important person should have a more dignified residence than one located in Galilee. 2 They supported their idea against Galilee by citing the scripture that said Christ was to come out of Bethlehem. Their application of this scripture was correct, but they evidently did not know that while Jesus was generally known as a Galilean, yet he was born in Bethlehem according to the prophecy. 3 There was a division (in sentiment) among the people. That means with regard to their attitude toward Jesus; some for and others against him. 4 The sentiment of some who were against Jesus was so strong they would have taken him. The original Greek for that word is defined by Thayer at this place, "To take i. e., apprehend." He then explains his definition to mean, " a man, in order to imprison him." Among those whose sentiments were against JESUS were doubtless the officers who had been sent out by the chief priests and Pharisees. They would have acted upon authority as far as these Jewish leaders were concerned, had they arrested Jesus. They did not do so, and their excuse to their "superiors" will be stated in verse 46. However, the Lord in Heaven was watching over his Son, and was not going to permit any actual interference with his work until it was accomplished. Hence the inspired reason why these officers did not take Jesus is given in verse 30; because his hour was not yet come. 5 The officers who were sent to arrest Jesus returned without him. The chief priests and Pharisees doubtless were disappointed, and called for an explanation. 6 The brief but significant answer was, never man spake like this man. Spake is from LALEO, and it has such a wide range of meanings that the definitions will not be quoted in full. The word includes the act of speaking with authority, information, impressiveness, and on all of the subjects pertaining to human conduct. It is no wonder, then, that these officers said what they did. 7 The Pharisees concluded their officers had been captured by the teaching of Jesus, instead of capturing him as they were sent to do. 8 It was bad enough for their officers to be thus influenced by the hated Teacher, but they thought it would be a great misfortune for any of the religious leaders to be "deceived" by him. 9 Knoweth not the law. The statement of Nicodemus (next verse), and their reply shows the chief priests had Jesus in mind when they used the indefinite phrase, this people. It was not Jesus, but the chief priests who did not know the law, for it was the document that made favorable predictions of the very person whom the leaders of the Jews were condemning. (See the comments on chapter 5:39.) 0 Being one of them. This means that Nicodemus was one of the Pharisees. Chapter 3:1 says the same thing in so many words. 1 All that Nicodemus insisted on was that the justice of the law be carried out in the case of Jesus. The question he, asked would have been fair, regardless of whether Jesus was a good man or not. 2 This verse denotes that the Pharisees accused Nicodemus of siding with Jesus. The preceding verse only called for the regular procedure of the law, therefore their objection proves they did not want to do the fair thing about Jesus. The only thing they mentioned as a basis for their condemnation of Jesus, was his humble home territory of Galilee which was usually referred to unfavorably from a social standpoint. 3 The meeting "broke up" without any formal action being taken against Jesus, and the people all went to their places of stay. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Eight ABOUT THE WOMAN TAKEN IN Joh_8:1-111 But Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.—This is the earliest mention of the Mount of Olives with the visits of Jesus. The mount is situated on the east side of Jerusalem, its ascent beginning just on the suburbs of the city. From its top the city can be overlooked. It was from this mount that Jesus overlooked the city on his last visit to Jerusalem and wept over its coming ruin and desolation in terms of such ten¬der pathos and sorrow. On its eastern slope the villages of Bethany and Bethphage are situated. The former was the home of Martha and Mary and Lazarus, the strong personal friends of Jesus, whose house seems to have been the chief stopping place of Jesus when in Jerusalem. He had strong personal friends in Bethphage as well as Bethany. He was now when in Jerusalem likely spending his nights with this family as he did during the last week of his sojourn on earth. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.—Spending his nights at Olivet, he returned early in the morning to teach in the temple. 3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst,—In some of the early manuscripts this account of the woman is wanting. Some conclude that it is not genuine. But it seems to have the divine stamp upon it by the spirit and wisdom in which it was treated. 4 they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act.—The case was brought before Jesus by his enemies in the effort to find ground for accusing him. 5 Now m the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her?—The law of Moses required that one guilty of adultery should be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 22:23.) The law had fallen into disuse at this time. The Roman government forbade the Jews inflicting capital punishment without the sanction of the Roman ruler. The Romans did not hold adultery a ground for capital punishment, an(d would not sanction the death of one for this offense. Then the character and temper of Jesus made it certain that he would not have ordered her executed if he had the power. So they imag¬ined they could force him to set aside the law of Moses and give ground for accusing and condemning him before the people. 6 And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.—Jesus was not quick to answer. He allowed them to press the point and fully commit them¬selves. He knew they all had been guilty of the same sin at some time in their lives. [The dilemma they wished to get him in was somewhat like that of the tribute money. To af¬firm the binding validity and force of the law of Moses would be to advise a course of action contrary to the Roman law. On the other hand, if he set aside this law it would make him liable to the charge of breaking this law which would be an aid in killing his influence with the Jews. In one case they would accuse him to the Romans and place him under civil authority; in the other they could denounce him as setting aside the law of Moses. This is the only recorded instance where Jesus ever wrote a line. What he wrote at this time no one knows for the reason it is not recorded.] 7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.—The law of Moses required the wit¬ness to cast the first stone. “ The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.” (Deuteronomy 17:7.) The simplicity and ease with which he caught those in the trap set for him marks the rec¬ord as genuine. [They were determined to succeed so kept pressing the question, “ What then sayest thou?” His answer was like a bolt of lightning. It affirmed nothing, set them back on their own hearts and bade them thus decide. It was as if he had said to them, “ Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judg¬est dost practice the same things.” ] 8 And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.—He stooped again to write, doubtless to give them opportunity to do what they desired free from restraint of observation. 9 And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, begin¬ning from the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst.—Jesus called into activity their own consciences and then left the conscience to direct their course. He decided according to the law and threw the responsibility of executing the law upon them. They slipped out one by one and left him and the woman alone. 10 And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee?—[Is there no one to prove you guilty?] 11 And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.—With none to execute the law, he showed the mercy of God and told her to sin no more. To condemn her was to execute like sentence upon her. This he did not do; but in kindness condemned the sin, warned to sin no more and let the woman go. [“ Go” and “ sin no more” is a strong implied rebuke of the woman's past life, and charge to repent and lead a different life. It also implies an opening of the door of hope if she complied with the conditions. The Christian’ s mercy ought to be like that of Jesus— sorrow for the sinner but indignation for sin. It should lead him to seek to save men from sin and to open the door of hope to the fallen.] JESUS HIMSELF THE LIGHT OF THE WORLDJoh_8:12-20 12 Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world:—Jesus lays stress on the truth, that he came to give light to the world, both intellectual, scientific, and real light on all subjects. “ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:4.) He shed light when the world saw the example set in his life and actions as well as in the precepts he delivered. To follow his precepts and examples is to receive and appropriate the light he gives. [Light was considered as an accompaniment of the presence of God. Moses saw the burning bush in Horeb. When he returned from the presence of the Lord on Sinai his face was shining with heavenly radiance. The pillar of fire that lighted Israel on their journey was the emblem of the presence of God. Now Christ, in the presence of both friends and foe, makes a more stupendous claim and affirms that “ I am the light of the world,” not to the Jews only, but to all nations that will embrace his claims.] he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.—[As the pillar of fire lighted and guided the children of Israel on their journey toward the promised land, so shall his followers be lighted by him, and shall have not only light, but “ the light of life” which is the gospel. He fills the life with light in the reception of the word of God.] 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest witness of thyself; thy witness is not true.—The law of Moses was that a man was not to be convicted upon the testimony of one witness. Speaking of this, it was sometimes said the witness of one man was not true. It only meant that the truth could not be established by the testimony of one witness. Again, a man must have other testimony than his own to establish his claim to a high position. This was spoken of as if a man has no witness for himself save his or his testimony is not true. The Pharisees spoke to Jesus as to his claims to be the Son of God. 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true; for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye know not whence I come, or whither I go.—Jesus shows that even in this case his testimony could be relied on, as he knew whence he came and others did not, and they had no knowledge whence he came or whither he went. 15 Ye judge after the flesh;—They judged after the outward appearance. [They were fleshly— of the world and looked upon outward appearances, material forms and, like the world, judged accordingly. To such characters he is a riddle; to the “ Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness.” ] I judge no man.—He judged no man on such grounds. His was a righteous judgment, knowing the full truth concerning himself. [He knows the hearts of men— the most profound secret— but he lets their own works judge them. This will be true in the final judgment.] 16 Yea and if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.—But if he should judge his judgment would be correct since God was with him and guided him in his judgment. [His mission into the world was not to judge it, but to save it. He does not refrain from judging it because of incompetence of passing just judgment, for his Father would judge in him and all hearts are “ naked and laid open” unto him.] 17 Yea and in your law it is written, that the witness of two men is true.—“ One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.” (Deuteronomy 19:15.) This law was carried into the New Testament. (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1.) [The Jews accepted this law as from God. Note, that Jesus did not say our law, but “ your law.” Strange, but nevertheless true, he never classes himself with the Jews.] 18 I am he that beareth witness of myself,—[In addition to his own testimony that he came from the Father, there were his mighty works bearing the same testimony. “ We know,” said Nicodemus, “ that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.] and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.—He gave the two witnesses in behalf of his claims. His could be accepted inasmuch as the Father wrought through him. [The witness of the Father is found in all the prophets who spoke of Christ, and also given at his baptism by testimony from heaven. “ And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17.)] 19 They said therefore unto him, Where is thy Father?—[This question shows on its face that it is full of a scornful spirit, and therefore not asked for information. Because they could not see the Father they, therefore, disputed his word.] Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father:—His claim was that God was his Father and that they did not know God, although they claimed to be his people. [The Pharisees clearly demonstrated that they knew not God by re¬jecting his Son.] if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.—If they knew Jesus as the Messiah who came from God they would know his Father. [Men who reject Christ prove by that act that they know not God, for “ in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9.)] 20 These words spake he in the treasury,—The treasury was one of the apartments of the temple. [It was located in the court of the women, probably the most public part of the temple. (Mark 12:41; Luke 21:1.) The location of his teaching shows his boldness.] as he taught in the temple:—[The Sanhedrin held its sessions usually in the hall Gazith, which was located between the court of women and the inner court. Jesus was therefore teaching within hearing of the headquarters of his worst enemies, from whence came the orders shortly before (John 7:32-33) for his arrest.] and no man took him; because his hour was not yet come.—[“ Until the Passover, six months in the future that the plans of his enemies should all fail, and his hour should not come, was clearly known to the Lord.” ] HE HIS AND THE OF HIS ENEMIES TO FOLLOW HIM John 8:21-30 21 He said therefore again unto them, I go away, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sin:—He turns to the same thought presented in 7: 34. When distressed, and especially when they come to meet God and the judgment, they would seek to come where he is and would not be able to come. [Jesus will depart and return to heaven, and they shall seek him when it is too late and shall not find him, but die in their sins.] whither I go, ye cannot come.—[The results of rejecting the Savior are that they shall die in their sins and therefore cannot go to heaven where he is. This, together with the next three verses, opposes the doctrine of universal salvation.] 22 The Jews therefore said, Will he kill himself, that he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come?—They had previously asked: Will he go to the dispersed among the Gentiles to teach? Now they ask: Will he kill himself? [The Jews were slow to comprehend the purpose of Jesus, but surely not so dull as their question implies. Probably the question is asked in scorn. Since he had told them that he was going where they could not come, they probably meant that he was going to Gehenna, where all suicides go, rather than to heaven, where all Pharisees expect to go. They held that the darkest regions of the underworld were reserved for those who were guilty of suicide.] 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above:—In answer to the question of killing himself, he tells them that he is from heaven and will after his death return there. [They had referred to the underworld in their question to each other so Jesus in his reply to them states where each is from and that when he departs he will go to the place from whence he came.] ye are of this world; I am not of this world.—They will tend downward in the world to come. [They will go to the place for which they are prepared, while he goes to his Father.] 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.—Because of their earthly or fleshly nature, they would die in their sins and could not come to him. [The only way to es¬cape from the doom of the wicked, either for these Jews or any one else, is here stated by the Lord. Unbelief will damn the world. A living, active faith in Christ is the only thing that leads to heaven. While they were unsaved, yet there was one ray of hope for escape, namely, believing in Christ. He who dies in unbelief dies in sin and therefore dies without hope.] 25 They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning.—The statement that they would die in their sins and never be able to come where he will be stirred their indignation and they ask, “ Who art thou?” Jesus had claimed from the beginning to be of his Father God. 26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world.—Jesus had come to make known the will of God to the world. He at all times held out that what he taught was not from himself, but was the will of God, and God was true. 27 They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.—They did not recognize that their God was his Father. [Their minds were so full of earthly things that they did not care to heed spiritual things.] 28 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man,—He was to be lifted up on the cross. This foretold the manner of his death [and proved his divinity. No one but a divine being could foretell the future.] then shall ye know that I am he,—After he was crucified they would know by the signs following that he is the Son of God, and that the Father was with and in him. Even those who failed to believe on him owned his divine power. [His resurrection would be the grounds of an increase in disciple- ship. Fifty days after his crucifixion about three thousand in one day obeyed the gospel and became his followers. A few weeks later other thousands did likewise. The very act that his enemies hoped would blot his name from history was the means of filling the world with obedient believers. Jesus on the cross became a badge of honor instead of a symbol of shame. It is the central act and foundation of the Christian religion. It gives spiritual life to man.] and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.—[He was his Father’ s agent and did nothing not authorized by him.] 29 And he that sent me is with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are pleasing to him.— The ground for the Father’ s presence with Jesus is that he al¬ways did the will of his Father. God is with all who do his will. 30 As he spake these things, many believed on him.—[Their faith was produced by the testimony presented by him.] HE TELLS THE JEWS HOW TO BE FREEJoh_8:31-45 31 Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples;—The continuance in his will is the only test of true discipleship. This shows that to accept the truth and not follow it up by continuing to obey it will not save. One act of obedience does not free from sin, but a continuance in the words of God alone can free from sin and its direful results. It is a great mistake to think that one act frees us from sin. When we show our faith in God by compliance with his prescribed conditions of forgiveness he remits the penalties of past sins and places us in a condition to go forward in his service and thus secure freedom from the dominion and effects of sin; but it is only the persistent walk in keeping the words of Jesus that can free us from the bondage and condemnation of sin and fit us for companionship with God and his children in his own blessed home. Without this there can be no salvation with God. It is the continuance in the words of Jesus Christ that fits for salvation. 32 and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.—To continue in the word of God is more than to obey the positive precept that brings into Christ, and now and then to attend upon the services of the Lord’ s house. To con¬tinue in the word of God is to take that word into our hearts, to take the spirit inspired and that dwells in that word, into our hearts and let that spirit infuse itself into our souls, so that the Spirit of Christ will dwell in us, will lead us, will be our Spirit and will inspire our feelings, will control our thoughts, mold our actions, and guide our lives in all things so that our bodies will become the temples of the Spirit of God and our lives will bear the fruits of the Spirit of God dwelling within us. To continue in his word is to make that word the supreme law of our daily lives that it may convert our souls, so that we may breathe continually an atmosphere impregnated with the Spirit of God in our hearts that our souls may delight, find their joy and happiness in doing God’ s law. 33 They answered unto him,—[Probably not the believing, but the unbelieving Jews.] We are Abraham’ s seed, and have never yet been in bon¬dage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?— They did not understand to what the freedom applied, and insisted that since they were the seed of Abraham they were never in bondage to any man so did not need to be made free. It is just as important that we continue as Abraham did to walk in his service as it is that we enter his service; it is just as important that we follow on in faithful obedience to the will of God as it is that we believe in him. Importance is given to faith because faith leads to a continued walk in the words of God. A faith that does not lead to this is a dead faith that brings no good to man. It brings evil because it in¬volves a degree of knowledge of God and his will. He that knows his Master’ s will and does it not shall be beaten with added stripes because of this knowledge. One who thinks he is helped by faith, when that faith does not lead to a continued life walk in the words of Jesus Christ, is deceived. The pur¬pose and end of that walk is the training and schooling of the spirit of man into a oneness with the Spirit of God. 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin.— This is the most cruel slavery. They were slow to understand his meaning, and he plainly declares it. [He who continues in sin is in slavery to Satan.] 35 And the bondservant abideth not in the house for ever: the son abideth for ever.—A slave is not personally connected with the family. The son is the heir and permanent member of the family. 36 If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.—The son, the heir, could give lasting freedom, but the servant could not make free. 37 I know that ye are Abraham’ s seed;—He knew they were Abraham’ s seed after the flesh but their spirit was not like Abraham’ s. [The civil register probably represented a genuine descent in the flesh, but there is something far more important than this, without which this is nothing.] yet ye seek to kill me, because my word hath not free course in you.—[His word had penetrated their hearts and made them for the time being believers, but it had no further development; it had made no advance. On the contrary, they had, after believing for a time, again gone back. The implied conclusion is that they were not Abraham’ s seed in the best sense.] 38 I speak the things which I have seen with my Father: and ye also do the things which ye heard from your father.—Both Jesus and the Jews followed the spirit of their fathers. Jesus spoke the words of God. [He is drawing a sharp contrast between the source of their conduct and his. The devil was their father (44) and seeking to kill Jesus was evidence that they were doing their father’ s bidding.] 39 They answered and said unto them, Our father is Abraham.—They refused to own that they had any father save Abraham. Jesus was speaking of spiritual relations, and they did not receive the spirit of Abraham. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’ s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.—[They were the offspring of Abraham according to the flesh, but spiritually they had another father whom they served. (44.)] 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham.—If they were Abraham's children after the flesh, they were not after the spirit. Jesus had come into the world to elevate the spiritual man above the fleshly, and the spiritual relations above the fleshly. [Note the uncompromising assertion of Jesus as a messenger from God.] 41 Ye do the works of your father.—They showed the spirit of the devil so were his spiritual children. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.—As they were the children of Abraham after the flesh and Abraham was a child of God, they insisted that God was their original Father. [They seem now to get a glimpse of the moral sense in which Jesus takes the notion of Sonship, and proceed to assert that they whose lineage on both sides is unimpeachable in the flesh cannot be successfully impeached in the Spirit.] 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.—Jesus kept the spiri¬tual relation before them. If God were your Father you would not oppose me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.—Their failure to understand him was because of their fleshly, sensual nature that was cherished among them. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do.—The devil inspired their course. He is the author of all evil. The devil was their father because they desired to do his will, and while desiring to do his will they could not understand the teachings of Jesus. No man can understand or serve God who desires to follow the devil. Those who desire to do the lust of the devil are the children of the devil. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth,—He delights in the corruption and ruin of souls as God delights in their salvation. This implies that the devil was once in the truth, was in heaven, even the atmosphere of heaven; but he loved falsehood better than truth, was cast out of heaven and was carried down to hell. “ For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judg¬ment.” (2 Peter 2:4.) “ And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 1:6.) “ And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the de¬ceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.” (Revelation 12:9.) because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.—In lying, falsehood, and deception he was speaking of his own nature and led others with him into ruin. 45 But because I say the truth, ye believe me not.—They being children of the devil, after the spirit like him, refuse to hear Jesus because he was of the truth and spoke the truth. HE THE JEWS TO CONVICT HIM OF SINJoh_8:46-50 46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?—His works were the ground of his claim to be the Son of God, and he challenges them to convict him of any falsehood or wrong. And if they cannot convict him, why do they not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God.—Those who did not honor God in their hearts would not hear God’ s word. They would hence not listen to or accept his teaching. 48 The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon?—The Samari¬tans were worse than the Gentiles in the eyes of the Jews. They were a mongrel race that claimed the privileges of the Jews, and the Jews charged that they were all possessed of demons. 49 Jesus answered, I have not a demon; but I honor my Father, and ye dishonor me.—Jesus insisted that he honored the Father by doing his will, and that they dishonored him by the charges brought against him. 50 But I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.—As an evidence of his righteousness, he was not sent to seek honor for himself, but for another. God seeks and will judge. JESUS THE POWER OF HIS WORK AND HIS PRE-Joh_8:51-59 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my word, he shall never see death.—He makes these strong statements to draw their minds to the spiritual nature of his meaning. On account of their sensual nature, these Jews could not take in his meaning, so he made this strong statement referring to spiritual death. 52 The Jews said unto him, Now we know that thou hast a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my word, he shall never taste of death.—They, re¬fusing to see his meaning, feel sure that he has a demon to claim exemption for those who believed in him from the death that came to Abraham and the inspired men of old time. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died? and the prophets died: whom makest thou thyself?—In their minds it was blasphemous to claim higher honor than those ancient worthies received. [Their contention is that Abraham and the prophets heard the word of God and are dead, and shall they, who hear thee, not die?] 54 Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God;—To honor himself was selfish and human. But Jesus relied on him whom they claimed as their God to honor him. 55 and ye have not known him: but I know him; and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his word.—They were liars on claiming to know him, while refusing him whom God hath sent, and he having come from God and having been sent by him would be a liar to say he did not know God. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.—Abraham received the promise that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed and by faith he looked forward to the coming of Jesus and rejoiced in the promise. [Abraham saw it in promise by prophetic vision and rejoiced in the hope of the revelation of Christ.] 57 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?—The Jews persisted in applying this language to Abraham in the flesh who had been dead two thousand years. How could one who had been dead two thousand years see him now living? [They do not give the age of Jesus, but a round period that will cover it. He did not say he had seen Abraham.] 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Be¬fore Abraham was born, I am.—Jesus was the Word that was with God in the beginning, was coexistent with God, and was the Creator of all things in the beginning. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Jesus existed long before Abraham did, and still exists after Abraham has died and passed away, hence he speaks of himself as existing at the present, so “ Before Abraham was, I am.” [Jesus does not merely assert that he was before Abraham, but before Abra¬ham was “ I am.” He identifies himself with the “ I am” of the Old Testament.] 59 They took up stones therefore to cast at him:—[They considered him a blasphemer. Had he been only a man, he would have been. Stoning was the penalty of blasphemy, so they, without waiting for a trial and a legal verdict, sought to inflict the punishment by mob violence.] but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.—[Disappeared in the crowd and left the temple. As Jesus and no inspired man ever worked a miracle for their own benefit, we therefore could not attribute his disappearance to a miracle.] Verse 1 In this chapter, the controversy continues. There is the case of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53 to John 8:11); Jesus the Light of the world (John 8:12-20.); teaching of his heavenly origin (John 8:21-30); and the passage on the true children of Abraham (John 8:31-59). THE WOMAN TAKEN IN This paragraph (John 7:53 to John 8:11) is omitted from later versions of the New Testament, upon the basis of convincing arguments denying it a place in the sacred canon. Hendriksen, after canvassing all of the scholarly findings on the subject, concluded thus: Though it cannot now be proved that this story formed an integral part of the Fourth Gospel, neither is it possible to establish the opposite with any degree of finality. We believe moreover, that what is recorded here really took place and contains nothing in conflict with the apostolic spirit.[1]We shall study the narrative as it has come down to us. ENDNOTE: [1] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 35. And they went every man unto his own house: but Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down and taught them. (John 7:53 to John 8:2) Early in the morning ... is a detail that suggests the report of an eyewitness. And he sat down and taught them ... refers to his assumption of the formal position of a teacher (Matthew 5:1). And all the people ... Scholars notice what is called a change of style here and throughout the paragraph, evidenced by the stringing together of one thought after another by the use of "and." Also, this is the only mention of the Mount of Olives in John. All of the facts, however, fit the situation perfectly. Verse 3 And the scribes and Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act.Overshadowing the moral lapse of the woman was the brutal, unfeeling, sadistic behavior of the hypocrites who thus broke up a religious discussion by such an intrusion. Their partiality in not bringing her partner makes it possible to suppose that one of them was the guilty man. "Adultery ..." indicates the woman was married. Verse 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her? And this they said trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote with his finger on the ground.The Pharisees were misapplying Moses' law here, since "stoning" was commanded for a betrothed girl before her marriage (Deuteronomy 22:23 f), and the woman before them was married. They cared nothing for the law and were only interested in cooking up some charge against Jesus. Incidentally, if they had really believed their own earlier indictment of him as a sabbath-breaker, they would not still have been searching at this later date for another basis of accusation. Trying him ... has the force of "tempting him." What did they hope to gain? (1) If Jesus had concurred in asking a death penalty for the woman, they would have hailed him before the Romans who had made it illegal for the Jews to assess such a penalty. (2) If the Lord had recommended mercy, they would have placed him at variance with Moses and made a lawbreaker out of him! Stooped ... and wrote ... on the ground ... The Saviour reacted to such a grotesque and embarrassing situation with silence and by stooping and writing on the ground. This is the only instance of Jesus writing; and the fact of his writing being quickly trampled under foot strongly suggests the only other instance of deity's writing, namely, that of God's inscribing the tables of stone. The decalogue too was quickly trampled under foot (spiritually), and Moses smashed the tables of stone (Exodus 32:19). If this passage is really spurious, it is difficult to explain such overtones as this. Verse 7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.Jesus, as ever, found the answer in the Scriptures. Deuteronomy 17:7 says, "The hand of the witness shall be the first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people." Thus Jesus demanded that the witness, nowhere visible in this interview - that the witness should reveal himself and cast the first stone; but the Lord demanded something else - such a witness would himself have to be without sin. Again the Pharisees' trap had closed without taking Jesus. The Lord had neither condoned any kind of sin nor contradicted Moses. He just turned the tables by an appeal to conscience, there being no coward like a guilty conscience. Verse 8 And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.Another period of silence ensued, as the Lord kept writing. The older heads in the Pharisees' company saw instantly that their scheme had failed. Not in a million years were they prepared to produce a witness, much less a sinless witness. Verse 9 And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even to the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst.The Saviour's silence, the total absence (or silence) of any witness against the woman, and the watchfulness of the mighty throng surrounding the little circle of Pharisees with Jesus and the woman at the center - all of that became suddenly a situation of profound embarrassment to the Pharisees. The oldest, being the more perceptive, led the way, and they all left. Once more the Galilean had conquered. Verse 10 And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee?Where are they ...? Indeed, where are they all who opposed and rejected the Lord? God only waits a little while, and the most powerful and vicious sinners fade away. Verse 11 And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.The woman's humble and respectful answer, Jesus' refusal to condemn, despite his divine knowledge of all the truth, and his gentle admonition "sin no more" - this is as beautiful a conclusion of this incident as could be imagined. Jesus' mercy to the woman is possibly the reason some have suspected this passage. Again from Hendriksen: Augustine definitely stated that certain individuals had removed from their codices the section regarding the adulteress, because they feared women would appeal to this story as an excuse for infidelity ... asceticism played an important role in the sub-apostolic age. Hence the suggestion that the section (John 7:53 to John 8:11) was actually part of John's Gospel but (later) removed from it cannot be entirely dismissed.[2]ENDNOTE: [2] Ibid. Verse 12 Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.JESUS; THE LIGHT OF THE WORLDI am the light of the world ... is the second of the seven great "I am's" of John. See: John 6:35; 8:12; 10:9; 10:11; 11:25; 14:6; and 15:5. Several suggestions of what might have prompted such a metaphor by Jesus are: (1) the great lamps kindled in the temple court during the feast of tabernacles, (2) the glorious sun rising at that very moment over the mount of Olives, and (3) the pillar of fire that lighted the way for Israel in the wilderness; but it seems more reasonable to suppose that if Jesus needed any suggestion of such a metaphor he would have rather found it in the "light" passages of the Old Testament. Note: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the end of the earth (Isaiah 49:6). I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6). But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings (Malachi 4:2). As the sun is the source of all light, power, and energy on earth, Jesus the Sun of righteousness is the source of all spiritual light, power, and energy. Light is the only thing that can come into contact with filth and remain uncontaminated. Christians are the "light of the world" (Matthew 5:14), but theirs is a reflected light. Men of righteous intention seek the light (John 3:19 ff). Light either kills or develops vegetation, depending on whether or not it is rooted in soil; and the gospel has that same dual function (2 Corinthians 2:15 ff). Light is its own witness. See next verse. Verse 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest witness of thyself: thy witness is not true.This proves that Jesus was reading their hearts when he answered this same objection before (John 5:31). In this instance, the Lord refused, even for a moment, or for argument's sake, to notice their objection, having checkmated it in advance through his presentation of himself as the light of the world. Light, by its very nature, is a witness of itself. Verse 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true; for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye know not whence I come, or whither I go.Back at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:31), Christ had waived momentarily his right of bearing witness of himself; but, finally, light cannot do otherwise than bear its own witness. How fortunate are we that Christ did bear witness of himself in the most dogmatic and convincing manner. If he had not done so, it would have cast a cloud over the faith in Christ. Whence I came ... whither I go ... None except Christ could bear witness to such things as these. He came from God to walk among the shameful dwellings of men; and he would go, when his mission was ended, back to the right hand of the majesty on high. In such areas as these, his foes were totally ignorant. Reynolds commented: The whole of our Christian verities turns 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 sublimity and solemnity, give adequate evidence and sufficient weight to his personal claim to be the Light of the world.[3]ENDNOTE: [3] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Luke, John, p. 352. Verse 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.Ye judge after the flesh ... means that they were judging the Prince of life from fleshly and carnal premises. I judge no man ... In the sense of merely condemning people, which is what the Pharisees were doing, Jesus judged nobody. There was no need for the Saviour to come into the world to condemn it; it was condemned already (see under John 3:17). It is possible that there is also in this a hint of Jesus' refusal to condemn the woman (John 8:1-11); for they are right who insist that such an incident fits neatly into the whole framework of this Gospel. Verse 16 Yea, and if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.This proves that John 8:15 was no disclaimer of his right to judge. His oneness with God was proof that any judgment by himself was not merely his, but God's judgment also. For I am not alone ... This was addressed to the slander that Jesus' witness of himself was to be rejected. His witness, on the other hand, was plural, both his and the Father's witness concurring. Verse 17 Yea and in your law it is written, that the witness of two men is true. I am he that beareth witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.Your law ... was so called because the Pharisees professed such high regard for it. It is written ... refers to Deuteronomy 17:6; Numbers 35:30, etc., where Moses' law taught that two concurring witnesses were sufficient for imposing the death penalty. Two concurring witnesses were therefore sufficient for establishing the authenticity of Christ and his message. Verse 19 They said therefore unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.From John 7:27, it is clear that the leaders claimed to know "whence" Jesus came; and both Matthew (Matthew 13:55) and Luke (Luke 3:23) mention the supposition that Joseph was Jesus' father. In this light, Jesus' declaration here that they did not know the Father is eloquent testimony of his virgin birth. If ye knew me, ye would know my Father ... This truth applies with equal force to the Pharisees then, and subsequently to all of every generation. Only God could be the Father of such a one as Christ; and the failure of men to behold the glory and Godhead of Jesus carries with it the corollary that such men are likewise unable to recognize God. Verse 20 These words spake he in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man took him; because his hour had not yet come.This area was actually called the court of women; but against the wall in that court were some large boxes to receive the offerings of the people; and thus this came to be called the treasury. The regular meeting place of the Sanhedrin was in earshot of this place, thus expediting their bringing the woman to Jesus (John 8:1-11). The significance of Jesus' teaching here without molestation derives from its being at the very center of Jewish activities. His hour had not yet come ... God's providential care would continue to guard Jesus until the time appointed for his death. Verse 21 He said therefore again unto them, And ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sin: whither I go, ye cannot come.(See under John 7:34 where these same words are found.) Ye shall die in your sin ... gives the reason why the Pharisees would be unable to go where Jesus was going. Only the pure, the forgiven, and the redeemed will follow the Lord there. Verse 22 The Jews therefore said, Will he kill himself, that he sayeth, Whither I go, ye cannot come?This sneering allegation that maybe Jesus might kill himself was an insult to the Christ of glory whose prophecy that they would die in their sin was ignored. Verse 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.This double contrast of himself with his obdurate hearers was stated as an explanation of why it was impossible to reach them with any kind of spiritual message. One might as well have tried to elicit appreciation of Handel's Messiah from a mule as to explain spiritual matters to the Pharisees. Jesus explained it again; but they were not operating on any wavelength that would have permitted them to receive what the Lord said. Verse 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.This was another of the "hard sayings" (John 6:60) of Jesus, especially so for the Pharisees. Here is a dogmatic affirmation that forgiveness of sins is possible only for them that believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Refusal to believe in him is forfeiture of eternal life. Jesus is the unique source of salvation. It was the battle cry of the early church that "There is none other name under heaven given among men" wherein we must be saved. No other system, philosophy, ethics, morals, or anything else can provide the tiniest ray of hope apart from Christ. Everlasting life is "in him"; it is nowhere else. Verse 25 They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning.Scholars will be aware of various renditions of this difficult verse; but it is interpreted here with the meaning, "I am the same as I have been telling you from the beginning." Who art thou ...? could indicate some hesitation in their headlong rush to destruction, as if they had said, "Wait, maybe we are overlooking something; who are you anyway?" Jesus did not condescend to elaborate further. His witness of his Messiahship and his absolute oneness with God had been so overwhelming that the most insensible among them should have known long before this conversation that Jesus was God come in the flesh. If he had plainly said so, it would only have given them a chance to denounce him as a blasphemer; in fact, that opportunity was what they sought by the question. See Jesus' manner of handling an identical situation underJohn 10:24,25. Verse 26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world.Concerning you ... They had demanded a more definite statement from Christ of his identity; but he responded with a promise to tell the whole world who they were! This was spoken sadly in view of the deepening of the chasm between himself and the leaders of the chosen people. As Westcott noted: In them unbelief was embodied. So the sentence follows: "I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you." The uttering of these judgments will widen the chasm between us, but they must be spoken at all cost; (for) he that sent me is true. In his message there is no superfluity and no defect, and the things I heard from him, when I came on earth to do his will, these speak I unto the world.[4]Some of the judgments Jesus would speak against those men followed at once, as when he identified them as sons of the devil (John 8:44). Other such denunciations were in the three parables of: (1) the two sons, (2) the wicked husbandmen, and (3) the marriage of the king's son. In the latter, he prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem. ENDNOTE: [4] Brooks Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 137. Verse 27 They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.Jesus told them plainly that he came from God, from heaven, from above, that God was his Father, that the Father had sent him, and that he and the Father are one - but all that was lost on them. They simply did not get it. Such is the power of pride, worldliness, conceit, and self-righteousness to blind the eyes of the soul. Verse 28 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know ... Some of the priests (in fact, many of them) would believe (Acts 6:7), but not until after the crucifixion, resurrection, and world-wide proclamation of the faith. Verse 29 And he that sent me is with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are pleasing to him.Jesus had advanced this thought earlier, but here it seems to have been spoken in consideration of the loneliness he felt in the wake of his rejection by the leaders, who were the very persons who should have led all others in accepting Christ and advocating his reception by the whole world. In this interview, Jesus confronted the ugly fact that the cruel, apostate leaders would continue to be his stubborn enemies; and it must have been one of the saddest moments of the Lord's life on earth. Only the Father's comforting love was available to him in such a strait; but that was enough. Verse 30 As he spoke these things, many believed on him.Holders of the "faith only" theory of salvation force themselves through all kinds of mental gymnastics in their vain efforts to separate these "believers" from that class of adamant enemies of Jesus with whom they are here identified. Calvin got around it by supposing these "believers" not to have had "genuine faith"; Others suppose a transition of subject matter from the Lord's enemies to another class who believed; but as Hendriksen noted: No transition of any kind from one group of men to another sharply contrasted group is apparent to the ordinary reader of the Greek text or of the English translation. Thus, it is very difficult to see why the men in John 8:31 would have to be a completely different group from them ... in John 8:30.[5]For us, there is no problem. Something over and beyond faith in ihe Lord Jesus Christ has always been necessary to salvation; and the "believers" in this verse, having faith only, and being at once exposed as enemies of the Lord, were never saved in any sense. This is not the only such case in John. See John 12:42. ENDNOTE: [5] William Hendriksen, op. cit., II, p. 51. Verse 31 Jesus therefore said of those Jews that had believed on him, If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.Those Jews that had believed on him ... refers to the "believers" in John 8:30. If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples ... Jesus did not say to those believers: "You have believed on me, therefore you are saved"; but he said in effect, "Now that you have believed, if you really want to be my disciples, do what I have commanded." The ultimate salvation of those "believers" depended then, as it does today, upon their obeying the gospel of Christ. If they had been among the three thousand baptized on Pentecost, then they would have been saved. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free ... Their faith had not made them free, nor does faith alone make people free today. Abiding in Jesus' word, knowing the truth and obeying it these also are prerequisites unto eternal life. So plainly are these truths evident in such a passage as this, that it would be humorous, if the results were not so tragic, to wade through the libraries of human comment designed to subvert the obvious meaning. To all the people of all ages, to the sum total of all who ever "believed on" Jesus Christ, these words are the Saviour's unqualified personal mandate, "Abide in my word if you would truly be my disciples!" Verse 33 They answered unto him, We are Abraham's seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?In view of the whole nation's being in bondage at that time to Rome, one wonders just how to take a boast of this kind. Perhaps it merely meant that they had never willingly consented to any such servitude, which was true. Ye shall be made free ... Jesus, of course, was talking about their being in the slavery to sin, despite the fact that they had "believed on" him; their actual release from such spiritual bondage would come under the benevolent terms of the new covenant - that is, if they would follow Christ and obey the gospel. Verse 34 Jesus answered them., Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin.Political freedom Jesus did not bring; but he brought a far more important spiritual freedom. Thus Jesus tried to relieve their error. Verse 35 And the bondservant abideth not in the house for ever: the son abideth for ever.This is a reminder to sinners all that the penalty of sin is death. Bondservants of sin that men are, their days in the house of flesh are limited. This introduced another element of the bondage from which the truth makes free, the bondage of our mortality. Hendriksen saw an additional implication: The old dispensation with its special privileges for Israel has ended. Abraham's true children will remain in his household (the new covenant) and enjoy its privileges permanently; but Abraham's slaves (think of Hagar) will be driven out. Only a son enjoys freedom. If therefore the Son of God will make them free, they will be free indeed.[6]In view of the teaching of Christ on the true children of Abraham a little later, Hendriksen is probably correct in seeing Ishmael as the bondservant, and Isaac as the "son" of this verse. The distinction between the true sons of Abraham, that is, the "spiritual seed" and the mere fleshly descendants, is of utmost importance in understanding the Scriptures. Christ is the true "seed" of Abraham; and all of the "spiritual seed" of Abraham are "in Christ." ENDNOTE: [6] Ibid., II, p. 53. Verse 36 If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.The Pharisees had claimed to be Abraham's seed; but they were merely his fleshly descendants; and the truth Christ was presenting is that to be truly Abraham's "spiritual" seed, they would have to be "in Christ," or "in the Son," and thus reckoned a part of the "seed" singular (Galatians 3:16). Until they accepted Christ, their status would continue to be that of the slave and not that of a son of Abraham. Verse 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; yet ye seek to kill me, because my word hath not free course in you.Jesus freely acknowledged their physical descent from Abraham, but in the same breath pointed out their murderous intentions against Jesus Christ, "the seed" singular (Galatians 3:16) in whom all of the great promises of Abraham were to be realized. What a contradiction in their conduct! Spiritually, those men were the sons of the devil, as Jesus would shortly say. Verse 38 I speak the things which I have seen with my Father: and ye also do the things which ye heard from your father.With this, Jesus directed the conversation toward another sector. Who really was the father of those vicious opponents confronting him? His first mention of their "father" here would not be explained until John 8:44; but the Lord would build the conversation to the climax there. Verse 39 They answered and said unto him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus said unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.The differentiation between the physical and the spiritual descendants of Abraham is developed fully in Paul's letter to the Romans, Romans 8-9. See my Commentary on Romans on these chapters. Abraham's children ... In the sense that this relates to God's redemptive promises through the patriarch Abraham; it never did mean persons physically descended from Abraham, but those with a spiritual likeness. The Jewish leaders were totally unaware of this. If ye were Abraham's children ... is equivalent to saying that the men Jesus addressed were not Abraham's children, they had no spiritual likeness to the great patriarch and were therefore not his children at all in the Biblical sense. Verse 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that told you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham.Jesus here pointed out the proof of their spiritual corruption, that proof being that they wanted to kill the Lord. How can this be reconciled with the admitted fact that these spiritual bastards "believed on" the Lord Jesus Christ? (See under John 8:30, and following.) The answer is that theirs was "faith alone"! Today, the world is full of people who "believe on" the Lord Jesus but would rather kill him than to do what he commanded, being in such a state the spiritual descendants of those "believers" on exhibition here. Verse 41 Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have, one Father, even God.His hearers at last recognized the spiritual import of Jesus' words, stopped pleading their physical descent from Abraham, and boldly claimed God as their father; but Christ rejected such a plea. Verse 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God: for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.Ye would love me ... If men are of God, they will love Jesus. "Faith alone" cannot justify or save men, because there is a higher requirement than faith; and if that higher qualification is lacking, as it was in the case here, "believers on" Jesus may be in fact the sons of the devil. The genuine test is not "Do we believe?" but "Do we love the Lord?" That is why Paul ranked "love" above "faith" (1 Corinthians 13:13); and the answer to "why" the "greatest of these is love" derives from the revelation of Christ that if men love the Lord they will obey him (John 14:15). It is not necessarily true that if men believe they will also obey. These men believed but did not love nor obey Christ. Verse 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.Their inability to hear was not a defect from which they might have been excused. Jesus held them responsible. Hendriksen's paraphrase of the meaning here is: "It is because, through will, you cannot bear to hear the truth or message conveyed by these phrases."[7]The Lord had patiently explained again and again the truth of God to those evil men, trying to get them to see that the true spiritual children of Abraham would exhibit a spiritual likeness to him, and as a consequence love the Lord Jesus; but their obtuseness and hatred persisted. At last, patience exhausted, the Judge of all people announced his evaluation of them. ENDNOTE: [7] Ibid., II, p. 59. Verse 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father, it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.Again, it should be noted by the student that these men, so denominated as sons of the devil, were "believers on" the Lord Jesus; but they did not love him and would not obey him. If people are justified by "faith alone," these sons of the devil were justified. The devil ... Regarding this evil being, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 4:1. It is of interest that murder and falsehood are identified specifically as works of the devil. Regarding the seven Scriptural classifications of works, see my Commentary on Romans, p. 62. Satan has many sons on earth today, and hatred of Christ and his teaching is inherent in their nature. Satan, a being so powerful that angels dare not bring a railing accusation against him, is nevertheless himself a creature, fallen from his first estate, and destined to be destroyed at last. He does not share control of the universe with God; but, due to the fall, finds mortals naturally inclined to yield to the temptation he exerts upon them. Verse 45 But because I say the truth, ye believe not.For evil persons, no reason on their part is required for rejecting the truth, except for the fact of its being so. Evil cannot love righteousness. Verse 46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?Which of you ... The total sinlessness and perfection of the Saviour's life proved his Godhead; and all who ever knew Christ concurred fully in this judgment of absolute holiness pertaining to him, a fact that his bitterest enemies allowed to stand unchallenged. Why do ye not believe ... This stage of the interview having been reached, their faith had become no faith. Note also that this does not deny their fundamental position of "believing on" him as the promised Messiah, the Christ who should come into the world, etc. They still recognized him as the head of the theocracy, the rightful and lawful heir of the temple and of the extinct throne of Solomon. IT WAS WHAT HE TAUGHT that they disbelieved (Matthew 21:38); and their hatred of the truth was so great that they deliberately decided to kill Christ and run religion according to their own preferences. This spirit is still in the world. Verse 47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God.The only proof needed to demonstrate that men are sons of the devil is that of their being unwilling to "hear" in the sense of "obeying" the word of God. Verse 48 The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon?It seems nearly incredible that they should have resorted to any such vilification as this in pressing their claims. to righteousness. They meant, "We are not children of the devil; you are the one who has a demon." Samaritan ... was a gross racial epithet reserved for persons utterly hated (see under John 4:7). For a list of ten such slanders against Jesus, see my Commentary on Luke, Luke 9:19. Verse 49 Jesus answered, I have not a demon; but I honor my Father, and ye dishonor me.Jesus refuted their insinuation that his judging them to be sons of the devil was demoniacally inspired, pointing out that their dishonoring of himself was proving them to be just what he had called them. They were dishonoring Jesus: (1) by failure to love and obey him, and (2) by the groundless slanders just perpetrated against him. Verse 50 But I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.The Lord here refused to be outraged by their insults. In his humiliation, he had made himself of no reputation; and depraved humanity never fell any lower than the vile exhibition of it in this passage. Here, fallen men appeared in the role of reviling the Son of God. The Lord did not fly into a rage but calmly reminded them that God would seek and judge. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The people evidently understood where Jesus spent the nights, and that he would return in the morning. In the early morning the people were on hands to greet Jesus. He did not disappoint them, but sat down and taught them. 3 The Jewish leaders had made a number of unsuccessful attempts to entrap Jesus in his teaching. They concluded to try the plan of play ing upon his great compassionate nature, in the hopes of having him try to set aside one of the ordinances of Moses. They brought a woman who had been taken in the act of adultery and placed her in their midst. 4 Since the woman was taken in the act of adultery, they had the same chance of bringing the guilty man as they did the woman. The fact they did not is proof they were not concerned about the law of Moses. Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 is the law referred to, and it required that both the man and woman should be stoned. But they brought only the woman, because they thought the natural leniency of a man for the feminine sex would cause Jesus to set the law aside unconditionally. 5 The Pharisees made the correct interpretation of the law in the case, but their use of the word such condemned them, for that applied to both the man and woman. What sagest thou? This direct question was said in the tone of a challenge, thinking Jesus would say, "it would be harsh to stone a woman, so turn her loose." Such a statement would have furnished the Pharisees a pretext for accusations. 6 The inspired writer tells us these Jews said this to Jesus to tempt him. He knew all of that, and delayed giving them any answer at all. As though he heard them not. No one of these words is in the Greek text, but have been added by the King James translators as their comment on the action of Jesus in writing with his finger and saying nothing. He certainly did not pretend not to hear the accusers, for that would have been unreasonable for One who had been able even to read the minds of men before they said anything. My comment on the circumstance is that Jesus thereby showed his distaste for the whole thing. Another thing that was accomplished by ignoring them, was to force them to repeat their cowardly remarks, which would render their humiliation all the more evident when the time came. He finally stood before them and made a statement that must have surprised them. He did not advise releasing the woman (as they desired), neither did he give direct instruction to slay her. Another thing, even had Jesus directed that the woman should be stoned, they did not stop to think that they would have to be the executioners, having forgotten the stipulations in Deuteronomy 17:7. He that is without sin. This could not mean one who was absolutely sinless in every respect, for that requirement would have made it impossible for anyone to be punished, seeing their own Scriptures declare there is no man who "doeth good, and sinneth not" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). The only conclusion possible is that Jesus meant the one who casts the stone must be innocent of the sin for which he wished the woman to be slain. That doubtless put them out of the right to act, for Jesus hal called that generation of Jews an "adulterous" one (Matthew 16:4). 8 Jesus placed the termination of the case at the feet of these hypocrites, then stooped down and resumed his writing to let them think upon the proposition. 9 Conscience is from SUNEI-DESIS, and the lexicons give a various description. The outstanding definition of the word as Thayer gives it is, "The soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending the one, condemning the other." These accusers were convicted by their conscience, which means it condemned their own conduct. That was because they knew they had done that which was bad, and hence were not qualified to be the executioners of the law at hand. Went out means they left the temple where they had been in their pretended attempt to enforce the law, leaving Jesus and the woman yet together. 1 Jesus asked the woman if no man condemned her. This could not mean whether any man accused her, for they had already done that. The word is from , and Thayer defines it, "To give judgment against one, to judge worthy of punishment, to condemn." Jesus did not excuse the woman's act, but he would not require that the ordinance be executed upon her. The accusers failed to execute it, which is what she meant when she said, No man, Lord. Jesus said, neither do I condemn thee, and immediately admonished her to sin no more. It was somewhat like a case where a judge hears evidence against a prisoner. He might consider all the facts in the case, and decide he would give him another chance. He would probably say, "I will let you off this time, but don't be guilty again." Another thing, the witnesses were the only ones who could lawfully execute this ordinance, and they had left the assembly. Jesus did not care to act the part of executioners, hence bade the woman go, giving her an admonition concerning her future conduct. 2 After disposing of the incident with which the Pharisees interrupted his main work, Jesus resumed his teaching pertaining to spiritual matters. When Jesus said I am the light of the world, he only repeated what John the Baptist said of him in chapter 1:6-9. Walking in this light means to conduct one's self according to the teaching that Jesus gives. 3 It is a commonly-accepted principle that one's personal testimony is lacking in force unless there is something or someone else to support it. The Pharisees knew this, and thought they could apply it to the assertion of Christ concerning himself. 4 Jesus did not call in question the rule to which they alluded, yet he maintained the truthfulness of his own testimony. He was speaking from personal experience and did not have to rely on other facts for its support. This truth gave Jesus a distinction above the situation of the Pharisees, for they did not have any "inside information" at all. But Jesus was soon to show that his own personal information was confirmed by that of another, and that therefore he was not alone. 5 Flesh is from SARX, which Thayer defines in this passage, "Man as he appears, such as he presents to view, man's external appearance and condition." No doubt the bodily appearance of Jesus was like that of the ordinary Jew, and the Pharisees classed him among the others on that account. Jesus did not judge any man on that basis, for he was able to see through the veil of flesh and read his mind. 6 Here Jesus states the reason for his assertion in verse 14 as to the assurance of his testimony, that it was verified by that of his Father. He testified to the divinity of his Son at the baptism (Matthew 3:17), and also enabled him to perform miracles which no man could do on his own human strength. 7 Jesus often referred to the Old Testament for proof of his statements, because the Jews professed to have great respect for that document. (See the comments on chapter 5:39.) In our present verse they are reminded of an established rule concerning the force of testimony that their law contained. That rule is written in various places, and one outstanding passage is Deuteronomy 19:15. 8 Jesus and his Father would make two witnesses testifying to the same truth. According to the ordinance of their own document of law, that would establish the divinity of Jesus, the fact that was especially offensive to these Jews. 9 The Pharisees would not deny the principle that Jesus just uttered, but thought to weaken it by pretending to be unacquainted with one of his witnesses, hence they asked, where is thy Father? To know a person in the practical sense, meant to acknowledge him and give full consideration to all his claims. This the Pharisees refused to do with Jesus, consequently they did not know him nor his Father. 0 The treasury was one of the departments of the temple where the -people came who wished to make certain financial contributions. It would be where a great many could see and hear Jesus as he was teaching. That teaching did not suit many of them, but they kept hands off because his hour was not yet come. (See comments on chapter 7:30.) 1 I go my way refers to the return of Jesus to his Father. Shall seek me does not mean they will seek to find Jesus as their Saviour, for he did not intend ever to get out of reach of any man who was honestly disposed unto eternal life. It refers to the desire for the benefits that had been bestowed upon man while Jesus was in his personal ministry. (See the comments on Luke 17:22.) With only such a selfish motive for seeking Jesus, they would fail to find him and would die unsaved, which would make it impossible for them to go into his presence. 2 Will he kill himself? This was not said in seriousness, for had Jesus meant that, he would not have said they could not follow him; any man can commit suicide. They took this method of "changing the subject," for they knew Jesus had predicted his own death at the hands of the Jews, but they were unwilling to recognize their connection with the sad deed. 3 The human side of the person of Christ was from beneath, but otherwise he was from above the earth. This verse is another statement of the divinity of Jesus. 4 The thought in this verse is the same as that in chapter 3:16, for one must believe in the "Only Begotten Son of God" to have everlasting life. These Jews were persisting in their unbelief, hence Jesus warned them that they would die in their sins. 5 Who art thou? This question was asked in pretense of interest, for they had been told in plain terms about the personality of Jesus. He understood their motive, and only referred them to what he had said to them previously. 7 Jesus could have said many things truthfully against these Jews, that he knew from personal association among them; however, he was supported in all this by his Father. But the hardness of their hearts prevented the Jews from "catching on" to what Jesus meant. 8 This lifting up refers to the crucifixion, which Jesus had predicted in chapter 3:14. The fulfillment of that prediction, and the Gospel facts that immediately were to follow, would convince some of them that Jesus was a true prophet and teacher. Having proved that he was true, the people would have reason to believe that He was the one sent to the earth from God. 9 God was not with Jesus in person, but was in spirit, and gave evidence of it by supporting him in his great works. Jesus did not come into the world to do his own will, but, to do that of his Father. (See Hebrews 10:7.) 0 Many believed on him. The evident fairness of Jesus in leaving the truthfulness of his claims to rest on proposed facts to come, had its effect on some of the people, so that they professed confidence in it. 1 A mere profession of belief is not enough to satisfy the Lord. That profession must be followed up with adherence to his teaching. 2 This verse was still addressed to the believers directly, but it was in the hearing of all those present, so that its application was general. 3 They answered him. This means the ones who had not become believers. They interpreted the statement of Jesus to mean the bondage enforced upon people by man, in the social and political realm. But even from that standpoint, their claim was not correct if they were speaking of Abraham's descendants as a whole. They had spent four centuries in bondage in Egypt, and 70 years in captivity in Babylon. 4 Jesus explained that he was considering another kind of bondage. Servant is from a Greek word that means "slave." Many people who boast of their personal liberty, are slaves under the cruelest of all masters, that of sill. 5 Passing from the moral and spiritual phase of the subject, to the social and political for the purpose of illustration, Jesus shows these self-righteous Jews that they are detsined to be thrust out unless they change. 6 A favor backed up by a servant might be of short duration, for that servant could be put out of the household at any time, and hence that favor would go out also. But a son's place in a home is permanent, and favors brought about by him would be permanent also. That is why the favor of being made free would be lasting (free indeed) if the son had caused it to be given. 7 Jesus did not deny the fleshly relationship of these people to Abraham, but that did not excuse their resistance to his word. Instead, it should have inclined them to think favorably upon the teaching of Jesus, for Abraham had been informed of this very great seed of his, and his belief in that promise had obtained for him the title "friend of God" (James 2:23). 8 A rule is for a son to speak as his father speaks, and to walk in his footsteps. Jesus applied that rule to himself and to these self-important Jews. 9 Abraham is our Father. All that could be meant by this was their blood relationship to the patriarch. If ye were Abraham's children. In this phrase Jesus meant to question their true relation to Abraham in faithfulness. Had that been the case they would have shown those traits of the worthy ancestor. 0 These Jews had sought to kill Jesus for telling them the truth, which was something that Abraham would not have done. On that account, they were not worthy of being considered the children of Abraham. 1 The Jews would swing back and forth from one position to another, as they felt the need to keep up their defence. When they thought, it was to their credit to be the children of Abraham, they were inclined to boast of it. They knew that Jesus would not say anything against Abraham, yet he implied by this last statement that they were begotten of some unknown man; one among the morally promiscuous. Then they changed their base and denied any parentage but that of God. 2 Jesus made the same kind of reply to this claim that he did when they boasted of being children of Abraham (verse 39). Their conduct toward Jesus indicated they were not of God, for he was the Father of Christ whom they did not love. 3 As long as people are devoted to the devil (as these Jews were) they cannot hear (heed) the words of Christ. By the same token they would not understand his speech when he spoke to them upon the matters of correct living. 4 The Greek word for father is PATER, and it is used 417 times in the New Testament. The definitions are so numerous that lack of space forbids copying them all. The first definition of Thayer is, "Generator or male ancestor." As a secondary definition he gives, "The founder of a race or tribe, progenitor [ancestor in the line] of a people, forefather." In his comments or explanations of one of the secondary definitions, Thayer says, "The originator or transmitter of anything . . . one who has infused his own spirit into others, who actuates [causes to act] and governs their minds." The last sentence Thayer applies to the verse of this paragraph. That is true, for it was the spirit of the devil that caused Cain to slay his brother, then lie about it when he said he did not know where he was. It is the same spirit that has caused men to lie and commit murder all down through the centuries. Hence it was perfectly Just for Jesus to -call these wicked Jews the children of the devil. 5 This short verse is a logical deduction from the description of the devil as given in the preceding verse. The reason the Jews would not believe what Jesus told them was because it was the truth, for the devil does not want the truth, neither do his children who are following after his principles. 6 Convince is from a word that means to convict or prove one to be guilty of sin. The question of Jesus was a challenge which amounted to a denial beforehand. Since they knew they could not convict Jesus of sin, that would mean that all he said was the truth. On that basis, the only correct answer to his last question would be that their unbelief was due to their relation to the devil. 7 Of is from EK, and Thayer uses three whole pages in his lexicon in defining and explaining the word. The reader may thereby form some estimate of the importance of the term. But his first and general definition is, "From out of, out from, forth from, from." He also explains that it is the opposite of the terms "into" and "in." In composition such as our verse, it means one whose character and principles of life originated with God. Jesus affirmed that all whose character came from God would hear his words. These Jews were refusing to hear them, therefore it proved they were not of God, which is the conclusion which Jesus charged against them. 8 Thou art a Samaritan. This was said to show their contempt of Jesus, in view of the low estimate the Jews had of the Samaritans. A description of that subject is given with the comments on chapter 4:9. Say we not refers to chapter 7:20 where they first charged Jesus with having a devil. See that passage for comments on their charge as they said thou host a devil. 9 A sober denial of their charge was the first reply of Jesus. He then made a logical statement, based on his relation to God. Jesus honored his Father and they dishonored Him (Jesus). That was the same as accusing them of dishonoring God also, although these Jews made great claims of respect for God. 0 The outstanding thought that John stresses in his record of Jesus, is his divinity or close relationship with God. And that seems to have been the point on which the Jews showed their bitterest feeling for Him. And that explains why Jesus so often referred to that relationship, which is the thought in the words, I seek not mine own glory. There is one. It is stated in many places that Jesus came into the world to do his Father's will, therefore the one in this phrase is God. 1 Shall never see death. The Bible recognizes two kinds of death, the physical and the spiritual. The man who accepts the words of Jesus and keeps them will never suffer the spiritual death. (See chapter 11:26.) 3 The Jews either did not know or they deliberately refused to recognize the two kinds of death. With that as the basis for their speech, they repeated the charge they first made at chapter 7:20, and pretended to ascribe His statement about dying to the effects of the devil in him. Adhering to their notion of there being only the physical death, they referred to the death of Abraham and the prophets as proof against the statement of Jesus. 4 This verse has the same reasoning Jesus gives in verses 14-18. 5 The Jews made a great profession of knowing God, yet they constantly refused to recognize his Son. In rejecting Jesus they were also rejecting God, which is a principle that is taught in numerous passages throughout the New Testament. If Jesus had denied any knowledge of God, it would have been untrue, and that would have placed him in the same class as the Jews who were guilty of falsifying. 6 God told Abraham that he was to have a seed or descendant in whom the whole world would be blessed. (See Genesis 22:18.) That promised seed was Christ, and Abraham believed the promise that was made concerning him. That is the sense in which he rejoiced to see the day of Christ on the earth. 7 The Jews were still think-in of Jesus as an ordinary human being only, who had been born less than fifty years before. Abraham had been dead for more than 20 centuries, hence they denied that Jesus could ever have seen him. 8 Am is from EIMI, a Greek verb whose fundamental meaning is, "to be." The word is used in the Greek text without inflection (suffixes), therefore it has its full original meaning. As Jesus used the word in this verse, it means that Abraham had a definite time at which he came into being, that is why he used the word was. Jesus existed always, hence he says I am with reference to himself. A noted writer has worded this much better than I can, hence I shall give the reader the benefit of it. "Divinity has no past tense, nor future tense, but always the present." 9 This assertion was completely beyond the comprehension of these Jews, and in sheer desperation they thought of stoning Jesus. But "his time had not yet come," hence he miraculously passed from their midst. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Nine JESUS HEALS A MAN BORN BLINDJoh_9:1-12 1 And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.—One born blind would be supposed to be more difficult to heal than one who had gone blind after he was some years of age. He left the temple, where the Jews sought to stone him, and saw a man blind from birth. The presence of the afflicted and suffering seems at all times to have excited the interest and sympathy of Jesus. He was touched with a sense of our infirmities and sympathized with human suffering. So he showed that he was willing to help this blind man. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?—The Jews cherished the idea that since affliction came as the result of sin, every afflicted one, or his parents, had been guilty of sin. The idea seems to have prevailed among the Jews that all bodily afflictions came as the result of the sins of the person afflicted or of his parents. Often men were miraculously smitten with affliction on account of sins. Uzziah was smit¬ten with leprosy for assuming priestly functions. Zacharias was made dumb because he doubted the angel. Sins were visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations. The Jews concluded that affliction is the result of the sin of the person afflicted or of his parents. The Jews had clear ideas of punishment for sin only in this world. In a very gen¬eral sense all affliction— all suffering— came as the result of sin. Without sin no suffering would have been known on earth. Yet sin once introduced, and mortality inflicted, dis-cord prevailing, disease and affliction have come upon man through his surroundings without moral guilt or sin upon his part. The disciples shared the common belief of the Jews on this subject and asked Jesus whether this blindness was for his own sin or that of the sins of his parents. The Jews said to the blind man (34): “ Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?” This may mean that they thought he was blind because of the sins of his parents so he was alto¬gether born in sin. 3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents:—A little thought would have convinced them that he could not have been born blind for any sin he had committed. If such an affliction was the result of sin, it must have been the sin of his parents or his ancestors. All affliction conies as the result of sin. But there is such a long line of ancestors before us all guilty of sin, and the lines of transmission may have be¬come so complicated that infirmity and affliction may come upon us as the result of sins of others than our immediate par¬ents transmitted through the law of transmission from parent to child. The meaning is that neither he nor his parents have sinned that brought this blindness upon him. Jesus knew that when discord had been introduced into the world, and mortality had come upon man, as a result of weakness in the parents the child might be born blind without sin on the part of parents or child. So he says neither has sinned to bring this blindness. but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.—So this person had not been born blind for either his or for the sins of his parents, but the result would be to manifest the power and glory of God by Jesus healing him. He said he was blind to this end or purpose. We do not understand that he was afflicted just to afford an opportunity of Jesus healing him. Such for examples are given. There is a similar expres¬sion. Speaking of the death of Lazarus Jesus said, “ This sick¬ness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.” (11: 4.) I do not under¬stand that God directed that this man should be born blind to afford Jesus an opportunity to heal him, nor that Lazarus sickened and died only to give Jesus an opportunity to restore him to life, and so show his power; but in the providence of God these things had happened to these men through the workings of God’ s laws. The weaknesses and infirmities of the parents, or the surroundings of the persons, had been such as resulted in blindness to the child. He having been born blind, Jesus used the opportunity presented to open his eyes to show forth the glory of God— his power and kindness— and the power of God made known to the world. This was not a denial of the truth that all suffering and disorder came as the result of sin and violation of the divine law. But this blind¬ness was not the direct result of sins in the parents or the child. 4 We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day:—Jesus declares that he must improve the opportunities of doing the work the Father sent him to do while he lived. God had sent Jesus that in him the works of God should be manifested. Miracles are intended to declare that God is with the man who works the miracle. He works the miracle that declares God is with and speaks through him, then men be¬lieve the message is from God. The miracle assures the world the message delivered is a message from God. The miracle is the attestation that the message the man speaks is from God. (4: 34; 5: 19, 26.) “ While it is day” means while life is granted, for death would come when he would cease to work. (11:9; 12: 35; 17: 4.) Jesus must be doing the work of God while life lasted. the night cometh, when no man can work.—He industriously, yet with no haste, did the work God sent him to do, conscious that his death would soon come when he would cease his work on earth, or the night of death would come when no man worketh. 5 When I am in the world, I am the light of the world.—His teaching by precept and example would enlighten the world while he was in it. He came as the light of the world. Jesus is the only light of the world to chase away the gloom and darkness of eternal night and lift up and enlighten the world. This has proved true in the history of the world. There has been no light of science, of religion, or morality save where the will of God is made known through Christ. The fundamental principle of all science is: there is one great first cause and overruling power that directs everything in accordance with fixed and unchangeable laws. Without these as a starting point there can be no science. But this truth has never prevailed save where the Bible is known. Jesus Christ is the great central truth of the Bible, both in the Old and the New Testaments. Without him both are meaningless. Jesus brought the light of divine wisdom to the world. His teaching consisted in both precept and example. The life of Jesus was his precepts put into practice. This much he said preparatory to opening the eyes of the blind that they might appreciate the lesson taught in the miracle. Jesus is called the Son of righteousness. As the sun gives light to the material world so Jesus gives light to the moral and spiritual world. His business was to dispense light while he lived. 6 When he had thus spoken,—What he spoke was explanatory of what he proceeded to do. He had so explained that they could see the miracle was evidence that God was work¬ing through him. Jesus desired no honor to himself. He desired them to understand the work was of God. he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay,—He spat on the ground, mixed dirt with the spittle, so as to make a paste, or clay, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with it. Jesus used means to accomplish this that had no virtue in them to open the blind eyes. This kind of means was used to show that the power and virtue came from God, and not from the means used. [The smaller and more insignificant the means used, the greater was the display of the power of God. Why use means at all when he could speak the word and it would be done? To show that God works through means and will be¬stow his favors when the means he orders are used or the con¬ditions complied with. Those conditions are often tests of faith. There is nothing in them that reason would show fitted to produce the results, so must be accepted and used in faith. The use of them showed faith in God. The result showed the presence of God.] 7 and said unto him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went away therefore, and washed, and came seeing.—The man was restored to sight. There was no healing power in the spittle, in the clay, in the water, nor in the application of the clay or the water. The healing was done by Jesus. In him was the power and virtue to heal. The reception of the clay, the going to the place, and washing were acts of the man, showing his willingness to obey Jesus, and in the obedience Jesus healed him of his blindness. 8 The neighbors therefore, and they that saw him aforetime, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?—The man was well known, as he had all his life, now forty years old, sat in a public place and begged. The multitude saw him now a healed man, and it created wonder and talk among them. [The change in this man was so great that they could hardly believe their own eyes.] 9 Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he.—Some men are never certain of anything. They are vacillating in their minds and deficient in will power and are never positive as to anything; others reach positive and definite conclusions and can be relied on to be true to them. The healed man seems to have been of this character. Those who knew him best said, “ It is he.” Those not know¬ing him so well, or not willing to appear to be too bold, said, “ He is like him.” But the blind man said, “ I am he.” I am the same person who was born blind and sat and begged. 10 They said therefore unto him, How then were thine eyes opened?—This was the one question of interest to all. All those persons who knew him and had seen him, satisfied now that he was the same man born blind that had begged amongst them, asked, “ How then were thine eyes opened?” It was a wonderful and an unheard-of thing that one should open the eyes of the blind. The demons could exercise some miraculous powers. (10: 21.) When the question as to who Jesus was, and by what power he could work such a miracle, was asked, “ Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” The devil could do miracles of hurt and destruction to man, but not healing and blessedness. 11 He answered, The man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to Siloam, and wash: so I went away and washed, and I received sight.—He seems not to have known much about Jesus, but tells plainly what was done and the effect. This implied that Jesus possessed miraculous power. [Note the growth in this man’ s apprehension of Jesus; here he is “ the man”— in verse 17 “ a prophet,” in verse 33 “ from God.” Thus he gropes toward the final truth.] 12 And they said unto him, Where is he? He saith, I know not.—During the excitement produced by finding that the blind man could see Jesus had quietly withdrawn, the blind man knew not whither. [This question probably was asked out of curiosity. Those asking the question were the neigh¬bors of the man born blind.] THE THE MIRACLEJoh_9:13-34 13 They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.—The Pharisees were the most active of the sects of Judaism. They were the most learned and pretentious, and so the blind man was brought by the executive command to them for further explanation of the occurrence. 14 Now it was the sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.—The Sabbath day was to be kept holy under the law of Moses. The keeping of this holy was the test of loyalty to God under the Mosaic law. Jesus had healed this man on this day, and they concluded that God would not be with a man that would heal on the Sabbath. 15 Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he re-ceived his sight. And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and I see.—Not satisfied, they again question the man. He quietly, but with positiveness, gave the conditions of the healing. 16 Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath.—Some thought it a violation of the Sabbath law to heal a man on the Sabbath and that a good man could not violate that law. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them.—The fact of the healing stared them in the face, and could a sinner heal the blind? The Sabbath law was strict among the Jews. Jesus from the beginning of his ministry began to rebuke the severity of the requirements of this law. In the New Testa¬ment there is not an expression imposing the Sabbath law. 17 They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes?—In the dispute they again appeal to the man who was healed to know what he thought of Jesus who had healed him. And he said, He is a prophet.—His response was prompt; he is inspired of God, a prophet, a divine teacher. 18 The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight,—Some in their doubt as to the man appealed to his parents. [They now begin scheming to get around Jesus working the miracle. They insisted that the man was not born blind. They under¬took to prove it by his parents.] 19 and asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?—They questioned them as to the identity of the man as their son and of his hav¬ing been born blind. 20 His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:—[“ We know” these two facts to be true. They were very positive in this.] 21 but how he now seeth, we know not; or who opened his eyes, we know not: ask him; he is of age; he shall speak fpr himself.—But as to or by whom he was made to see, his parents had only his word and they referred all parties to him. [He is of age and competent to testify in the case.] 22 These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.—While what the parents said was strictly true, they did not care to incur the persecution of the Pharisees. They clearly believed the statement of their son, but spoke evasively to avoid trouble. 23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.—[The parents did not wish to be excommunicated from the privi¬leges of the synagogue, so they were noncommittal concerning how their son received his sight. The decision of these rulers that if any confessed Jesus as the Christ they should be put out of the synagogue shows that the people were consid¬ering the question and that it was rapidly developing in their minds. They, therefore, hoped to nip the sentiment in the bud by their decree.] 24 So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner.—They were unable to explain the facts, and in the face of the probable miracle, to use wisdom on the man that was healed, they say this man that did the healing was a sinner be¬cause he had healed on the Sabbath. [Having failed to get any satisfaction from the parents they again call the son for a conference. This time they try to force an acknowledgment from him that there was some deception or mistake about Jesus restoring his sight. Their evidence of deception was "we know that this man is a sinner.” Their proof that he was a sinner was he healed on the Sabbath day.] 25 He therefore answered, Whether he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.—The man refused to enter into the casuistry or the ethics of the case, but stood to the stern facts that I was blind and now I see. [He refused to be drawn into a dispute over the matter or to participate in their deceptive scheme. He was firm and held fast to the truth.] 26 They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?—To entangle him and justify themselves, they again ask him to recount what was done to heal him. [Hoping to find something with which to strengthen their scheme of deception, they now begin to cross-examine the man.] 27 He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his disciples?—The blind man pressed the conclusion: would you recognize him as a prophet and become his disciples. He knew when men are determined to disbelieve the truth repeat¬ing the evidence will not convince, but rather infuriate them. [His “ also” implies that he was inclined to be a disciple.] 28 And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses.—They claimed to be disciples of Moses, while the man whose eyes were opened owned him¬self ready to accept the man who had opened his eyes as a prophet of God. 29 We know that God hath spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is.—They believed Moses was sent from God, but the origin of this man they did not know. [They felt that they were on safe ground in cling¬ing to Moses, but refused to be disciples of “ this man” on the ground that “ we know not whence he is.” ] 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes.—How singular that a man able to open the eyes of the blind in the name of God should be unknown to the defenders of the faith of God! [He declares it a “ marvelous thing” that these Jewish defenders of the scriptures did not know after this wonderful miracle that the one performing it was from God. He had a better knowledge of the scriptures than they.] 31 We know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth.—It was a well-known truth among all the disciples of Moses and the servants of God that God heareth not those who rebel against him, and that he only enabled those who obey him to work miracles in his name. How then could this man who opened his eyes be a sinner? [Nicodemus said, “ No one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2.) Both he and the healed man affirm that God only heard true worshipers and those who did his will.] 32 Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind.—Such a case had never been known. [Certain kinds of blindness have been and may be cured, but this unheard-of cure— one born blind— he in¬sisted could be attributed only to the power of God.] 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.— No man could do this work except God was with him. 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether bom in sins, and dost thou teach us?—Chagrined and pro¬voked that this man withstood them, they taunt him with the idea that he was born blind in consequence of his own or his parents' sins and now you presume to teach us regarding the teachers of God. And they cast him out.—They ordered him out of the syna¬gogue. [It may mean that they cast him out not only from their presence, but also from their sympathy and intercourse with them and their people. Note, that the avowed enemies of Jesus investigate a miracle of Jesus in repeated hearings and that they could find no flaw. Also observe that the people refer the case to a great religious order composed of ene-mies of Christ; that members of this order first examine the facts; then the case is referred to a higher tribunal, the official representatives of the nation, who cross-examine the parents, as well as the subject of the miracle. This judicial investiga¬tion shows by the testimony of both that the man was born blind, that he now saw, and his own testimony was given that he was healed by Jesus. The attempt to disprove the miracle was an utter failure and the court sought to discredit it by ex-communicating the chief witness.] JESUS MEETS THE MAN AGAINJoh_9:35-41 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?—Jesus was not unmindful of one so true to him, after he was driven out of the synagogue, sought him, and gave him further instruction and help. He wished to lead him up to believe that he (Jesus) was the Son of God. [The poor man, through faithfulness to the truth, lost the world, but Jesus is ready to give him heaven.] 36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?—He already believed that he was sent of God and that God was within him. But he did not know that he was the Son of God. So he was ready to believe whatever Jesus would tell him. 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee.—Jesus then assured the man that he himself was the Son of God. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.—The man at once accepted the truth of the statement and confessed his faith in Jesus by worshiping him as the divine Being. [The believer believes with his heart, confesses Christ with his mouth, and shows his faith by obedience.] 39 And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind.—Those who are thought by others to be fools and claim no wisdom of their own may be made wise with the wisdom of God, and those who think they are wise after the world’ s wisdom may be made to realize that they are fools before God. [Jesus came into the world, not to condemn it, but to save it; but the effect of his coming is to reveal every man’ s true condition. The light reveals the stains of sin on the heart that would otherwise be unseen. Jesus is the touch¬stone. He not only gave sight to the blind, but opened the eyes of those who were in the darkness of ignorance. Publicans and sinners were enabled to see, while Jews and Pharisees, who claimed to be enlightened, were left in darkness, because they closed their eyes and would not hear.] 40 Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said unto him, Are we also blind?—The Pharisees saw that he classed them as blind and spoke to him of it. [Jesus had mentioned two classes— those who did not see who should see and those who saw or had the greatest spiritual opportunities— who should become blind by willfully closing their eyes.] 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.—If ye were really blind ye would not be guilty as you are now in claiming that you are not blind and so refuse to be taught. Because you refuse to acknowledge your blindness and turn to Jesus, you remain in your sins. [If they were blind, that is, entirely without knowledge and means of enlightenment, they would have no moral responsibility, but they claimed to see and had the greatest opportunities for knowing. Therefore, when they closed their eyes against the truth and thus willfully refused to see, they were guilty. Our responsibility is measured by our opportunities and will thus be judged at the last day.] Verse 1 This whole chapter is devoted to the healing of a man born blind, the sixth of the seven signs, and to the discussions afterward which derived from the impact of so great a wonder upon the man himself, his parents, the neighbors, and the religious hierarchy. Presented with remarkable fullness of detail, this great sign, in addition to being a witness of Jesus' deity, was also designed as a type of Jesus' saving men from their sins. SIXTH OF THE SEVEN GREAT SIGNSAnd as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. (John 9:1) The length of the time-lapse between this and the preceding chapters is uncertain. John wrote long after the events narrated, and he did not always give the exact chronology of the events recorded. As he passed by ... Many of life's greatest opportunities occur unexpectedly and incidentally to life's normal progression. He saw a man ... Jesus saw the human tragedy beneath the beggar's shirt. When men look upon each other they are inclined to see a doctor, a farmer, a rich man, or a beggar, etc.; but Jesus always looks upon the man himself. Blind from his birth ... This was mentioned because healing of the congenitally blind has ever been impossible for men. Verse 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?A strange mixture of truth and error prompted this question. The universal instinct that hails all sorrow and disease as the consequence of sin is correct, all of such things deriving, in the last analysis, from the debacle in Eden; but it is not true that every specific instance of handicap, disease, and sorrow should be invariably ascribed to the individual sin of the sufferer. As Paul stated it, "Death reigned ... even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression" (Romans 5:14). Without regard to such truth, the apostles were quite ready to blame this man's blindness upon himself, or if not upon him, then upon his parents. It seems ridiculous to us that prenatal sin could be committed; but, as Dummelow noted: The disciples thought that possibly the man had sinned, either in a previous state of existence (in accordance with the doctrine of transmigration of souls), or more probably as an infant before birth. To the Jews who attributed intelligence to unborn children (Genesis 25:22-26; Luke 1:41), this last was a natural idea.[1]According to Hendriksen, the Jewish Rabbis held that Esau had tried to kill Jacob in the womb, before either was born.[2] This writer rejects the idea that the apostles of Jesus believed either of those monstrous fantasies. Although even Calvin and Beza thought that they had transmigration of souls in view,[3] there is no evidence whatever of the apostles entertaining any such notions, the basic assumption throughout the entire Bible having always been that "the body" is the soul's unique instrument (2 Corinthians 5:10). The possibility suggested by the apostles to the effect that the sin of the man's parents might have caused his blindness was certainly not unreasonable; but, even so, if that had been the case, no moral blame would have fallen upon the blind son. The mistake of the apostles here was that of imputing blame where none existed. Both the man and his parents were declared by Jesus to have been guilty of nothing which might have caused the blindness. Therefore, one must hold those apostles guilty of a cruel and unfeeling question. They were like millions today who think that every sufferer and every victim of crime, disease, disaster, or calamity has in some mannerDESERVED the evil that came upon him. It was that same universal prejudice that armed the friends of Job against him with their bold accusations of sins foreign to the holy nature of Job, and inspired the accusations of murder against Paul by the citizens of Malta (Acts 28:4). The reasons underlying this disastrous human prejudice are apparently psychological outcroppings of man's innate selfishness and pride. Ryle said of it: It has the advantage of rendering it needless to weep with them that weep. It saves a man of the obligation, when he sees heavy affliction, of smiting his breast and saying, "God be merciful to me, a sinner." It gives the natural man the comfortable feeling that he is so much better than the sufferer, as he is the more fortunate.[4]Christ taught here the fact of undeserved suffering. This is one of the great problems, and the Scriptures shed this light upon it. Jesus said that the rains and floods beat upon both houses, the one on the rock and the one on the sand (Matthew 7:25). God makes his sun to shine on the just and the unjust. Time and chance happen unto all men (Ecclesiastes 9:11). Therefore, may those whose child was born handicapped, or only to die: and those unfortunates whose lives have been overwhelmed with disease and sufferings; and all whose lot has been to walk in weakness, pain, and humiliation - may all of them take heart. Christ sees and knows; and, for many of them, perhaps it is true that they suffer that "the works of God should be manifest in them"! [1] J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 790. [2] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 73. [3] Ibid. [4] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan), p. 583. Verse 3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be manifest in him.Jesus' reply did not mean that either the man or his parents were sinless but that they were guilty of no sin that had caused the blindness. The great problem of why some should be born handicapped, and others not, or why disasters should overwhelm some and not others, and why natural disasters like storms, floods, and earthquakes should destroy some and not others - all such things, affecting in their aggregate every life on earth, are not parceled out to men on a measure-for-measure basis related to the number and degree of their sins. All such elemental things are related to man's constitution and to his environment by the all-wise God who created both man and the world where he lives; and they have the design of encouraging all men to take account of the power of God in their lives. The reason would seem to be that God intended that man should never get too cozy, as far as his hope of tomorrow is concerned. "Ye know not what shall be on the morrow" (James 4:14) is the sentence of God written over and above all human designs. That the works of God should be manifest in him ... The truth that God has a plan for every person ever born shines in this. That child was born blind in anticipation of the wonder wrought in this episode. What a lifetime of agony the parents of the man born blind had endured! How often had they been the butt of scorn or open charge of sin; and yet how wrong they were who felt no pity and, in their smug self-righteousness, slandered and criticized them! God had a plan for the life of that blind man that led at last to light and glory and salvation at the pool of Siloam. Verse 4 We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh when no man can work.The malignant opposition of his foes was in the Lord's mind here. His day of life on earth was running to its close. The autumn had fallen upon the hills of Judaea, and the winter was coming on; and the times were hastening to that April morning when his quivering flesh would be nailed to the tree. Indeed "the night" was not far away. The urgency Jesus felt is here too. There was so much to do and so little time. Every man, like Jesus, should confront each new day in the consciousness that "on my day of life the night is falling." Like him, may we all fill every fleeting hour with love and labor for mankind. Verse 5 When I am in the world, I am the light of the world.This is the second of the great "I am's" of John. For the list of these, see under John 8:12. When I am in the world ... has the meaning of "as long as I am in the world" (KJV), an admission that there would come a time when Jesus would be no longer on earth; but that has reference only to his physical life. Such was the glory of Christ that, through the preaching of his apostles, the light would continue to shine unto all generations. I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLDThe world cannot do without Jesus. He is as vital and necessary as the sun itself is to the physical world. All energy and life derive from him. See further discussion of this under John 8:12. I. This metaphor reveals Jesus as God. Only of one identified with deity could it be said of him that he is the light of the world. The Old Testament made it clear that only God is light: "Jehovah is my light and my salvation" (Psalms 27:1); and an apostle identified God as "the Father of lights" (James 1:17). Therefore, when Jesus said, "I am the light of the world," he forever lifted himself above the category of mere mortality. Only a lunatic, or the world's true Saviour, could sincerely have said such a thing as this; and the receding centuries have left no doubt that the Redeemer said it and that he is indeed the world's light. He was God come in the flesh. II. This metaphor teaches the sinless and undefiled nature of Christ, light being the only thing that may fall upon rottenness and corruption and itself remain uncontaminated. The Light of the world shines upon the wretched ugliness of our shameless world, saves it, changes it, and lifts it up, but is not himself contaminated. No matter how squalid the room in which the light shines, the light remains pure. Peter wrote: And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place (Greek: squalid room), until the day dawn and the Day-star arise in your hearts (2 Peter 1:19). III. This light obligates all who see it. Men may be pardoned for stumbling in darkness; but those who close their eyes against the light commit a sin against nature as well as against God. The obligation imposed by the presence of light may not be assumed or rejected by men, for the very existence of light carries the inherent requirement that men shall walk in it. Jesus summed it up thus: "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in me may not abide in darkness" ( John 12:46). IV. Jesus is the light of the world eternally, for even in heaven, "the Lamb is the light" of the eternal city (Revelation 21:23). Bonar's hymn catches the mystery of this thought perfectly: Light of the world, forever, ever shining, There is no change in thee. True light of life, all joy and health enshrining, Thou canst not fade nor flee. V. This metaphor is an apt figure of the universality of the gospel, there being no place on earth where light cannot reach. Similarly, the saving message of Christ shines throughout all the earth. The witness of the calendar, of Christendom, of history, of the progress of civilization, etc. - imperfect as the witness surely is, it is nevertheless undeniably universal. As John said of Jesus, he is "even the light which lighteth every man" (John 1:6-9). VI. Men are commanded to respond to the light. They should believe on the light and become sons of light (John 12:36); they should walk in the light (1 John 1:6-7); they should put on the whole armor of light (Romans 13:12); and they should arise and shine in the reflected glory of the light (Isaiah 60:1). The import of all this is that all men should exhibit an obedient faith in Christ. Verse 6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay.Why did Jesus do this? We may never know, but it might have been to emphasize his humility. He did not affect any professional airs, mutter mysterious words, or pass his hands over the man's eyes; and, by the use of a means so simple, he forever removed the idea that he might have used some powerful medicine. The anointing with clay also had the function of emphasizing the blind man's condition. Even a casual glance at his mud-anointed eyes would eloquently reveal his handicap to any who chanced to see him. All so-called rationalization of this miracle based on the alleged efficacy of certain kinds of clay should be rejected. If there had been any curative powers in Jerusalem dirt, a market would have been established for it, and it would have been exported all over the world. Verse 7 And said unto him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went away therefore, and washed, and came seeing.The big thing in this verse, aside from the loving mercy of the Saviour's awesome power, is the blind man's obedience. Let it be supposed, for a moment, that this blind man exhibited the same attitude prevalent in our own times. Suppose he had said, "Now look, Jesus, this pool of Siloam business is not really necessary, you know. I believe in you and will just take my eyesight right here where I stand; and, after I am able to see clearly, then I will go and wash, like you said, just to show I trust you. Certainly, water cannot cure eyesight; so I'll just take it here and now by faith only! Of course, I'll go and wash later to show I trust you." What would have resulted from such an attitude? Can anyone doubt that he would have died as blind as he was born, if he had responded with any such proposal? To his honor and exceedingly great reward, he did not claim a blessing while denying the condition upon which it was promised. "He went away, therefore, and washed, and came seeing." The analogy in the foregoing will not be lost on a student of the word of God. Blindness, from the most ancient times, has been held as a type of sin. This does not mean that a blind man is a sinner but that the terrible handicap is a forceful illustration of sinful condition. Jesus said, "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" (Luke 6:39). See also 2 Peter 1:9 and Revelation 3:18. Thus, blindness is a Scriptural type of sin; and the detail of this sixth sign's deployment upon the sacred page compels the conclusion that this blind man's healing must be construed as typical of the far greater wonder of healing men of sin. Most of John's signs are thus to be understood in their dual significance in both the physical and spiritual sectors. Therefore, we shall note the bearing of this sign upon the forgiveness of sin. Salvation from sin is specifically promised by Christ, thus: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). This is as simple and easily understood as "Go wash in the pool of Siloam." Why then should Mark's record of Jesus' promise be hard to understand, and why all the quibble about whether water can wash away sins? Of course, it cannot; and, since the Dark Ages, no one has ever believed that it could, But, if a man can understand why the blind man received his sight after washing in the pool of Siloam, and wholly apart from any power of those waters, and without in the least supposing that the waters of the pool had anything to do with his healing, then such a person should have no difficulty with the analogy of the way one is saved in the washing of the waters of baptism, when he is baptized into Christ, and yet without supposing the water had any efficacy. The blind man was healed in the act of washing in Siloam. He did not go seeing and then wash; but he went and washed and came seeing. THE POOL OF SILOAMGo wash in the pool of Siloam ... Peloubet identified the name Siloam with its earlier name Shiloah (Isaiah 8:6).[5] John's interpretation of the name as "one sent" makes it a reference to the Messiah who was the "one sent" from God. Therefore, the word Shiloh (Genesis 49:10), which was the name Jacob gave the Messiah, appears to be the original form of the name Siloam. Thus, in Scripture, this name had three forms, Shiloh, Shiloah, and Siloam, all of them laden with an immense weight of symbolism pointing to the Saviour of the world. "Shiloh" was the poetic name of the Messiah; and Isaiah had made the soft waters of this humble water hole a metaphor of the peaceful government of the Lord as contrasted with the rapacious government of Assyria, the latter being compared to the rampage of Euphrates at flood stage. It was from this pool that the golden pitcher of water was brought to pour out in the temple court during the feast of tabernacles (John 7:37); and, in the presence of those waters from Siloam, Jesus invited all to "come unto me and drink!" The filling of Siloam came through an underground conduit that entered at the bottom, causing the waters to rise silently, hence Isaiah's reference to "the waters that go softly." Jesus' choice of this pool as the scene of one of his mightiest deeds more than justified the Messianic expectations so long associated with the sacred word Shiloh and its derivatives. ENDNOTE: [5] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet's Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Co., 1925), p. 620. Verse 8 The neighbors therefore, and they that saw him aforetime, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that begged?For thirty years, or more, the blind person of that community had been observed by all; and suddenly he was whole, able to see as well as anyone! Such a wonder set the whole community in a ferment. Everybody knew the blind beggar with his cup in a conspicuous place every day; and the amazed neighbors' question of his identity, probably resulted from the change in the man's personality caused by the marvelous gift of sight. Despite the change his identity was absolutely certain. Verse 9 Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he.Even those with any uncertainty confessed a positive likeness to the beggar they remembered. The man confirmed his identity, already made certain by the more perceptive who recognized him without any corroboration. Verse 10 They said therefore unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered, The man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to Siloam and wash: so I went away and washed, and I received my sight.This exchange with the neighbors probably occurred after the man had seen his parents but still only a short while after his healing. His explanation was simple and direct. Jesus had commanded; he obeyed and received his sight. Verse 12 And they said unto him, Where is he? He saith, I know not.The blind man's naming Jesus as his healer confronted the people with a dilemma. Many knew of the plot to kill Jesus and were certain that any acceptance of him would result in their excommunication. Perhaps many of them thought, therefore, that with such a sign as this to report, they might be able to persuade their leaders to accept him, thus resolving their own uncertainty. Verse 13 They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.This event was before a gathering of the entire hierarchy: (1) because the neighbors' action presupposes an assembly in a stated place known in advance by them, and (2) because "they cast him out" (of the synagogue) indicates a formal and official meeting (John 9:34). That such a full-dress meeting of the Sanhedrin occurred was a testimony of the priority which the religious leaders gave to the problem of Jesus' growing power and influence among the people; and such an astounding miracle wrought under their very noses and supported by irrefutable evidence would have topped any agenda they might have had. Verse 14 Now it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and I see.Now it was the sabbath ... is written here in anticipation of the objection that would be stated in John 9:16. Of course, the Pharisees had already heard the full story, but they moved here to establish the facts through the testimony of the subject himself. Although the name of Jesus dominated that hearing, neither the healed man nor the examiners mentioned it, suggesting that they had forbidden any mention of the Lord's name. Verse 16 Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such things? And there was a division among them. The bitter schism in the Sanhedrin itself dominates this part of the narrative, a division mentioned in John 7:43, and John 10:19 also. The enemies of Jesus were the dominant majority; and it is clear that they were moving to silence the contrary elements in their own body as well as against any recognition of Jesus' miracle. Because he keepeth not the sabbath ... The fault of their reasoning here derived from their falsely equating their own traditions of keeping the sabbath with God's true law of keeping it. As Hendriksen noted: The Pharisees identified their own trifling, hair-splitting sabbath regulations with the law of God. Hence ... "All people who are from God keep our sabbath regulations." ... Because these premises were false, the conclusion was no longer dependable.[6]Once again in the New Testament is revealed the incredible damage of mingling human traditions with God's word. All of those petty, and even silly, little rules and regulations which they had added to God's true regulations, appear here, not as harmless little embellishments of sacred law, but as flagrant violations of it. The confusion of those men in identifying their own legislation as God's law blinded their eyes to the Sun of righteousness when he arose with healing in his wings! It is alarming that, even today, the old Pharisaical falsehood that Jesus broke the sabbath is alleged in modern pulpits. Christ kept the law of God perfectly, all of it, not excepting even a jot or a tittle; and yet, in spite of this, such is the mystery of evil, that the old lie of the Pharisees still surfaces in the assemblies of the saints (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12:2). ENDNOTE: [6] William Hendriksen, op. cit., II, p. 81. Verse 17 They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes? And he said, He is a prophet.This was not an admission of the miracle but has the meaning, "Seeing that you say he opened your eyes, who do you say he is?" He is a prophet ... Some progression in the man's thinking appears in this. He referred to him first as "the man that is called Jesus," and now as "a prophet," reminding one of the progressive enlightenment of the woman of Samaria in John 4. This recognition of Jesus as a prophet carried a strong negative thrust against the Pharisees' charge of sabbath-breaking. Dummelow pointed out that "prophets had authority over the sabbath."[7] Likewise Clarke stated that "According to a Jewish maxim, a prophet might dispense with the observance of the sabbath."[8] Thus, the blind man refuted the Pharisees' charge; but they would not allow to Jesus even the status of a prophet. [7] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 791. [8] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (London: Mason and Lane, 1837), Vol. V, p. 586. Verse 18 The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight, and asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?Such unbelief on the part of the majority of the Sanhedrin suggests the quotation ascribed to Voltaire: If in the market of Paris, before the eyes of a thousand men, a miracle should be performed, I would much rather disbelieve their two thousand eyes and my own two, than believe it.[9]Voltaire has many spiritual descendants, some of them being in pulpits, and this is the true explanation of what is called "modernism" in the religious community of our day. The attitude of the Pharisees here shows the folly of supposing that evidence of any kind can persuade men whose purpose is to disbelieve. Faith is a moral thing, as well as intellectual (John 3:19). They called his parents ... They overreached themselves in this, for they promptly corroborated the son's identity and the fact of his being born blind. The whole neighborhood could have done the same. It was another example of how the Lord "taketh the wise in their own craftiness" (1 Corinthians 3:19). Ryle quoted Chrysostom who thought that: "Whom ye say" insinuated that they supposed the parents to be impostors, and that they were acting deceitfully, and plotting on behalf of Christ, by spreading a report that their son was born blind.[10]The very fact of calling the man's parents shows the desperate nature of the Pharisees' position. [9] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 600. [10] Ibid. Verse 20 His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: but how he now seeth we know not; or who opened his eyes we know not; he is of age, he shall speak for himself.Thus perished the hope of the Pharisees that they might deny that the miracle had occurred. Their insinuation of fraud was totally demolished. He is of age ... indicates a mature person; and according to Clarke, "Mature age, as fixed among the Jews, was thirty years."[11]The testimony of the parents that they did not know how or by whom the sign was wrought, although technically correct, was really and avoidance of testifying to what they did actually know. Their fear of the leaders prompted this reluctance on their part. ENDNOTE: [11] Adam Clarke, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 587. Verse 22 These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess him to be the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.They feared the Jews ... This means fear of the Sanhedrin, a fear mentioned four times in John: here, and in John 7:13; John 12:42, and in John 19:38. Excommunication was the dreaded penalty by which the unscrupulous leaders enforced their will upon the people. They had marshaled the entire apparatus of hierarchical power against any acceptance of Christ by the multitude. To be cut off from all social, religious, and even business communication with the whole nation was a severe and dreaded penalty, and far more than enough to strike terror and apprehension into the hearts of simple people like the parents of the man born blind. One may sympathize with their fears without condoning their timidity. Verse 24 So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner.No device of denying the miracle being left to them, the leaders moved to rob Jesus of the credit for it, if possible; and having intimidated the parents into denying that they knew "WHO" did it, they tried here to enlist the son in a similar denial. Give glory to God ... this man is a sinner ... Thus they forbade him to give glory to Christ. Glory to God ... ah yes, that was all right, only so long as God's beloved Son was not mentioned. Thus, the Pharisees were compelled at last to authenticate the miracle itself. Being absolutely unable to deny it, they would still, if they could, deny Jesus any credit for it. Such blind and vicious prejudice was revolting; and nearly two millenniums have not softened the shock one feels in the presence of such perfidy. Verse 25 Whether he is a sinner, I know not: but one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.This return of the healed man to the facts of the wonder was the last thing the Pharisees wanted; and his words are construed as an opposition to their designs. The miracle was proof that Jesus was no sinner; and the Sanhedrin knew this, as one of their own members had admitted (John 3:2). Verse 26 They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?Drowning men catch at straws; and those evil leaders, confronted with a true miracle of Jesus, again questioned the blind man as to "how" it was done, hoping to find something they could condemn. Verse 27 He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? Would ye also become his disciples?The blind man had hardened his attitude in the face of their unreasonable denials, tacitly admitting himself to be a disciple, and sarcastically demanding to know if they "also" would become his disciples! Disciples indeed! They were his sworn enemies, determined at any cost, moral or otherwise, to kill Jesus; and one can only marvel at the impact these words must have had upon that religious court. Verse 28 And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses.This was a false boast on the part of the Pharisees. Jesus himself said that if they had believed Moses, they would have believed Christ. They were not the Israel of God in the spiritual sense (Romans 9:6-8). Thou art his disciple ... Such an indirect admission (John 9:27) was all they needed; and they at once heaped upon him the full weight of their scorn, invective, and slander. They reviled him. Such was the justice and such was the pity of those sons of the devil who sat on Moses' seat in the times of Christ. What had the blind man done to deserve their hatred and abuse? He had merely recognized in deepest humility and appreciation the mercy extended to him by the Lord. What a shock this encounter with the religious leaders must have been to him! Verse 29 We know that God hath spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is.God hath spoken unto Moses ... See article under John 5:39 with regard to knowing and yet not knowing the Scriptures. This man ... we know not whence he is. Some have fancied that these words do not contradict what these hypocrites said earlier, "We know whence he is" (John 7:27); but of course they do contradict it. As a matter of fact, truth was no consideration to these sons of the devil who would have said anything that seemed, at the moment, to suit their purpose. It is a waste of time to try to "harmonize" this place with John 7:27, in regard to what these liars said. Verse 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes. We know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God and do his will, him he heareth. Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. The poor blind beggar suddenly emerged here as a thinker of remarkable and penetrating insight into God's moral government of the universe. Herein is the marvel ... Unerringly, he fingered the greatest marvel in the structure of the day's events, that being the obstinate unbelief of the Pharisees. (See "The Marvel of Unbelief" under John 6:30). We know that God heareth not sinners ... This great premise deserves further attention. ON GOD'S HEARING remarkable body of teaching in the Old Testament affirms the truth of what the blind man said here of God's not hearing sinners. Note: Jehovah will not answer (the wicked) (1 Samuel 8:18). God will not hear the cry of the godless (Job 27:9). I will not answer the wicked (Proverbs 1:28). When ye make prayers, I will not hear (Isaiah 1:15). Your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear (Isaiah 59:2). Etc., etc. - It is astounding that the erstwhile beggar fully understood the truth of God's not hearing sinners, whereas the learned leaders of the people had not the slightest regard of such a fact. Marvel indeed it was. Of deep significance is the implication of the words here to the effect that the miracle had been wrought in answer to Jesus' prayer, a thing not stated, but implied by the mention of God's "hearing" him. If any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will ... The actual doing of God's will, as distinguished from merely believing, was properly understood by the healed man as the basis of God's hearing any person whomsoever; and, in such a perception, he was superior not only to the Pharisees but to the majority of the divines in Protestantism. Since the world began ... appeals to the absolutely unique quality of the miracle Jesus wrought. How preposterous was the thought that God would have allowed some impostor to work a miracle like that! If this man were not from God, he could do nothing ... In these three verses, the healed man propounded a syllogism of his own, thus turning a favorite weapon of the Pharisees upon themselves and defeating them with it, thus: Major Premise: God does not hear sinners, but he hears those who worship him and do his will. Minor Premise: God heard Jesus in the working of the great miracle before us. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is of God; and, if he were not of God, he could do nothing. Since the time when David, the shepherd of Israel, cut off the head of Goliath of Gath with the giant's own sword, there had occurred nothing any more remarkable than this erstwhile beggar's punishing defeat of the Pharisees through his skillful use of the syllogism, a device claimed by them as their own. Their anger and resentment overflowed against him. It should be observed that God's not hearing sinners had reference to his not hearing them in the sense of not empowering them to perform a miracle. God heard the prayers of Cornelius (Acts 10:4) at a time when he was technically a sinner; and Jesus heard the petition of the demons (Matthew 8:31-32), granting their request. From these and other New Testament teachings comes the conclusion that God may answer any prayer, provided it fits into the will of God. Nevertheless, there are classes of prayers in which God will never answer sinners, the example cited by the blind man being an example. It should also be noted that Cornelius' prayers, to the extent they requested salvation from sin, were not answered except in the secondary sense of God's sending him a preacher of the gospel who told him what to do to be saved. Thus, the pioneer preachers who cited John 9:31 as proof that sinners might not procure salvation merely by praying for it, but that they should arise and be baptized and wash away their sins (Acts 22:16), were profoundly correct. Verse 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.The rage of the Pharisees is understandable. A publicly known beggar had defeated them with a syllogism which they could not answer and which was strongly believed by some of their own number (John 3:2). Far from defeating the blind man, they had only aroused him to a vigorous and skillful advocacy of his growing faith in Christ. He no longer said, "Whether he is a sinner, I know not," but now hurled the challenge in their faces, "If this man were not of God, he could do nothing? But, as is ever true, when error is defeated on the intellectual level, its proponents have recourse to slander, invective, and violence, never failing to employ any engine of coercion that might be available. Born in sins ... This slander had already been refuted by Jesus (John 9:3), but they employed it anyway. And they cast him out ... that is, out of the synagogue. Upon what grounds? If it must be spoken, upon grounds of spite. It was not upon the grounds of his confessing Christ, for he had not yet done that; but, as they saw his thinking moving in that direction, they cast him out for what they supposed that he would do, and not for what he had already done. His witness proved that Jesus was indeed the Messiah; and their drastic action against him was actually directed against the proof. Verse 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?Jesus had no doubt heard with joy of the man's triumphant defense of the truth before the Sanhedrin, and he moved at once to lead him to higher and higher levels of faith and obedience. Verse 36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?The man evidently had an extensive knowledge of the Scriptures, as indicated by his boldness before the Pharisees; but he had not received any testimony except his own deductions from the miracle, to the effect that Jesus was the Son of God. Such testimony, therefore, from the Master himself he sought and received. Verse 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.Lightfoot said this was the first worshipper and confessor of Christ to suffer for the Lord's sake, as John the Baptist was the first martyr. Trench pointed out that the Pharisees in their rage made contradictory allegations against the formerly blind man, first denying that he had been born blind (John 9:18) and later declaring that he had been born blind due to sins (John 9:34). This foreshadowed the type of charges that group would bring against the Lord in the trials, of which it is written, "And not even so did their witness agree together" (Mark 14:59). The healed man confessed Christ at once and worshipped him. The Lord's acceptance of his worship thus adds his own sacred testimony to that of the healed man that Jesus is indeed God come in the flesh. This narrative, coupled with that of the Samaritan woman in John 4, reveals a pattern in the type of events John selected for his gospel. Both here and there Christ declared in the most emphatic manner possible that he was indeed the Christ; and, in both instances, the persons to whom such declarations were made could not have been allowed as the basis for any charges the Sanhedrin might have brought against Jesus before secular authorities, this being due to the fact of the woman's being a Samaritan, and the previously blind man an excommunicated person. Verse 39 And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind.Two kinds of "seeing" are in view here, "they that see not" in the first instance referring to the physically blind, and "they that see" in the second instance being a reference to the normal eyesight of the Pharisees, who were, nevertheless, spiritually blind. Thus he came to make the blind see and the seeing blind! In these words, Christ indicated his fulfillment of two classes of prophecies, those stating that the Messiah would bring "recovering of sight to the blind" (Isaiah 61:1 f), and those stating that certain of the Israelites would be blinded spiritually, "And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive" (Isaiah 6:9-10). See more on judicial hardening in my Commentary on Romans, p. 376. For judgment ... In one sense Christ did not come for judgment, but in another sense he did. See under John 3:17; John 5:22 f, and John 12:47. In this reference, his actions were producing the hardening of Israel which had been prophesied, that hardening being indeed an act of divine judgment against Israel. Evidently, the Pharisees heard the conversation and witnessed the man's worshipping Jesus, as the next verse shows. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The question the disciples asked Jesus could only have been on the theory known as the "transmigration of souls." This notion is explained at Matthew 14:2. Jesus did not endorse the theory, because it was untrue and foolish, but he did not take time to deal with every kind of error he met. However, both he and the apostles sometimes used the popular notions to illustrate a point or expose some inconsistency among the people. The present instance is one of them, which was used by Paul when he spoke of "eternal judgment" in Hebrews 6:2. And being "baptized for [in place of] the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, is another instance where the apostle used an erroneous practice without endorsing it, but to expose the inconsistency of those who did it. 3 No special act of God had been done to cause this man to be born blind. However, the misfortune will furnish the Lord an opportunity of manifesting divine power. Jesus was always able to turn unfavorable conditions into good account. 4 Day and night are used figuratively as we will see in the next verse. 5 As long as I am in the world. This phrase is directly connected with the words while it is day in the preceding verse. This would mean that night as used in the present instance refers to death. It was never intended that man should work day and night to make a living. Therefore, when language is used figuratively, day (the proper time for work) is likened to a life on earth, because that is the only period in which a man can work for the Lord. It is appropriate that we often sing, "Work, for the night is coming." But Jesus did not mean to teach that after he left this world all spiritual light would cease. He was considering only that light which he personally could shed upon the human beings with whom he came into contact. 6 Sometimes Jesus used certain things in connection with his miracles that could have no logical effect in the case. There was an important point in such performances. Had something been used that might have a physical relation to the result desired and obtained, it might have been claimed that such was the cause. But since these things could have nothing to do with the actual problem, the conclusion is clear that the result was obtained through divine power. 7 Jesus never needed the help of any man in accomplishing his work, but it was well to teach the lesson of cooperation between man and God. Hence Jesus required the people to feed the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:43), and directed others to remove the cover from the tomb of Lazarus (John 11:39). Had this blind man not washed the clay from his eyes he would not have been healed of his blindness. 8 In the mean time, Jesus had moved on out of the throng, and when the man was returning from the pool with his sight given to him, the people were surprised at his appearance. The absence of eyesight often makes more difference in a man's general appearance than may be thought. Yet in spite of the change wrought by the restoring of that function, some thought they recognized the former blind man. 9 Some of the people seemed to be very certain of the man's identity, while others professed only to see a resemblance. But the man settled the discussion by informing them that he was the man who had been blind. 0 This question was asked for the simple purpose of information, as they were not present at the time Jesus talked with the man. 1 A. man that is called Jesus. All this blind man knew was what he heard, for he was blind and had to get his information by hearing only. Hence this verse is a statement of facts, without any reasoning or conclusions upon those facts. 2 While the man was going to the pool, Jesus passed on, so that up to the time of this questioning he had never seen his benefactor. The method Jesus took in this case served a purpose other than requiring the man to go wash in the pool and thus cooperate in his favor of being healed. It left him free to reason on the case without being prejudiced favorably by the appearance and personal presence of the one who had healed him. Under the circumstances, it was all the man could do to say he did not know where the person was then. We should bear in mind that all this conversation was between the man and the people who had no prejudice especially in the case, it not having been called to the attention of the Pharisees. 3 The text does not tell us why the man was brought to the Pharisees. We know, however, that they were the leading sect of the Jews, and were supposed to be interested in anything especially pertaining to miracles. The man said he was directed in his case by the one called Jesus, to go wash at the pool, with the result that he was made able to see. So it was logical that the case should be taken to these religious leaders since the very name Jesus brought up the subject for religious consideration. 4 There is no evidence in the life of Christ that he made any distinction between days, when he had opportunity for working a beneficial miracle. But John knew what was coming up over this case, and made the statement of this verse as an explanation beforehand, of the disturbance soon to be thrust into the work of Jesus. Made the clay was a manual act, and that was sufficient to give the Pharisees an excuse for their quarrel with the man for whom the work had been done. 5 The Pharisees asked this man how he received his sight, and were given the same answer that the people had received. We should note that the man said I washed, which was as much of a manual act as what Jesus had done. But in all of the controversy over this case, not one word will be said against the man for what he did on the sabbath day. This shows the Pharisees were not caring anything about the holy day, but were showing their hatred of Jesus and took this circumstance as a means of repeating their old hypocritically-inspired complaints. 6 This division was between the friends and enemies of Jesus. The former reasoned rightly, that if Jesus were a "sinner," (which means one of that particular class as listed in those days), he would be unable to work miracles, for God would not grant miraculous power to such a character. The others were merely using the question of the sabbath as an excuse for their hatred of Jesus. 7 The blind man did not have any more positive knowledge in the case than did the others, for he had not even seen Jesus up to this time. But the crowd wished to get him to commit himself on the subject; es pecially that part of the group which was Jews. Had the man expressed an unfavorable opinion of Jesus, it would have been used by the Jews as a significant circumstance. If the very man who had been benefitted by the performance was unfavorably impressed with Jesus, then surely there must have been a reason for it. But he replied with a direct and favorable verdict, He is a prophet. That meant not only that Jesus was a good man, but one endowed with supernatural talents to be able to do such a miracle as the one at hand. 8 The Jews failed to get any satisfaction from the man who had been blind. Their next move was to show that the whole thing was a fraud; that the man had never really been blind. Perhaps the parents can help them in their wicked design. 9 They asked the parents two questions concerning their sort. One of them pertained to fact and the other to theory. 0 They answered the first question very positively, saying we know, etc. It would have been useless for them to deny the facts, for such as the birth of a child without eyesight, and suffering that handicap for all the years up to manhood, would be too well known to be denied. 1 The parents could literally say we know not on the question of how their son was healed as far as personal knowledge was concerned. But if they had been willing to show friendliness for Jesus, they would at least have referred to the case as it was reported by eyewitnesses. They therefore evaded that point for the reason mentioned in the next verse and told them to ask the son himself. Of age is from a Greek term defined by Thayer, "Adult age, maturity." 3 Put out of the synagogue is all from , and Thayer defines it, "Excluded from the sacred assemblies of the Israelites; excommunicated." The privilege of assembling with the Jews in their religious gatherings was indeed a valuable one. For that reason it was a strong means of punishing a man who became objectionable to the Pharisees, to cast him out of the synagogue and withdraw the fellowship from him. (See chapter 16:2.) The parents of this man chose rather to deny to Jesus the credit due him, than lose their privilege of entering the synagogue. They took the cowardly way out of the embarrassment by referring the question to their son. 4 The Jews did not accomplish what they expected from the parents, so they thought they would make another effort with the son. But this time they did not trust the case to an unbiased question, but tried to prejudice him beforehand by framing the answer for him. It was similar to a case of our day where a judge will deliver a "directed verdict" instruction to a jury, when that jury had been sworn to decide the case themselves according to the evidence as they understood it. 5 But this blind man was not one to betray his conscience as a jury sometimes does. He did not pretend to decide for the present whether his benefactor belonged in the class known as "sinners," but he was not afraid to affirm what he did know. That statement was the simple truth that he was blind but now was able to see. 6 This question was entirely unnecessary if the Jews were honestly seeking information. The blind man had already stated all the facts in the case as he understood them, and had nothing more in that line that he could say. 7 The useless question caused the blind man to realize that his questioners were not sincere in their inquiries. Or if they were, it was just their way of pressing the investigation further in order to learn what they could of. Jesus. As a means of testing whether that caused their persistence, he asked them if they were interested in becoming the disciples of Jesus. 8 The Jews realized they had committed themselves a little farther than was intended. They showed their bitterness by accusing the man of being a disciple of Jesus. That would not have been anything of which to be ashamed, but his remarks were purely logical and could have been properly uttered regardless of his personal feelings or intentions. The Jews showed their ignorance of the very document and writer they pretended to respect. Any true disciples of Moses -could be disciples of Jesus also, for Moses prophesied favorably of Him. (See Deuteronomy 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:18.) 9 Jesus had shown fully as much evidence of having been inspired of God as did Moses. Therefore the statements made by these Jews were unfair and amounted to a false accusation against the doer of this good deed to the blind man. 0 The man thought it was strange they did not know from where or whom Jesus had come. He thought they ought to have known the kind of source that produced him, judging by the works he was doing. It is a law of cause and effect that is recognized by everybody, that a tree is known by its fruit. Here is a man who has given sight to a man born blind, a feat equal in principle to a creative act, and the Jews pretended not to have any evidence by which they could figure out the background of his operations and general work among mankind. 1 This verse has been misused by many well-meaning disciples. They may be discussing the question of "who has the right to pray," and they will quote this passage to show that only the children of God have that right. That sinners are outside the family of God and hence are not on "praying ground" before God. All such statements are true and are abundantly taught in the New Testament, but this passage cannot be used as a proof text. This man was uninspired and could not speak with authority, therefore his words cannot be used to prove the idea stated above. But the man could make the statement as an argument, just as one of us could do, knowing that the Word of God teaches it in various places. 2 This verse is a statement of truth that is backed up by the history of mankind, but it did not require inspiration to say it, for any person could say the same thing on the strength of history. 3 Since these were all statements of truth that could not be denied, the blind man could freely make them in his argument against the Jews. And on such a basis, he reasoned that this man (Jesus) must have come from God, else he could not do the wonderful things accredited to him and which were known to the public in general. 4 The truth of history agreed with the statements of this man, or the Pharisees would have confronted him with some case of healing that had been done. They knew they could not do that, so they tried to dodge the issue and call in question his right even to reason on the truth. Born in sins was a phrase that the Jews used to show their contempt for a truth which they could not otherwise meet. Referring to the theory of "Transmigration of souls" (see at verse 2), they wanted to weaken the force of the man's teaching by implying he was of a low origin among men. On the pretense that such a person was unworthy of their fellowship, they cast him, out. This phrase means they excommunicated him as explained in the comments at verse 22. 5 This verse gives the first meeting of Jesus and the man after receiving the use of his eyes. The man had been insisting with the Jews that his benefactor must have been a man of God, but that was as definite as he professed to understand it. The question Jesus asked him was for the purpose of advancing him in his spiritual growth. His reasoning with the Jews before they cast him out, was evidence that he would appreciate a fuller insight pertaining to Jesus. 6 This question asked by the man is clear when we remember that he had not seen Jesus, and hence did not recognize his person. In other words, he evidently had learned that the one talking to him was a good and great man, but did not know of his Sonship with God. 7 The conversation had continued far enough for Jesus to make his claim. Thou bast both seen!him must have been a thrilling reminder for one who had been blind all of his life until that day. How gracious it was in Jesus to seek for the man on whom he had bestowed the blessing of sight, and make it a point that among the first, if not the first, real friend he was enabled to see, was the very One who had healed him and who was his Lord in the form of man. 8 The man who had been blind made the good confession. The miracle of opening his eyes convinced him that his benefactor was a man of God, and that would mean that any claim he would make would be true. Now that they have met personally and Jesus claims to be the Son of God, the man sincerely confessed his faith. We are not told in what manner he worshipped Jesus, and since that word has such a wide range of meaning, it, will be well to see the note in connection with Matthew 2:2. 9 A man who has been blind physically all his life and then been given sight, would certainly be a good subject to address concerning spiritual light. In this verse Jesus speaks of both kinds. After the man had been enabled to see physically, he gladly accepted the opportunity to see spiritually, which he manifested when he professed his faith in Christ. The last sentence of the verse refers to the Jews who had normal sight physically, but their stubbornness against the spiritual light made them as blind spiritually as the man had been physically. 0 The Pharisees felt the force of the teaching of Jesus and knew it applied to them. Are we blind also? This is in the form of a question, but Jesus knew it was their way of denying being blind. It could have been indicated either by the tone of their voice, or it was what they were thinking in their heart. Whichever it was, Jesus was able to read their motives and so expressed it in the next verse. 1 If ye were blind . . . no sin. Jesus is not teaching that ignorance of one's duty will justify him in sin; the general teaching of the New Testament is against that. (See Acts 17:30.) But if a person is actually uninformed on the matter of his duty, he would not be guilty of "sinning against light and knowledge," which is the sin Jesus meant these Jews might not have been guilty of. Ye say, we see. These Jews were really blind to the truths they so much needed, but their pride of self-importance kept them from giving the spiritual light a chance to shine into their heart. That caused them to be just as responsible for the obligations imposed by the spiritual enlightenment as if they actually possessed the knowledge of it. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Ten THE PARABLE OF THE AND HIS SHEEPJoh_10:1-6 It is doubtful whether the teaching that follows was spoken in connection with the preceding chapter. Some think the former chapter was spoken at the feast of tabernacles (chapter 7) and this at the feast of dedication (verse 22) in the winter. They are distinct enough to have been spoken on differ¬ent occasions, and yet show enough similarity to be a continuation of the same discourse. There are two parables presented here that are often combined as one. This creates some confusion. Again, persons frequently conclude that because a person or fact represents one thing in a parable it must do it in all parables. This produces confusion. The first parable here spoken concludes with verse 6. A second and distinct parable begins with verse 7 and concludes with verse 10. In the first parable, Jesus is the Shepherd entering into the fold and calling his sheep. In the second, Jesus is the door by or through which the sheep enter into the fold of God. After the conclusion of the two parables, he presents truths drawn from them. 1 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.—He explains in this who is the true Shepherd or Christ and who are false christs. The true Christ enters by the door. This parable is based on what is said to be the practice of the shepherds in the east. The different flocks of sheep are gathered at night into one common fold, the door is closed, a porter keeps the door, and in the morning the shepherd comes, the porter opens the door to him as he comes, he calls his sheep by name, and the sheep know their shepherd’ s voice, and fol¬low him. This is to show that Christ the true Shepherd comes to the door; the porter opens to him, he enters, calls his sheep, and they follow him. All who come claiming to be christs that do not enter the open door are false christs, are thieves and robbers. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.—The door, it seems to me, is the entering into the way pointed out by the prophets. To come as they foretold is to enter by the door into the work of saving the world. [The prophecies pointing to the coming of Christ were the door through which he passed. He fulfilled all of them. He who claims to be the shepherd of the sheep, failing to fulfill these prophecies, has climbed up some other way than going through the door, and is therefore a thief and a robber.] 3 To him the porter openeth;—[The gatekeeper. One man was left in charge of the fold who spent the night there on watch against thieves and wild beasts. When the hour ar¬rived for leading out the flocks in the morning, the shepherd came to the door and being recognized was admitted by the porter.] The porter that is to admit and bear testimony to Christ the Shepherd, it seems to me, is John the Baptist. He was the forerunner of Jesus to bear witness to him and intro¬duce him as the Shepherd of the fold of God. and the sheep hear his voice:—[“ Hear” is used in the sense of intelligent hearing. They recognize and give heed to his voice. They could “ hear” simply a rabbi’ s voice as well as the shepherd’ s.] and he called his own sheep by name,—[This corresponds exactly with the facts of eastern shepherd life. They give names to sheep as we do to our tame animals. It denotes Christ’ s individual interest in each soul.] and leadeth them out.—[To pasture where there is plenty to feed upon.] Those ready to receive the spiritual shepherd and hear his voice are led by him out into green pastures of the children of God. 4 When he hath put forth all his own,—[Has separated his sheep from those of his neighbors.] he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him:—[This is in accordance with oriental custom to this day. Sheep are not driven but led, the shepherd walking in front occasionally uttering a peculiar voice.] for they know his voice.—[Distinct from that of all other voices.] Jesus leads by his teaching and example, and those willing to hear follow out of the fold of Judaism into the privileges of Christ. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.—[An eastern sheep will not follow a strange voice.] One whose voice is not attended by the divine teaching a true disciple will not hear. All who came claiming to be christs were thieves and robbers who came to steal and rob. 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.—This was a completed parable that the people did not understand what he meant to teach. They had not understood and be¬lieved those who had gone before him. BETWEEN TRUE AND THE John 10:7-18 7 Jesus therefore said unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.—He then introduces another parable to show how the sheep may enter into the fold of God and find the care and protection they need to protect them from the thieves and robbers that would destroy them for their selfish ends. Jesus himself is the door into the fold. We enter into the fold of God by entering in or through Christ. [The prophecies were the door through which Christ came and Christ is the door through which we go into the church of Christ. There is but one door or entrance. All who enter the church must go through this door. Baptism is the completing act that puts us through the door into Christ or the church. (Matthew 28:19; Galatians 3:27; John 3:5.) The “ door” here represents Jesus beyond doubt, but how? In the fold is shelter by night, in the pasture is sustenance by day. Through the door they pass to one at night, to the other in the morning. The door then represents the gateway to all our spiritual blessings.] 8 All that came before me are thieves and robbers:—All that came before him claiming to be christs in and through whom they could enter the fold of God were thieves and robbers [for the reason they did not fulfill the prophecies relating to Christ. Instead of entering in through the door, they climbed up some other way]. but the sheep did not hear them.—[Those who were pre¬pared for Christ came to him in spite of them as did the blind man of the previous chapter. They are goats, not true sheep, that wander off after false teachers.] 9 I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,—[From all the skulkers of the night, the hosts of evil, that would fain destroy the sheep.] If any one enters the fold of God through Christ as the door, he shall be saved. and shall go in and go out, and shall find pasture.—As the shepherd leads his sheep in for protection and out for pasture and water so Christ will give these protection and food. This is a reference to the shepherd leading his flock out to the pasture and into the cote or fold for protection. It means that God affords his children food and protection. No parable is intended to apply in all its parts, but one leading point or feature represents the lesson intended to be taught. [Jesus is at once the door, the shepherd, and the pasture. His pasture is the bread of life and the water of life. All who enter by him in the way ordained by God are saved and shall never be lost unless they cease to continue to hear and obey his voice. This is a picture of the happy, contented life of the sheep folded by night and fed by day. So may those who have entered into Christ rest in peace sure that he will lead them by day and protect them by night.] 10 The thief cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy:—The false christ comes only for selfish purposes and will kill and destroy others for his selfish ends. [All those who enter otherwise than by the door wish to prey upon the flock. Their object is not to save the flock, but to destroy it. False religion robs men; true religion blesses and enriches them. After having served for the satisfaction of their pride, ambition, and cupidity they will perish morally, and at least even externally by the effect of this pernicious guidance. The false and selfish teacher is not only a thief who steals the substance and the opportunities of the flock, but a destroyer. This is a universal truth that any person of wide observation has seen illustrated too often. He destroys the spiritual life of the flock, leads it away from God, fills it with false doctrines, destroys the faith that is in men’ s hearts, and scatters the flock abroad until the sheep can no longer be found at the Lord’ s house. My observation is that this is, sooner or later, the picture of the pastor system. Too many preach to satisfy the money and popular sides.] I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.—[Overflowingly; richfulness of nourishment (Comp. Psalms 23) ; abundance of spiritual possessions (grace and truth) (1: 14) in which the life consists.] Jesus the true Shepherd will lay down his life to save the sheep and for their growth to a higher good. 11 l am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.—He distinctly announces that he him¬self is the good Shepherd who came from heaven to earth to give his life to save those who would trust and follow him. 12 He that is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, beholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf snatcheth them, and scattereth them:—Others who are hirelings or work for selfish ends forsake the sheep and flee when they see danger approaching and leave the sheep to be destroyed. [“ The laborer is worthy of his hire,’’ and hence it is not the bare fact of a man receiving pay that makes him a hireling. He is a hireling who would not work were it not for the money he receives. He only cares for his own selfish ends. He will lead the flock away from hope with false doctrines when popularity lends its influence in that direction. Those he described above as thieves and robbers, he now describes as hirelings. Thus true and false shepherds are described.] 13 he fleeth because he is a hireling,—He whose labor is for selfish ends flees when danger threatens, and when the chances are he will lose instead of gain by the danger. [All his care and love is centered on his pay and self-interest, and none on the church. It is said that “ when yellow fever struck Memphis the hireling shepherds fled to the north.” ] and careth not for the sheep.—He works for his own selfish good and not for the good of others. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me,—There is a recognition that certain per¬sons, when they hear the truth, will accept and follow it. Jesus recognizes that these are his before they hear the gospel and accept it. In this sense he is known of his own and knows them. In verse 16 he speaks of those who are his own, but not of this fold. The Lord told Paul at Corinth, “ I have much people in this city” (Acts 18:10) before they had heard or believed the gospel. They loved the truth, and were of that frame of mind that when they heard it would accept and follow it. 15 even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.—The Father knew Jesus would lay down his life for the sheep and because he loved the truth himself, and so loved that he was willing to die to lead all willing to follow truth. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.—Among the Gentiles were many who, when they heard the truth, would accept and follow Jesus. These he calls his sheep of another fold. He would call them and of the two he would make one fold under one Shepherd. 17 Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.—The reason God loved Jesus and sent him to save sinners was because he had no will save to do the will of God and was willing to die to save all who would serve God. He gave his life with the full assurance that he would take it up again. 18 No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself.—While the Father desired that Jesus should give his life for the world, no necessity was laid on him to do it against his own will. Indeed he was chosen of the Father to make this sacrifice because he designed to give his life for the world. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father.—While wicked men took his life by violence, he could have called twelve legions of angels to his deliverance had he desired. While he drew back from the bitter cup of death offered him, it was only momentarily so, for he came for this end, and pursued it to the bitter end. While it was his will, yet in doing it, he acted according to the commandment of God. [He laid down his life at the cross and took it again at the resurrection.] AMONG HIS HEARERSJoh_10:19-21 19 There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words.—The teachings of Jesus always produced divi¬sion among those who heard. Some were willing to hear and believe, others would reject it. It is so now. As much de¬pends upon the condition of the heart of the hearers as upon the amount of the testimony given. Those not willing to be¬lieve are influenced and embittered by additional testimony. 20 And many of them said, He hath a demon, and is mad; why hear ye him?—Some attributed his speech and works to a demon. [The Jews believed that demons could produce su¬pernatural effects. (Matthew 12:24.) They used this as a foun¬dation in explaining the miraculous power of Christ.] 21 Others said, These are not the sayings of one possessed with a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?—Others insisted that demons did not talk in this way, and especially that a demon could not open the eyes of the blind. Demons could sometimes do supernatural works, but they were never good works or helpful to man. [Their question suggests that demons could not do miraculous good works like healing the blind. It had never been known that demons could open the eyes of the blind.] [Here the historian shows what different effects the teaching of Jesus had upon the Jews. Many of them calumniate and slander him as one possessed of a demon and mad, and therefore not to be heard and obeyed; others of calmer thoughts and more levelheaded said that the doctrine he taught, and the late miracle which he had wrought in curing the blind man, were abundantly sufficient to confute such a groundless slander. Note, that the teaching of Christ meeting with diversity of dispositions— it is no wonder it occasions different effects to the softening of some and hardening of others; even as the same sun that melts the wax hardens the clay; yet this is not to be attributed to the teaching of Jesus, but to men's corruptions which oppose the truth and the maintainers of it.] AT THE FEAST OF BEYOND THE JORDAN AND TO BETHANY John 10:22 to John 11:59 RENEWAL OF REMARKS ABOUT HIS SHEEPJoh_10:22-30 22 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem:— Herod the Great had rebuilt the temple—was forty-six years in restoring it— and a feast celebrating that dedication was observed to perpetuate it. 23 it was winter;—Near the time when the people in this country celebrate Christmas. [This feast came in December, but the day is not certain.] and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon’ s porch.— This was a large portion of the temple, four hundred feet long, in which numbers could congregate. 24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense?—The Jews clearly saw that there was something above the ordinary human being in speech and works of Jesus and persuaded themselves that they desired to know and do the truth. If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.—They desired that he should make a plain declaration as to whether he was the Christ. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’ s name, these bear witness of me.—While Jesus occasionally told those to whom he spoke that he was the Christ, generally he left the works that he did to make the impression, and when he saw a willingness to promptly accept the truth, he told them that he was the Christ. But when they caviled about his work and showed a desire to reject him, he refused to tell them. He chided them here with having refused to believe either his word or the works the Father had done through him. These people had seen many works performed at Jerusalem on his frequent visits to the city and had seen the blind mentioned in the ninth chapter healed. Matthew (Matthew 11:5) gives an enumeration of the miracles he performed in their midst. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.—They in that state of heart were determined not to believe, so he refused to recognize them as his sheep. You are not of that class who are willing to receive the truth. He had tried them. (John 12:39-40; Matthew 13:14-15.) 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they fol¬low me;—He and those willing to hear him both loved truth and were naturally drawn to each other. 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,—As a result of their hearing and following him, they should never perish. and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.—None could separate them from Christ while they were anxious to do his will. No one can separate one anxious to follow Christ from him. Only the person himself can separate from Christ, and he can do this only by refusing to hear him. 29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all;—God the Father is the provider and protector of all. He had given to Christ all who were willing to follow him. “ No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.” (6 : 44, 45.) Which shows that God gave to Jesus those who had heard and learned of the prophets and were willing to receive him as the Christ. and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’ s hand.— [No man is able to do it, but the Father can and will if we cease to follow Jesus. (15: 2.) None shall ever fall away from want of divine grace, or the power of adversaries, but because they cease to hear and follow Jesus. By our own sins we are separated from God. (Isaiah 59:2.) ] 30 I and the Father are one.—They are one in nature, character, and purpose, and worked in perfect harmony in saving men. His doing the will of God his Father was the evidence he was from God, that he was the Son of God, and that he was in the Father and the Father in him. ABOUT STONING JESUSJoh_10:31-39 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.—To make himself one with God was regarded by the Jews as blasphemy. And blasphemy was to be punished by death by stoning. (Leviticus 24:14-16.) 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?—Jesus hindered the stoning by appealing to the good works he had done— works of mercy and love— in healing the afflicted in their midst. Jesus knew they could not deny them so he confidently referred to them as known by the Jews about to stone him. It was unto these people that Peter boldly affirmed that Jesus of Nazareth was “ a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22.) Judas testified (Matthew 27:4) that he was innocent and sealed his testimony with his own blood; Pilate testified that he found no fault in him (Luke 23:4 Luke 23:14); the centurion who crucified him testified, ‘‘ This was the Son of God” (Matthew 27:54) ; and here those who sought his life testify that they knew he did many miracles of good works in their midst. These testimonies show that Jesus never did evil to a living soul. He was persecuted and crucified; but while receiving evil from many, he never returned evil. When the fleshly body passed away, the church of God as his spiritual body took its place in which his Spirit dwells. The spiritual body is nearer to the Son of God than his fleshly body ever was. Jesus is persecuted and stoned in the spiritual body as unjustly and as cruelly as he ever was in the fleshly body. He still returns only good for evil. Jesus the Christ in the spiritual body has never brought evil to a single soul, and this challenge still comes to those who turn from him and neglect and abuse and divide and sever his spiritual body. “ Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?" All the good things of a material, intellectual, and spiritual nature we enjoy in this age of the world come from God and are the fruits borne by the tree planted by God two thousand years ago. They came to us through the spiritual body of Christ. It often exposes the evil, but it never produces it. It exposes it that its evil influences may be counteracted and destroyed. Jesus Christ came as a Savior to man, and neither in the fleshly nor the spiritual body did he ever injure or harm a living soul. Churches claiming to be churches of God have injured and done harm to mortals, but it was the human grafts upon that tree planted by God that did the evil and bore the bitter fruit of humanity. Human grafts and trees of human planting always bear bitter fruit. They can bear no other because man, their author and founder, is evil. An evil tree cannot bear good fruit any more than the good tree can bear evil fruit. A stream cannot rise higher than its fountain. All human king-doms and all human grafts upon the divine tree can bear only evil and bitter fruit to humanity, and every friend of man and of God must set his face firmly against all human grafts upon the divine tree. 33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.—Here those anxious to kill Jesus are made to bear testimony to the many good works he did in their midst. They admitted that he had done these works, but insisted that they did not stone him for these works, but for making himself the Son of God when he was only a man. 34-36 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?—Jesus quotes this to show that their own law recognizes those as gods who executed the law of God that came to them. As God’ s servants, they enforced his law and the Psalmist calls them gods. If this be so, why should it be regarded as blasphemy when one specially sent from God into the world calls himself the Son of God? [The word “ sanctify” means to make holy or set apart. It is here used in the latter sense.] 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.—He presents the works he did in their midst as the witness that he was from God and that God was with him. 38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.—Independent of the words and claims of Jesus, the works that he did ought to prove to them that the Father was with and in Jesus doing the works and so approving him as sent of God. To this there was no reply. [If they had personal prejudices against Jesus, they ought to consider his works without prejudice.] 39 They sought again to take him: and he went forth out of their hand.—They sought to arrest him, and still even by physical force. How he escaped we are not told. [Here ends the three months of stormy ministry in the life of Jesus in Je¬rusalem. Twice they attempted to mob him (John 8:59 John 10:31); twice efforts were made to arrest him (John 7:32 John 7:45 John 10:39); and also secret plans to assassinate him had been laid (John 7:19 John 8:37).] JESUS DEPARTS BEYOND THE JORDANJoh_10:40-42 40 And he went away again beyond the Jordan into the place where John was at the first baptizing; and there he abode.—He left Judea because they would not believe him, and went to the east side of the Jordan to Bethabara where John had baptized and remained there for a time. 41 And many came unto him; and they said, John indeed did no sign: but all things whatsoever John spake of this man were true.—The teaching and miracles of Jesus brought many to see him wherever he abode. 42 And many believed on him there.—It is likely that the testimony of John at his baptism had a favorable influence in his behalf and his testimony and works caused many to believe on him at this place. [John’ s preparatory work there was so thorough that they readily received and believed on Jesus. His work here was fruitful, due to the fact that “ all things whatsoever John spake of this man were true.” ] Verse 1 Chapter nine ended on a theme of judgment (John 9:39); and here the deserved judgment of the evil shepherds is uttered. "Jesus swiftly turned the tables on his judges and sentenced them.[1] The controversy that erupted over the miracle dominates the first 21 verses, as evidenced by "Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?" (John 10:21). The expression, "Verily, verily," is one which is not used at the commencement of a discourse";[2] and Robertson said, "The words do not ever introduce a fresh topic."[3] Further evidence for the unity of the two chapters (John 9-10) is in Jesus' presentation of himself as the divine Messiah under the metaphor of the "Good Shepherd," contrasting with the evil shepherds who had cast out the blind man. The importance of the "Good Shepherd" metaphor lies in its use by Jesus: (1) to establish his claim of being God in the flesh, and (2) to identify himself as the "Son of David," Israel's great shepherd king. This refutes Richardson's notion that "Nowhere does John make anything of the notion of a Davidic Messiah."[4]The concept that the Messiah would be the "Son of David" was not a mere notion but a solid conviction founded upon the Old Testament and honored by the very first verse in the New Testament. It was accepted by Christ himself (Matthew 22:41-46) and was without doubt the reason for Christ's effective employment of the metaphor of the Good Shepherd in this chapter. The second half of the chapter (John 10:22-42) records events of some weeks later at the feast of the dedication, the additional references to the "Good Shepherd" being made necessary by his foes' insistence that Jesus tell them "plainly" if he was the Christ. [1] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 100. [2] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 285. [3] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1932), p. 173. [4] Alan Richardson, The Gospel according to St. John (London: SCM Press, 1959), p. 129. 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. (John 10:1) Verily, verily ... See introduction of this chapter. Entereth not by the door ... Christ is the true door (John 10:7) of access to the sheep who are the true Israel of God. It was Christ the door who opened up the whole burden of Old Testament prophecy concerning him and whose coming into the world was the only reason for the existence of Israel as a chosen people. On the other hand, the vicious, secular priests then in charge of Israel had usurped authority over God's Israel, having not entered through Christ the true door at all, but having climbed up by political and coercive means. The same is a thief and a robber ... This may not be doubted. Jesus referred to the same men as having made the temple a den of thieves and robbers; and here they are compared to violent outlaws who climb the wall to plunder the sheep belonging to another. See also under John 10:8. Verse 2 He that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. All religious authority of any actual validity derives from Christ who came into the world to redeem it. He was the true door of access to the spiritual Israel, the children of the promise, who at the time were commingled with the fleshly, hardened Israel. The Father sent him; he came in his own character through the true door which was himself. By the door ... Everything Jesus did was in perfect harmony with the Father's will, contrasting sharply with the evil devices employed by the usurpers for maintaining control over the people. It had all started back there when they rejected God and chose a king of their own (1 Samuel 8:7); and throughout the ages afterward, the combined forces of a reprobate priesthood and an evil monarchy overshadowed the true Israel, the spiritual seed. The collapse of the political government left a hardened and bitter priesthood in control of practically all the affairs of their state, except matters wherein they were vassals of Rome. That evil hierarchy desired nothing in heaven or upon earth so much as the restoration of their earthly sovereignty through a king of their own choice; and their hatred of a spiritual kingdom like that of Jesus knew no boundaries or limitation. Verse 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. There are two extended metaphors in view here, the first ending with John 10:6, and the other extending through John 10:18. David Lipscomb's concise analysis is helpful: In the first parable, Jesus is the Shepherd entering into the fold and calling his sheep. In the second, Jesus is the door by or through which the sheep enter the fold of God.[5]Similarly, Christ is the door in two senses: (1) the door of access to the spiritual flock, and (2) the door of access for the sheep themselves into fellowship with God. This usage of the same symbols for diverse meanings, occurring sometimes in the same sentence, creates confusion unless this is taken into account. See John 10:9. To him the porter openeth ... is an inert factor in the analogy. Efforts of expositors to assign some significance to the porter are proof enough that no spiritual meaning is clearly discernible. Thus, some hold that the Holy Spirit is meant;[6] some think the porter means Moses;[7] Lipscomb thought he was John the Baptist;[8] McGarvey said, "If he represents anybody, it is God";[9] Webster thought he stood for ministers and teachers in the church;[10] Wordsworth and others saw him as Christ, who is not only the door and the good shepherd but the porter also.[11] The view here is that the porter was just one of the facilities of the sheepfold, like the wall or the thorn hedge, or like the bag out of which the sower planted his field, in that parable, the bag not being mentioned but necessarily inferred. THE The shepherd led his sheep but did not drive them, and a very intimate and loving relationship existed between the shepherd and the sheep, even extending to the shepherd's habit of giving each sheep a name and teaching them to respond to his voice and commands. At night, he usually led them into a safe enclosure, often lying across the entrance and thus forming literally the door. Flocks from several shepherds often occupied the same enclosure, the separation taking place next morning when each shepherd went his way, calling his sheep to follow, the sheep invariably following their true shepherd. Such shepherds were devoted to their sheep, risking or even giving their lives in defense of them against marauding beasts or thieves and robbers. As Freeman said: For the sheep live in their shepherd, the center of their unity, the guarantee of their security, and the pledge of their prosperity .... In the morning he goes before them to lead them out, and in the evening lies down in their midst .... This shepherd life is one of such loving devotion that it readily lends itself to religious impression .... Certain it is that David's spiritual nature owed much to his having been a keeper of Jesus' sheep[12]Calleth his sheep by name, and leadeth them out ... and the sheep hear his voice ... etc. All such expressions become clear in the light of the above summary of the Eastern shepherd's relationship to the flock. [5] David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Co., 1960), p. 150. [6] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan), I, p. 629. [7] Ibid. [8] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 152. [9] J. W. McGarvey, The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Company, 1914), p. 469. [10] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 629. [11] Ibid. [12] John Freeman, Life on the Uplands (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1924), p. 20. Verse 4 When he hath put forth all his own, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.This has no reference to Jesus' putting his followers in and out of the church! The whole service of caring for the sheep stands for the salvation and security of them that follow the Good Shepherd. See under John 10:3. Verse 5 And a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers,The voice ... is mentioned three times here in six verses and refers to the distinctive quality of Jesus' teachings. The voice of strangers brings philosophies, theories, and speculations; but only the voice of Jesus brings salvation. People who really desire salvation are rebuffed by human pride and sophistication, and they will flee from every voice except the authentic one. The poor blind man was a perfect example of a sheep who heard and followed the true Shepherd's voice. The strangers indeed had called him, demanding that he deny glory to the Lord; but instead he worshipped Jesus. Verse 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake to them.This parable ... The word thus rendered here is [@paroimia], sometimes translated "proverb"; but it may be logically viewed as an extended metaphor, or comparison. The Pharisees whom Jesus had already called "blind" (John 9:39 f) did not have the slightest idea about what Jesus meant by these teachings. Two months later (John 10:24) they seem to have caught on to at least a part of what Jesus meant; but in this scene they remained oblivious to his meaning, even after he repeated the metaphor and embellished it. Verse 7 Jesus therefore said unto them again, Verily,, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.Jesus is the means of access to the true spiritual children of God, as explained under the above six verses. Jesus to this point had not categorically called himself the door; but here he stated it plainly. Verse 8 All that came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not hear them.As Richardson noted: To the rulers who fattened themselves at the expense of the flock, the Sadducean high priests, and Pharisaic doctors, the Herods and the Roman procurators - all these wicked shepherds (in the sense of Ezekiel 34) had climbed into their place of domination over the flock by illegitimate means; and it was they who conspired against the Divine Shepherd, who would lay down his life for the sheep and who would gather together into one flock the scattered children of God.[13]ENDNOTE: [13] Alan Richardson, op. cit., p. 131. Verse 9 I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture.I am the door ... has here a different meaning. In John 10:8, it referred to the access of the Lord to his flock; here it refers to the access of men to salvation, or, in terms of the metaphor, access to the sheepfold. Here is the mixing of the metaphor and the reality for which it stands in the same sentence. Sheep do not find salvation, and Christians do not find pasture; but both concepts are in this verse. Remarkably, the same mixed metaphor is in the Old Testament, "So we thy people and sheep of thy pasture will give thee thanks for ever" (Psalms 79:13). Of course, sheep do not give thanks; but it was part of the genius of inspiration that metaphors were mingled in both testaments. Attention to such details as this is prerequisite to understanding this remarkable passage. Verse 10 The thief cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy: I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.The religious hierarchy of hardened Israel was the murderous thief intent on killing and destroying, and Christ is the true shepherd who came to bring abundant life to the people of God. Abundantly ... How grotesque and unreal are the ideas of those who think the Christian leads a life of boring inhibition, sitting out his years in the chilly twilight of monastic gloom, forbidden to do anything that everyone else wants to do, and always cowering in fear before an angry God! On the contrary, the Christian life is the happy life, free, abundant, and overflowing, adventurous and exciting beyond any other kind of existence. Why cannot men believe their Creator, to the effect that the way of Christ is the way of joy and fulfillment? Interpreters' Bible has the following in the same vein of thought: (Concerning) those who fling their lives away in an avid questing for sensation, seeking to make a collection of experiences as others do of stamps, and esteeming every new experience of any kind an addition to their store, who will get drunk, simply for experience, and touch unholy things that they may taste the whole of life: - they do not realize, poor duped fools, misled by hobbledehoy thinkers, so called, who have cooked these immature ideas into a kind of messy philosophy - they do not realize that in life, as in arithmetic, there is a minus sign as surely as a plus; and that certain experiences do not add to, but subtract from, what we had and were before, each new indulgence in forbidden things leaving us poorer, leaner, emptier, and at length beggared.[14]One in full possession of his intelligence cannot seriously suppose that God would have created man with a constitution that would enable him to be happier in the service of the devil than in the service of God. The abundant life is not with the evil one, but with Jesus Christ our Lord. ENDNOTE: [14] W. F. Howard, The Interpreters' Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Luke-John, p. 625. Verse 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.This portion of this metaphorical passage dominates the whole passage and bears the principal weight of meaning. A background knowledge of the Old Testament concerning the true shepherd of Israel is vital to a proper understanding of what is meant by Jesus here. Almighty God appears throughout the Old Testament as the true shepherd of Israel. Note: The Lord is my shepherd (Psalms 23:1). We are thy people and the sheep of thy pasture (Psalms 79:13). Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock (Psalms 80:1). For He is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand (Psalms 95:7). Moreover, the whole 34th chapter of Ezekiel is given over to this metaphor of God as the good shepherd and the false leaders as the evil shepherds. This great chapter is the key to all that is spoken here. Now, in the light of this very extensive metaphor in the Old Testament making God to be the only true shepherd of Israel, how is one to understand Jesus when twice he thundered the message that "I am the good shepherd"? It is no less a declaration that Jesus is God than if any other words had been employed to say it. That he did intend it thus is proved by the fact that when the Pharisees finally realized what he meant, they attempted to stone him for blasphemy (John 10:33). But there is a further corollary of this claim of being the Good Shepherd, and that refers to his being the Son of David. Ezekiel prophesied thus: And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I Jehovah will be their God, and my servant David prince among them; I Jehovah have spoken it (Ezekiel 34:23-24). Ezekiel's prophecy did not refer to the literal king David, long dead, but to the Son of David, the Messiah, who would truly reign over the kingdom upon the throne of David (spiritually). Thus it came to pass that throughout all Israel in the times of Christ, the Messiah was usually spoken of as "the Son of David" (Matthew 22:42 f). See the first verse of the New Testament. Thus, they are in error who imagine that John did not stress the Davidic kingdom, this entire passage being full of it. Layeth down his life for his sheep ... What is this if not a prophecy of the cross? Here the reality far surpasses the metaphor; for, while it was true that shepherds were known to lose their lives in defense of the sheep, there is no record of any having consented to do so voluntarily. Jesus willingly gave himself up to die for men. Verse 12 He that is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, beholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf snatcheth them out and scattereth them.The contrast here between the hireling keepers of the flock and the Lord who truly loved the sheep, enough even to die for them, has an application far beyond this. In the church of all ages there have been both evil and good shepherds in the full character of these on view in this verse. Hireling ... is not a reference to all who work for wages, the laborer being fully worthy of his hire; but it denotes a class of persons who merchandise holy things, not out of regard for sacred values, but purely from selfish and carnal motives. The wolf ... was Jesus' usual designation of false teachers (Matthew 7:15 ff); and the modus operandi of such is always that of scattering the flock. The surest evidence of such a wolf is that which derives from this very characteristic. A "church buster" is invariably a wolf, regardless of his pretensions. Verse 13 He fleeth because he is a hireling, and careth not for the sheep.Hireling ... See under preceding verse. Careth not for the sheep ... The true shepherd is one who cares for his charges. This contrasts with the heartless and pitiless disregard of such religious leaders as those who cast out the blind man in the hope of advancing their own nefarious schemes. Verse 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me.See under John 10:11. This verse should be read in close connection with the next, because the union between the Father and Christ: is like that between the Lord and his church. Although his own do not know the Lord with the same completeness of knowledge that he has of them, nevertheless they know him. His mind is in them; his name is upon them; his service engages them; his joy sustains them; his love forgives them; and his Spirit guides them. The union of Christ and his servants is beautiful and sufficient. Verse 15 Even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.One may not presume to offer a full explanation of all that is meant here. As Ryle said: The full nature of that knowledge which the First Person of the Trinity has of the Second and the Second of the First, is something far beyond man's finite understanding. It is in short a deep mystery ... (It is) a knowledge so high, so deep, so intimate, so ineffable, that no words can fully convey it.[15]The doctrine of the Trinity is rejected by some; but this student finds in such a doctrine the only explanation of many things in the word of God which otherwise have no explanation at all. (For more on this, see my Commentary on Matthew, p. 33.) ENDNOTE: [15] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., II, p. 10. Verse 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.Not of this fold ... These are the Gentiles whom Christ would save and who together with the spiritual Israel (a remnant of the whole) would thenceforth compose the one flock of God. One flock ... The KJV is incorrect in rendering this "one fold." Jesus here changed from the word "fold" to that of "flock," because, due to the metaphor, it might otherwise have appeared that the Gentiles were to be called into the institution of the Jews. There was to be a new institution, God's "one flock." Not the least of the sure evidences of Jesus' supernatural wisdom appears in this prophecy of the "one flock," including Jews and Gentiles alike of every tribe and nation. This dream of a world-wide, universal fellowship of God's people was envisioned in the great prophecies of Isaiah, and glimpsed in the experience of Jonah; but Jesus here dogmatically stated it as if it had already been accomplished. Verse 17 Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.I lay down ... that I may take ... Jesus here expressed his absolute freedom and authority both to die and to rise from the dead. There are three differences between Jesus' laying down his life for the sheep and that of the shepherds' doing so in the metaphor. These are: (1) Jesus' death is altogether voluntary, but not like the shepherd's involuntary death while fighting against a robber. The shepherd might indeed die, but not willingly. (2) Christ's death actually saves the sheep eternally, whereas the death of a shepherd would only hasten the death and destruction of the sheep. (3) Christ will lay down his life, but with a purpose of taking it up again, something no earthly shepherd could do. Verse 18 No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from the Father.This necessity of Christ to express the voluntary nature of his forthcoming death probably derived from his dual purpose: (1) of preventing the exultation of his foes in thinking that his death would be their victory, and (2) of preventing the despair of his disciples in thinking that death might defeat him. Hendriksen and others believe that the better reading here is, "No one has taken it away from me, etc." Such a use of the past tense is given in the English Revised Version (1885) margin; but, if valid, it could only mean that Christ spoke prophetically, in which the past tense is used for the future, as frequently in the Scriptures. This commandment received I from my Father ... All that Christ did on earth was done in complete harmony and obedience to the will of God. The thing in view here was the Lord's vicarious death and resurrection, but the same is true of all that he did. Of mortals, only they are good who obey the word of God. This was the glory of the Saviour that he did the will of the Father, conforming his every action to the Father's will. This verse amounts to a shout into the very face of his enemies that they could not kill Jesus until he was ready to die for the sins of the world. That it was true would be proved before the present interview ended; for they took up stones to kill him, but could not (John 10:31). Verse 19 There arose again a division among the Jews because of these words.Again a division ... has reference to John 7:48 and John 9:16. As Ryle said: It may seem strange, at first sight, that he who came to preach peace between God and man should be the cause of contention. But herein were Jesus' own words fulfilled: "I came not to send peace but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). The fault was not in Christ or his doctrine, but in the carnal mind of his hearers.[16]ENDNOTE: [16] Ibid., II, p. 17. Verse 20 And many of them said, He hath a demon, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the sayings of one possessed with a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?One can feel a certain sympathy with the oppressed Jewish people who ardently hoped for some powerful leader, who they naturally supposed would be their long-awaited Messiah, who would throw off the galling yoke of the Roman conquerors and restore their state. Their rage and rejection against Jesus sprang from his being nothing like what they had imagined a Messiah would be. Instead of leading an all-powerful army against the enemy, here he was talking about dying and taking up his life again! They were simply not tuned in on any such wavelength. Some bluntly accused him of being mad or being possessed by a demon; and the voice of the minority who knew otherwise was not strong enough to break the personal barrier of hatred and antagonism which sinful and arrogant men had built up in themselves against Jesus. These are not the sayings of one possessed with a demon ...Can a demon open the eyes of the blind ... ? Such thoughts as these should have penetrated the hearts of the adamant majority but did not. The carnal mind is enmity against God, and the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (Romans 7:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14). "The Scriptures had affirmed that only God could open the eyes of the blind (Exodus 4:11; Psalms 146:8)";[17] and despite the fact that Richardson does not exactly quote Scripture here, the word of God nevertheless supports his contention. It was a remarkable blindness indeed that could ascribe the healing of the blind man to any other power than that of God. In the contrasting results of Jesus' words and works in Jerusalem, one sees the fulfillment of Paul's words that the gospel is life to some and death to others (2 Corinthians 2:15). As Ryle said, "We must not find fault with the gospel if it stirs up men's corruption and causes the thoughts of many hearts to be revealed (Luke 2:35)."[18] One amazing quality of the gospel is that men find it impossible to ignore it, however some may pretend to do so. It has the power to polarize men, making all of them either the friends of God or his enemies. Jerusalem could not ignore Christ. They had indeed a Visitor; and neither they nor their city could ever be the same again. We should not leave this verse (John 10:21) and the question, "Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?" without again emphasizing the connection between this entire passage and John 9. The miracle there described and the conversations following it dominate the coherent narrative from John 9:1 to this point. It was the false shepherd's behavior which led the Saviour to announce himself as the Good Shepherd. It was their judging the blind man and casting him out that led to Jesus' judgment of them. It was their evil character that led to the denunciation of them as thieves and robbers. It was their shutting the blind man out of the privileges of Judaism that prompted Jesus to open up for him the privilege of the new kingdom about to begin. It was their selfish disregard of the sheep that led Jesus to speak of his love for the sheep and of his laying down his life for them. It was their determination to kill the Lord that led to his announcement that no one could kill him. It was their domineering arrogance in the exercise of sacred privilege to which they had no moral right which led to the charge that they had climbed up some other way. All of this was an elaboration of the blindness with which Jesus charged them (John 9:41). One can only marvel at the wisdom (!) of some of the scholars who would scissor this section out of the context it fits so perfectly, and which context so dramatically interprets and explains it, leading one to surmise that perhaps the type of blindness that handicapped the Pharisees might still be found on earth. Following this instructive section, some two months passed. Winter fell upon the Holy City, and the feast of the dedication came; but the time-lapse did not resolve the division that arose over Jesus. His old antagonists, the Pharisees, appeared once more, intent on winning an argument they had already lost. [17] Alan Richardson, op. cit., p. 133. [18] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., II, p. 18. Verse 22 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon's porch, and it was winter.As Robertson noted: There is a considerable time-lapse between the events in John 10:1-21 and John 10:22-39, possibly nearly three months (from just after tabernacles John 7:37 to dedication John 10:22) ... Jesus had apparently spent the time in between in Judaea (Luke 10:1 to Luke 13:21).[19]The feast of dedication was begun by Judas Maccabeus B.C. 164 to commemorate the cleansing and rededication of the temple after the defilement through pagan worship under Antiochus Epiphanes, and was celebrated every year for eight days beginning on the 25th of the Jewish month Casleu.1Ma 4:59 (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1942). Douay Version of the Holy Bible.">[20] It was not one of the great feasts handed down from Moses; but it was popular among the people who called it: the feast of lights. Hunter said, "It was held at the winter solstice (Christmas) ... and was called `The Feast of the New Age.'"[21]It was winter ... explains Jesus' seeking the shelter of Solomon's porch; our Lord preferred to preach outdoors as in the Sermon on the Mount. Johnson described Solomon's porch thus: It is generally supposed to have been in the southeast part of the temple enclosure, overlooking the valley of Kedron. Josephus describes it as a stadium in length, and as having three parts, two of them thirty feet wide each, and the middle one forty-five feet. He contends that it was built by Solomon, which is doubtful.[22]A stadium was twice the length of a football field (582 feet by 600 feet) according to Peloubet's dictionary. Johnson's doubt of Solomon's building it seems strange, because it is hard to imagine anyone else having done so and then naming it after Solomon. Josephus not only attributed it to Solomon but stated that he built it before the temple itself.[23] The roof was terraced, some portions of it being 120 feet in height. [19] A. T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 184. 1Ma 4:59 (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1942). Douay Version of the Holy Bible.">[20]; 1Ma 4:59 (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1942). Douay Version of the Holy Bible. [21] A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 106. [22] B. W. Johnson, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Standard Publishing Company, 1886), p. 164. [23] Flavius Josephus, Life and Works (New York: Rinehart and Winston), p. 244. Verse 24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.The Jews ... as used by John is void of any anti-Semitism, the people in view always being the religious hierarchy. The noble Jews in great numbers accepted Christianity, but in doing so, lost their identity as Jews; and thus the very name gradually came to mean the enemies of the gospel; but it is clear that John always used "the Jews" to mean the priestly class in Jerusalem. John himself was a Jew, as was our Lord, and most of the apostles. How long dost thou hold us in suspense ... On the surface, this almost sounds like a fair question; and there is a temptation to wonder why Jesus did not speak right up and say, "Yes, of course, I am the Christ." Jesus' repeated declarations earlier that he was "the good shepherd" certainly meant that he was the Christ, God come in the flesh; but he had not used that word, "Christ," because the Jewish conception of what that word meant was totally incorrect. And, if Jesus had used this word here, they would have made their incorrect notion of what it meant the basis of a charge of sedition before the Romans. The Pharisees by this time had figured out what Jesus meant by calling himself the Good Shepherd; and here they were only trying to trick him into using a word they could pervert into a charge of sedition. At a time of his own choice, Jesus would testify that he was "the Christ" (Mark 14:62); but his refusal to use that word here was righteous and holy. Verse 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.Jesus was not deceived by the sweet reasonableness of their friendly (?) question, for he well knew their murderous designs. I told you, and ye believed not ... Christ's bold declaration of himself as the Shepherd of Israel was clear enough in all of its glorious Messianic implications; but the spiritual overtones of that title made it useless for the diabolical purposes of the Pharisees; and what is equally important, they did not believe it. From their viewpoint, therefore, what they were trying to do was to get Jesus to commit blasphemy (in their eyes) and to do so in terminology that could also be used by them as a legal charge before the governor. The proof of this is what they actually did when Jesus did swear under oath that he was the Christ (Mark 14:62 ff). Their own gross immorality is inherent in what they THOUGHT they were doing. They THOUGHT they were trying, to get a fellow-mortal (as they thought) to commit a capital crime (as they viewed it) for the sake of getting him killed! No wonder Jesus addressed them as "Ye serpents; ye offspring of vipers" (Matthew 23:33). The works that I do in my Father's name ... brought forward the mighty signs Jesus did, but that subject was extremely distasteful to those hypocrites. They only wanted some basis for having him legally murdered. Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep ... These words recalled his declaration of himself as the Good Shepherd, which by that time they fully understood in all its implications (John 10:33). Here, as always, Jesus made unbelief to be the result of immoral character. The reason those men did not believe in Jesus was lodged in their character which revealed them to be no part of the spiritual Israel. "Ye are not of my sheep." Verse 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.Men who close their eyes, stop their ears, and harden their hearts cannot hear the Shepherd's voice, through no fault of the Shepherd, but because of their own willful sin. Those of honest and good heart, on the other hand, will hear the Shepherd's voice and follow him. Predestination enters into this only in the fact that the rules were laid down before all eternity to the effect that self-willed sinners are destined to be hardened and rejected, whereas penitent worshipers of the Lord will be received and saved; but every man ever born on earth has the option of being either one or the other as he himself shall choose. Verse 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.Eternal life ... Who but God could make a promise like this? Thus, the Pharisees had another chance to see the light; but this additional statement of Christ's divinity was worthless to them, because it could not serve as a legal charge before the Romans. And no one shall snatch, etc. ... The utmost security of the saved in Christ lies in the fact that no external power shall ever be able to dislodge them from the Master's love and protection. In this same vein of thought are Paul's great words of Rom 8:31-39; but in both passages, only external things are in view as possible destroyers of the soul; and external things shall not be able to do it. Yet, it must be remembered that a believer himself may turn away from the truth, become entangled with sin and overcome. The sovereign right of choice is never taken away from any man. Verse 29 My Father who hath given them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.Here is the reasoning that underlies the promise of Joh 10:28 that the sheep of Christ shall have eternal life. There is no way to understand Jesus' words here except as an affirmation of his supernatural nature, claiming equality with God himself, or, as the Pharisees expressed it in John 10:33, making himself God! As Robertson said: This crisp statement, "I and the Father are one," is the climax of Christ's claims concerning the relationship between the Father and himself (the Son). This stirred the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.[24]Augustine saw in this single text the complete refutation of two major heresies, saying: It silences the Sabellians, who say there is only one Person in the Godhead, by speaking of two distinct Persons. It silences the Arians who say the Son is inferior to the Father, by saying that the Father and the Son are one.[25]Ryle paraphrased the thought thus: I and my eternal Father, though two distinct Persons, are yet one in essence, nature, dignity, power, will, and operation. Hence, in the matter of securing the safety of my sheep, what I do, my Father does likewise. I do not act independently of him.[26]There is no pretense here of any truly adequate explanation of such things as these, for the truth of this verse lies wholly beyond the perimeter of man's finite understanding. [24] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 187. [25] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., II, p. 30. [26] Ibid. Verse 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.Some "moderns," so-called, have alleged from this verse that the author of John was a stranger to the laws and customs of Judaea before 70 A.D. But as Richardson said, " Acts 7:58 f records a case of mob stoning such as is said to have been impossible."[27]Again ... indicates that the Jews had repeatedly sought an opportunity to stone Jesus (John 8:49; John 11:8); and Hendriksen concluded from this that the Jews carried stones.[28] According to the law, blasphemy was punishable by stoning (Leviticus 24:16), but only after legal trial and sentencing. Such niceties as the legal requirements of the case, however, were no kind of deterrent to Jesus' foes. The commentators who fancy that legal prohibitions, either Jewish or Romans, cast any doubt on the truth of John's record have missed altogether the illegal and unscrupulous nature of the whole cabal against Jesus. Did such prohibitions prevent the same group of men from stoning Stephen to death? (Acts 7:58). [27] Alan Richardson, op. cit., p. 135. [28] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 126. Verse 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father: for which of those works do ye stone me?Christ kept focusing attention on his mighty works, those being the last thing on earth the Pharisees wanted to consider. Do ye stone me ... has the meaning of "You are trying to stone me." From the Father ... stresses the oneness of Jesus with the Father, indicating that the great signs were accomplished in answer to prayer, and in full harmony with God's will. This proved that Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy; but the priestly enemies would receive no evidence of any kind. Intent on murder, they blurted out any capital charge that, came into their minds. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The person entering the door into the sheepfold would thus be denoted as the true shepherd for two reasons. First, none but the true shepherd would attempt to gain entrance at that place. Second, even if anyone should try to get through it who was not entitled to enter, he would not be permitted to do so. (See next verse.) 3 When a flock was taken from the pasture in the evening, it was led through the gate into the fold. A gatekeeper was employed to guard the entrance until the shepherd was again ready to lead his sheep out for pasture. When he appeared at the gate, the keeper or porter as he is called here, would recognize him and open the entrance to the fold. But if a stranger should appear, claiming to be the shepherd, the porter would know he was a fraud and would not admit him, which was referred to in the preceding verse. A sheep is naturally adapted to affectionate relationship with his master, and it is stated in history, that shepherds in the east had the practice of naming each individual animal, very much as a child will name his pets. 4 The sheep recognized the voice of their master because he was the one who called them by name. It is characteristic of pets to notice when their name is mentioned. One may see an advertisement in the press for a lost animal, and probably the ad will state, "he recognizes the name," and then follows the name of the animal. 5 On the basis of the foregoing, if a stranger should come near a flock of sheep, they will flee from him instead of following. His voice will be strange to them which would make them fearful, hence they would flee in their fright. 6 Parable is not from the same Greek word that is generally used for the English term, but its practical purpose is the same. It means an illustration that is expressed in figurative language, where the comparison is to be discovered in the facts and truths that pertain to the subject. Since the Jews were not informed in all those facts, it is stated that they understood not what Jesus spake. With the record of the case as we have it in the work of John and Jesus, we should be able to see the comparison implied in this group of verses. The fold is the ones John prepared for Jesus as explained at verse 1. John is the porter, and he opened the door into the confidence of his disciples when he introduced Jesus as the "Lamb of God" in chapter 1:29. The door does not apply to that through which the sheep were to pass, but it was the shepherd who was to enter it. That door is the prophecies that had described him, and as soon as John learned the truths about Jesus he knew He was the one predicted, and then he opened the door to his disciples by the statement in chapter 1:29. 7 Up to this point the speech of Jesus pertained exclusively to his relation with the disciples of John who constituted the "sheepfold," and to John who acted as the "porter" for that group of his disciples. From here through verse 18 Jesus enlarges the subject, and will make remarks that pertain to the church as another fold. For this reason we shall see many changes in the implied comparisons, which can be understood only by considering what the New Testament teaches about the church, and what Jesus means to those who desire salvation through the great institution. However, he will continue to use many of the same terms since they are as true in many respects in the second case as in the first. There will be one distinct reference to the first fold which will be pointed out and commented upon when we reach that. verse. The word again is what introduces the second line of thought just mentioned a few lines above. In the second fold Jesus is the door as well as the shepherd. That is because no one can enter a saved condition now except through Christ (chapter 14:6), and after entering thereat he must still be subject to him as his great Shepherd. 8 This verse was true from a general standpoint. It would include the cases mentioned in Acts 5:36-37, and also the false prophets and false Christs who rose up from time to time and claimed to be the fulfillers of the law and the prophets. To the extent of their success in misleading people, they were robbers. But others were well enough acquainted with the Old Testament that they were not deceived, and they "turned a deaf ear" to the impostors. 9 The terms or expressions used in an illustration, are generally drawn from the characteristics of the subject, concerning which the comparison is made, and the application cannot always be made literally. One such expression is go in and out. Jesus had already selected a shepherd and his work for his illustration, and that made such a phrase appropriate. A shepherd will lead his flock into the fold in the evening for the night, then lead them out the next morning for pasture. In its application it simply means that if a man accepts Jesus as his Shepherd, he will be saved from the wolves of sin, and also will be abundantly supplied with spiritual pasture or food. 0 A thief attempting to get possession of a flock not belonging to him, could have no good motive for his action. He would count on slaughtering the animals, either for food or material for clothing or for both. The true shepherd would love the flock and would be interested in its growth in numbers and increase in weight. 1 Good shepherd giveth 'his life. Smith's Bible Dictionary says the following which will explain why a shepherd would run the risk of losing his life in defending the sheep: "The office of the eastern shepherd, as described in the Bible, was attended with much hardship, and even danger. He was exposed to the extremes of heat and cold, Genesis 31:40. . . . He had to encounter the attacks of wild beasts, occasionally of the larger species, such as lions, wolves, panthers, and bears, 1 Samuel 17:34; Isaiah 31:4; Jeremiah 5:6; Amos 3:12; nor was he free from the risk of robbers or predatory [destructive] hordes." 2 A man who is hired to care for a flock of sheep would have no personal or affectionate interest in them. Such a person would not be expected to risk his life in defence of the flock, for he is acting only because of his financial interests. This would illustrate a man in the religious world who pretends to be laboring in behalf of the people of God, but who is in the business only because of personal interest in the form of money or popularity. Neither should he be expected to endure persecution or other disadvantages on account of the profession he is making. Catcheth them and scattereth the sheep. That is, the wolf gets hold of some of the sheep which he mangles, while the others will flee in terror, the shepherd having already deserted them. 3 See the comments on the preceding verse about hirelings. 4 This mutual recognition is due to the affectionate relation between a shepherd and his flock, in which each sheep has its own name. See the comments on this point at verses 3 and 4. 5 The Father and Son are interested in the same flock, hence their mutual knowledge of each other is manifested in their common care for the flock. If the shepherd is called upon to give his life in defence of the sheep, the Father will give that life back to Him. 6 This is the verse that was referred to in the comments on verse 7. This fold means the one described in verses 1-5, consisting of the Jews whom John baptized in preparation for Christ. There was a special need for that group to be ready for Jesus, because the Jews as a nation had become so corrupt that none of them would have been good enough for the personal use of Him. But that was not because they alone were to be given a chance to save their souls. In the course of time the people of every race and nation were to be invited to come into the one fold which is the church. These are the other sheep of this verse. The term I have is in the present tense as to grammatical form, but it was spoken prospectively because Jesus knew that the Gentiles would hear his voice and come into the church. It was on the same principle that the Lord told Paul, "I have much people in this city" (Acts 18:10). He knew that many of the Corinthians still in sin would accept the truth when they heard it, and by divine inspiration he could say, "I have." Jesus used the term other sheep I have in this verse in the same inspired prediction. One fold and one shepherd means there was to be one church, and that all of the Lord's sheep whether Jews or Gentiles would be in it. 7 Had the death of Christ been involuntary, his Father would not have raised him to life again. This willingness on his part caused God to love his Son. 8 Yes, man was the instrument through which Jesus died. But had it not been the will of the Son to die, no man would have been able to slay him. (See Matthew 26:53.) Because of his willingness to carry out this part of his Father's will, he was given the power (EXOUSIA, authority) to lay his life down and then take it up again. This commandment refers to the will of God that his Son should come into the world and die as a sacrifice for sin. When Jesus came it was for the purpose of doing that very thing. Paul wrote about this in Hebrews 10:5-7 in connection with the new covenant. 1 These verses are explained at chapter 7:20 and 9:16. 2 This dedication was not any part of the law of Moses. A wicked king of Syria named Antiochus Ephiphanes, drove the priests from the altar of sacrifices at Jerusalem and burned the flesh of swine on it. After some years of struggle, a zealous Jew by the name of Judas Maccabaeus got possession of the altar. He cleansed it and dedicated it anew to the lawful service. In honor of that event the Jews established a feast that was celebrated annually. John refers to it only as a matter of date, indicating the occasion on which the things took place of which he was writing. This sacrilege by the wicked king is predicted and commented upon at Daniel 8:9-12, in volume 4 of the Old Testament Commentary. 3 Solomon's porch. Thayer explains this as follows: "A porch or portico built by Solomon in the eastern part of the temple (which in the temple's destruction by the Babylonians was left uninjured, and remained down to the times of King Agrippa, to whom the care of the temple was intrusted by the emperor Claudius, and who on account of its antiquity did not dare to demolish and build it anew)." It is elsewhere described as a covered walk where people would be protected from the weather and sun. All of this explains why we read of various gatherings of the people at this place. 4 These Jews were not really wanting information, for Jesus had already furnished an abundance of evidence that he was the Christ. They hoped that by repeated demands they would catch Jesus unawares, and that he would say something on which they could base some accusation of disloyalty to Moses or to Caesar. 5 Jesus made a very brief reply to their demand. He referred to what had previously been said and done concerning his works in the Father's name. 6 All who accepted the teaching of John became sheep for the fold that was being prepared for Christ. If they refused to accept that work of the forerunner, they naturally would not believe the teaching of the shepherd when he came. That is why Jesus told these Jews the reason they did not believe his word was because they were not of my sheep. 7 Jesus made more believers through his personal teaching and that of his apostles. These became sheep also and came under the same rules that regulate a flock with its shepherd, whose voice the sheep had learned. 8 They shall never perish is on the condition that the sheep hear the voice of the shepherd. He will give them eternal life, whereas a temporal shepherd leads his flock into temporal pasture. This verse does not teach the false doctrine known as "once in grace always in grace." But if a man is faithful to the law of Christ, then it is true that no other person can pluck him out of the hand of the Shepherd. 9 The Father will not hold a sheep regardless of whether it is faithful and satisfied with the spiritual pasturage which He provides for him. But if the sheep is thus true to the Father, then no man can get that sheep out of His grasp. 0 The Father is greater than all other beings in existence. Since He and his Son are one (in spirit and purpose), the security of a sheep that is true to them is established and is based on the unfailing power and goodness of the Lord. 1 At every climax of the arguments of Jesus, the conclusion was so unanswerable that the Jews were enraged. Instead of acting in a fair manner and accepting the teaching, they would threaten him with violence. 2 In reality it was the good works of Jesus that angered the Jews. They did not like to see the favor that he was receiving from the multitude, but were not honest enough to admit it. As a screen for their envious hypocrisy, they pretended to object to some of his personal claims. 3 The specific grievance they put forward was that Jesus made himself God. He did not make such a claim directly (although he could have done so justly if taken rightly) but only had claimed to be the Son of God. 4 In reply to the charge of the Jews, Jesus made a quotation from Psalms 82:6. Incidentally, let us note that Jesus called the book of Psalms your law, which tells us that the writings of Moses do not contain all of "the law" of the Jews. In this citation are the words ye are gods; they were addressed to the Jews of old to whom the law was sent, and in such a form of speech they were called gods. There is nothing strained in attributing such a title to God's people. The name God is a family one and includes every member of that family. Every member of the Jones family is a Jones, and likewise every member of the family of God is a God in the sense of relationship. It was in that sense the passage in Psalms was used. 5 The mere fact of being the ones to whom the word of God was sent, entitled them to the family relationship and the right to its name, which was God. The scripture cannot be broken denotes that these Jews had no right to speak of Jesus in a way that would criticize the scripture just quoted. 6 Sanctified is from HAGIAZO. It has such varied applications in the New Testament, sometimes pertaining to man and at others applying to the Lord, that I think it will be well to copy the definitions (the parts in italics) of Thayer. The reader should acquaint himself with these different clauses, and when using them in any given place in the scripture, always use the one that is appropriate. "1. To render or acknowledge to be venerable [worthy of high regard], to hallow. 2. To separate from things profane and dedicate to God, to consecrate. 3. To purify, to cleanse externally. To purify internally by reformation of soul." Jesus never had any impurities in his character, hence the definitions 1 and 2 should apply to him. The Father acknowledged the Son as being worthy of high regard, when he said he was his beloved Son in whom he was well pleased (Matthew 3:17), and he dedicated him to the great work of God when he gave the command, "Hear ye him" (Matthew 17:5). If the people who were honored only by having the law sent to them were entitled to be called gods, then certainly the One on whom God bestowed all these latter honors has the right to be called Son of God. 7 Jesus was willing to rest his reputation upon the works that he did. The Jews would not have been able to name a single thing that Jesus performed that God condemned in the Scriptures. That would indicate the works were of the Father and it should have caused them to become believers. 8 The gist of this verse is the willingness of Jesus to pass over his personality for the time. Yet he insisted that the Jews should at least accept him as a worker of good things. 9 Again the Jews were baffled by the reasoning of Jesus. Instead of acknowledging their inability to meet the issue, they were inclined to take bodily possession of him. He escaped because his time had not yet come. (See chapter 7:6.) 0 Since it was not yet time for Jesus to be taken in hand by the Jews, he moved out of the territory of Jerusalem. It was his desire to continue his good work, and he selected a community where John had done work before he was slain. His preaching had doubtless sown the seeds of truth that prepared the soil for Jesus. 2 This paragraph confirms the comments on the preceding verse. The people saw in Jesus the fulfillment of many of John's sayings, and it made believers of them. John did no miracle. These people used the word in its physical sense, and there is no account of any such a work done by him. However, the predictions that John made of Christ and which were fulfilled, required supernatural knowledge, and such a manifestation could rightly be called' miraculous. The word miracle fills such a prominent place in the New Testament that I shall explain it in detail, with the hope the reader will make a note of it for reference, as it will not again be given in full. It comes from two different Greek words, and they have also been rendered by several other English words in the King James Version. Before giving the lexicon definitions of the original words, I shall state how each has been translated and how many times. One of the Greek words is DUNAMIS, and it has been rendered ability 1 time, abundance 1, meaning 1, miracle 8, power 77, strength 7, violence 1, virtue 3, wonderful work 1. The other Greek word is SEMEION, and it has been rendered miracle 22 times, sign 51, token 1, wonder 3. Since the last word is the one from which the significant words "miracle" and "sign" come usually, I shall give the lexicon definitions of it only. Thayer defines it, "A sign, mark, token A sign, prodigy, portent." He also explains his definitions, "That by which a person or thing is distinguished from another and by which it is known. . . . An unusual occurence, transcending [going beyond] the common course of nature." From the foregoing information, it can be seen that the word "miracle" has a very wide range of meaning, and the specific definition to apply in any given place must be determined by the connection in which it is used. Any unusual or great or wonderful thing that is done, whether by the Lord or man, may rightly be called a miracle. But the rule is that a miracle means something that only God can do, whether he does it directly or through the agency of man. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Eleven HE IS TO BETHANY John 11:1-16 1 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha.—Mary and Martha seem to have been better known than Lazarus. They seem to have been prominent persons of the city. Bethany was on the east of Mount Olivet, a little less than two miles from Jerusalem. [John is the only one of the sacred writers that men¬tions the name of Lazarus, though his family is spoken of by Matthew, Mark, and Luke.] 2 And it was that Mary who anointed the Lord with oint¬ment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.—This anointing is most likely that mentioned in John 12:1 which occurred after the raising of Lazarus, but this was written by John after that occurred and he refers to it to distinguish this Mary from other Marys mentioned in connection with Jesus. [There was Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Mark, and Mary the wife of Cleophas.] 3 The sisters therefore sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.—There seems to have been no effort upon the part of Jesus or of the sacred writers to conceal the special love that Jesus had for this family, for the apostles, and for John above others of his followers and friends. Jesus is absent at this time in Bethabara, and when Lazarus sickens, the minds of the sisters turn toward Jesus as one able to relieve in time of sickness. It was two days’ journey from Jerusalem to Bethabara. They appeal to the love Jesus bore to Lazarus to induce him to come to their relief. [The disease is not stated, but it proved fatal.] 4 But when Jesus heard it, he said, This sickness is not unto death,—[That is, death was not its object. It had been permitted for another reason as follows:] but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.—Jesus made up his mind as to his course and so told his disciples that he would be glorified through this sickness. [Jesus was glorified through the manifestation of miraculous power in raising Lazarus from the dead as well as the lessons surrounding the case furnished.] 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.—Martha seems to have been the head of the household, possibly from her energy and business habits. [Probably this explains why the sisters sent for him and that his delay in coming was not from indifference.] 6 When therefore he heard that he was sick, he abode at that time two days in the place where he was.—Jesus had often healed the sick, but had not raised one buried and time was given for the decay of the body to begin. He intends now to give an example of this so remains until he is dead and buried. [He did not allow personal sympathy and friendship to interfere with his work, so he did not hasten away. Then, too, the longer the interval between his burial and resurrection, the more convincing would the miracle be, and greater means to silence his enemies who might claim that Lazarus was not really dead. He left no room for doubt and a charge of fraud.] 7 Then after this he saith to the disciples, Let us go into Judaea again.—The matter had passed from the minds of the disciples as he had told them that his sickness was not unto death. 8 The disciples say unto him, Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?—When he speaks of returning to Judea, they do not seem to think of Lazarus, but of the danger to Jesus since the Jews sought to stone him at the feast of dedication, the time of his last visit. (John 10:31.) [They did not want him to return to the locality of his enemies for fear they would stone him.] 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.—To walk in the day here means to walk in the allotted time. 10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because the light is not in him.—If he walks after the time allotted for life passes, he will stumble and come to his end. [Jesus often expressed himself by simile as in this case. It means that he is not walking in darkness, but in light for the reason he knows what W is going to do. He is not stumbling in darkness. He is not groping in the night or walking uncertainly. He has a clear pathway on which the sun is shining. Whether it leads him to Judea, to Jerusalem, to his enemies, or to death, in either case he will walk in the light, for the reason all his pur-poses and plans are made out and he is walking accordingly. What was dark and mystified to the disciples was clear to him.] 11 These things spake he: and after this he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.—He now directs their minds to Lazarus and his affliction as causing him to return to Judea. Sleep is often used to represent death. [The term sleep is used as a symbol of death in scripture. (See 2 Chronicles 14:1; Psalms 3:5; Jeremiah 51:57; Job 14:12; Daniel 12:2; Matthew 27:52; Acts 7:60; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 1 Thessalonians 4:13.) ] 12-13 The disciples therefore said unto him, Lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover. Now Jesus had spoken of his death: but they thought that he spake of taking rest in sleep. —His disciples took his language as literal, and to sleep in sickness rests the system and restores vigor. [They also took it that since Lazarus was resting well his case was hope ful, and lessens the Master’ s reason for going into the community where his enemies, who desired to stone him, would be. So they use the fact that Lazarus was sleeping as an ar-gument for Jesus not going.] 14-15 Then Jesus therefore said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.—Jesus tells them plainly his condition and was glad that he was not there, as now he will have the opportunity of raising him from the grave after the time for decay to set in, that they may see a more striking manifestation of God’ s presence with and in him, and so their faith in him may grow stronger. [It is implied that if Jesus had been present, on account of the friendship existing between him and the family, he would have been constrained to restore his health. Such a miracle would be less effective than the one now to be performed in raising him from the dead. To raise one from the dead after he had been in the grave four days, and after decomposition began, was as great a manifestation of divine power as was in creating the world.] 16 Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said unto his fellow-disciples,—Thomas is Hebrew, Didymus is the corre¬sponding name in Greek and means twin. Let us also go, that we may die with him.—The characters drawn in the scriptures always harmonize. Thomas was a doubting man that looked on the dark side and saw the difficulties that threatened. He anticipated the death of Jesus, but proposed to the other disciples to go with him and share his fate. Thomas was faithful to his Master, although anticipating the worst. LAZARUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD John 11:17-44 17 So when Jesus came, he found that he had been in the tomb four days already.—Lazarus had died about the time the message of his sickness reached Jesus. He remained two days and spent two days in the journey, making four days from his death until the arrival of Jesus. 18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off;—[A little less than two miles and located on the eastern slope of Mount Olivet.] 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary,—Martha and Mary were known to and esteemed by many of the Jews in Jerusalem. The Jews, as most of the eastern nations, were demonstrative in their sorrow and made much show of mourning. The formal mourning lasted thirty days. The first three days were called the “ days of weeping.” to console them concerning their brother.—Their friends from Jerusalem came to sympathize and sorrow with them. 20 Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary still sat in the house.—Martha, the stirring active one of the sisters, naturally heard of the coming of Jesus first and went out to meet him. Mary, ignorant of his coming, sat in the house. 21 Martha therefore said unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.—Jesus had healed many sick, and the thought first expressed was that if Jesus had been there before his death he could have saved him from death. 22 And even now I know that, whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee.—The thought occurred to her that even now he was able to restore him to life. We often accept a truth as a theory that we cannot realize in practice. 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.—Jesus promptly assured her that her thoughts should be realized. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.—Martha, unable to fully believe the promise, evasively says, “ I know that he shall rise at the last day.” [All the Jews, except the Sadducees, looked forward to, and believed in, a resurrection. Mary was not a skeptic.] 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live;—It is through Christ that all shall rise. He will call them forth from the grave. [He means that he is the power which will open every grave, that will give life to every sleeper, and will call them forth from the tomb to a new existence, that the life that endows men with eternal being is in him and proceeds from him. In the light of his own resurrection, he means that when he opens the tomb he does it for all men and that they may have won the victory over death.] 26 and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die. Believest thou this?—He here speaks of spiritual life and death. He who believes in Jesus shall never die spiritually. He saw Martha’ s inability to realize the truths he was teach¬ing, and pointedly asked if she believes his teaching. 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even he that cometh into the world.—She confesses her faith in him as the Christ, but evades the expression of her faith in the resurrection. She ac¬cepted the theory, but found it difficult to accept the reality. 28 And when she had said this, she went away, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Teacher is here, and calleth thee.—Jesus failed to get a clear conception of himself and of his proposed work of raising her brother and asked for Mary. So Martha notified Mary of the Master’ s call. 29 And she, when she heard it, arose quickly, and went unto him.—Mary, less active and energetic in worldly affairs, was much devoted to the Master, and when his presence was made known to her she quickly responded without making it known to her company and went out to meet the Master. 30 (Now Jesus was not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met him.)—Jesus had come from beyond Jordan, where John at first did baptize. (John 10:39-40.) He heard of the sickness of Lazarus at Bethany, two miles from Jerusalem, and had now come to the place, but was yet without the town where Martha had met him. 31 The Jews then who were with her in the house, and were consoling her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up quickly and went out, followed her, supposing that she was going unto the tomb to weep there.—They thought she was going to the grave to give greater expression to her grief. Mary, less active and self-reliant, likely gave way to grief over the loss of her brother more than Martha did. A number of her Jewish friends were with her in the house to console and comfort her, and saw her rise up hastily and go out— not knowing that Martha had called for hersupposed she arose to go to the grave to weep so they followed her. In deep grief and sor¬row, persons alone are liable to give way to excess that may work injury to them, so their friends dislike to leave them alone. The Jews followed Mary to console her. 32 Mary therefore, when she came where Jesus was, and saw him, fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.—Concentrating her feelings on the object of her grief when she saw Jesus, she fell on her face before him to worship him. Like Martha, the thought occurred to her that if Jesus had been there before the death of her brother, he had not died. She showed her reverence for him by falling at his feet upon her knees and “ saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” She knew of his kindly feeling toward her brother and sister, of his power and willingness to heal sickness and relieve from suffering, and believed his love would have led him to heal her brother, so she said, if thou hadst been here, you could and would have healed him, that he had not died. This was the language of Martha when she met him. Mary gives no expression to a thought that he could raise him as Martha did, so he did not speak of the resurrection to Mary as he did to Martha. 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping who came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,—Jesus was troubled at her excessive grief, and sympathized with the sisters and people and groaned in spirit out of deep sympathy for others. This is a characteristic trait of Jesus worthy of being kept in memory. Mary had less self-reliance and gave way to grief more than Martha did. Jesus had more than a human sympathy for human suffering and sorrow. God sympathizes with man, and the sympathy of Jesus was more tender and strong than any mere human sympathy can be; so, touched with the grief and sorrow of Mary and the Jews weeping with her, “ he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled.” His sympathy for their sorrow disturbed his feelings. 34 and said, Where have ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see.—He asked that he might go to the grave and call him forth. They showed him the grave, that he might see the place where one he loved was laid that he might look upon it with affection. But his purpose was fixed before he left beyond the Jordan. 35 Jesus wept.—[The shortest verse in the Bible, but one of the most touching. How precious those tears which assure the real, tender, loving, sympathizing humanity of Jesus in the very moment in which he is preparing to exert his omnipotence!] This was an overflow of sympathy for the sorrow of the sisters. The grief and sorrow shown on this occasion must have grown out of sympathy for the grieving sisters, not from sorrow for the dead brother. He knew, even before he came, that he was dead, and that he would raise him to life, and he was glad for the sake of his apostles that he was not there before he died. He had often shown his power to heal sickness. He now wishes to show his power to raise the dead — his power over death—“ I am glad for your sakes ... to the intent ye may believe." (15.) [Jesus had both sorrow and gladness in the death of his friend.] “ This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby." (4) His weeping shows his kind sympathetic nature. He did not weep because Lazarus was dead and he would see him no more, for he knew he would restore him to life, but in sympathy for the sorrows of others. Only on one other occasion is it said that Jesus wept, then he wept over wickedness and sins and consequent sorrow that must come upon the city of Jerusalem. (Luke 19:41-44.) On Jerusalem God had bestowed his most abundant blessings and sought its good, but the Jews of the city had rejected him and brought upon themselves his direct curses. 36 The Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved him!— The Jews who saw his tears interpreted them as signs of his love for Lazarus. 37 But some of them said, Could not this man, who opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also should not die?—These Jews, although they did not believe in and follow him, yet knew of the miracles and signs he had wrought on the afflicted and suffering. And it occurred to them, as it had to the sisters, that he might have saved the man from death. All seemed to have recognized that it would require greater power to raise the dead than to heal one while yet alive. 38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone lay against it.—With deep sorrow of heart, he approached the grave, the mouth to which was closed by a heavy stone placed over it. Many of the Jewish burying places were caves in the rocky hillside, rather what we would call a vault than a grave. 39 Jesus saith, Take ye away the stone.—Rock vaults were closed with large stones. The sepulcher in which the body of Jesus was placed was one the women could not move, and on the way to anoint his body they were troubled to know who would remove the stone for them. Jesus saw it would take some power to remove this stone. He had the fixed purpose to raise him from the dead, and the removing of the stone was preliminary to it. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time the body decayeth; for he hath been dead four days.—Martha knew he had been dead long enough for decay to set in, and in her practical, direct way objected to opening the grave. He had been dead four days and in that time the body would be offensive. She took it for granted the common course of nature was followed, and to take away the stone would cause a stench offensive to those present, and un¬pleasant to be remembered of a beloved brother, so her practical common sense, coupled with her failure to believe Jesus would raise him from the dead, led her to oppose the removing of the stone from the grave. 40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou believedst, thou shouldest see the glory of God?—The raising of Lazarus could glorify and magnify God through him. So when he told Martha her brother should rise, he told her she should see the glory of God. He reminds her of his promise, and that what she expected to be fulfilled only at the resurrection at the last day would be manifested now. He would raise Lazarus from the grave. This was not a resurrection to immortality. It was restoring him to temporal life to die again. But it showed his power over death and gave a strong assurance that he would call all the sleeping dead from the grave. “ The hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.” (John 5:28-29.) This is a manifestation of that power, and it set forth the glory, the power, and the presence of God with Jesus. It showed his power over death. 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me.—Jesus had such assurance that God heard him that before the people knew his purpose, he in their hearing thanked God that he had heard him and would give life to the dead body. Jesus was one with God and did the will of God in all things. He knew then that God would hear him. In obedience to the command of Jesus the stone was taken away from the mouth of the cave in which the body was laid. There was something in the manner of Jesus that commanded the respect of those around him. Who did this we are not told, but it was likely the friends of Martha and Mary present. It may have been his disciples. When this was done, and the material obstacles to resurrection were removed, he then looked up to God. It is worthy of note that Jesus used miraculous power only when the result could not be effected by natural or ordinary means. He could have removed the stone by a miracle, but as this could be done by ordinary means, he did not exert extraordinary power to do it. Only when supernatural or extraordinary ends were to be accomplished did he use extraordinary power. The power used corresponded to the end to be accomplished. Jesus looked up to God as a declaration that all of his power came from him. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the multitude that standeth around I said it, that they may be¬lieve that thou didst send me.—He wished all to know that it was God who did through him what would be done that all might believe that he was sent of God. Jesus prayed only for the things that would bring honor and glory to God— only for those things that were well-pleasing to the Father. God always hears prayers that are made in accord with his will and for his honor and glory. “ If any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.” (John 9:31.) Jesus gave to him a pure, holy, undivided worship, and did his will with faultless obedience. It was his meat and drink to do his Father’ s will. He hungered to do his will as the hungry man desires to eat and drink. Doing the will of God brought strength to him as meat and drink bring strength to the weary. Jesus knew God would hear him at all times. “ But because of the multitude that standeth around I said it.’’ That is, he wanted to let them know he raised the dead by the power of God, and that all might know that he was sent by God and spoke only the words of God, hence that the people might believe that God sent him. 43 And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.—After preparing them to understand what was about to be done, he called on Lazarus to come forth. He spoke these things that those who heard him might know God sent him, and his power was from God. Then he cried with a loud voice, “ Lazarus, come forth.’’ At the command of Jesus life came into the dead body, and warmth and vigor flowed to the extremities. He arose and came forth from the grave. Jesus said, “ The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.” (John 5:25.) This referred to the final resurrection from the dead. But this calling up of Lazarus required the same power, and he adopts the same means that will call the sleeping dead forth at the last day. The dead hear the voice, awake to life, and come forth. His loud speaking let all the people see the connection between his calling and the coming forth that they might know one produced the other. This shows what power is exerted through the word of God. 44 He that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes; and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.—His body had been prepared for the grave as bodies usually were, so he came forth so clothed. Adam Clarke says: “ This binding was with long strips of linen, in which the body was wrapped from head to foot, binding the arms close to the body and the legs and feet together.” The mummies found in the ancient tombs are so swathed, leaving only the head and face exposed. One could rise and walk with difficulty thus wrapped up. So he walked but little until Jesus said to them, “ Loose him, and let him go.” This shows that he could walk but little, and with difficulty, while bound; and he could not well unloose himself, as his hands were bound to his body. Who unloosed him we do not know, but any would have gladly obeyed such directions. Probably it was the disciples. Those who thus handled him were made to realize more fully his resurrection, and could bear testimony that they handled him and took his grave-clothes off him. Jesus used human agencies where they could do the work. [Jesus just before his own death and burial and in the face of his enemies works a crowning miracle. He demonstrates that he is “ the resurrection and the life.” It is worked under such circumstances that the most captious cannot question the reality of either the death or the resurrection.] EFFECTS OF THE MIRACLEJoh_11:45-53 45 Many therefore of the Jews, who came to Mary and be¬held that which he did, believed on him.—It would seem sin¬gular that any who saw this could doubt, but saying that many believed shows that some did not. Those who followed Mary to the grave were present, and heard and saw what was said and done, and many of them believed on Jesus. The evidence was such that no honest-hearted man could doubt that Jesus was of God, that God was with him, and spoke and acted through him. The strange thing is that any should fail to believe on him. 46 But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done.—The facts were told the Pharisees doubtless to see what explanation they would give of the occurrence. Many then as now exercise no faith of their own until their leaders tell them what to believe. The Pharisees themselves, instead of being softened in their feel¬ings toward him by this manifestation of the presence of God with him, were hardened, and took counsel to kill him. “ So from that day forth they took counsel that they might put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there he tarried with the disciples.” (John 11:53-54.) This shows how much the fruits borne by the gospel depend upon the condition of the heart of him who hears it. It is “ to the one a savor from death unto death; to the other a savor from life unto life.” While faith rests on testimony, testimony will not produce faith in all hearts alike. Some will not believe, though one arose from the dead. Much of unbelief arises from an evil heart. 47 The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs.—They gathered the Jewish Sanhedrin together to con¬sult of the matters. They admitted that many signs were wrought by Jesus. In this they admitted that Lazarus was raised from the dead. Testimony that cannot be questioned infuriates the hearts of those determined not to believe. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him:—Jesus had foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in consequence of their sins and the scattering of the Jewish nation. They connect the success of Jesus with the triumph of the Roman powers, and so to arouse one another and the people against Jesus tell that his success would be the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the people as was done by Nebuchadnezzar when the people were taken into captivity into Babylon. and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.—[Judea was a Roman province; there was a Roman governor; there was a Roman garrison located in the tower of Antonia overlooking the temple itself. So the Ro¬mans were already there. But they still had their “ place"— there were priests with great revenues, or members of the Sanhedrin with great power. If sedition arose on account of faith in Christ they might lose their “ place," as they did a few years later. To take away their “ place," I take it, would be to destroy their ecclesiastical organization, and take away the “ nation" would be to destroy their civil organization.] 49 But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them,—This is the same Caiaphas that sat in judgment on Jesus and urged his condemnation. He was not a believer in Jesus, but was high priest and spoke by virtue of his office. Ye know nothing at all,—[Not even the simplest rule of statesmanship— that one must be “ sacrificed to the many." He was highly sarcastic and charges the Sanhedrin with blindness to its own interest.] 50 nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.—Whether there was prophetic power connected with the office or not, he foretold that Jesus would die for the nation. He was anxious for the death of Jesus and the wish was the father of the thought. This was spoken to suggest the death of Jesus to them. 51 Now this he said not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation;—[He thought he spoke it of himself, but unwittingly he announced a prophecy, like Balaam, while wickedly counseling the death of Christ interprets the results of his death.] 52 and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.—This verse is the comment of the apostle John on the prophecy of Caiaphas. The children of God here means all among all nations who would believe in Jesus when the gospel should be preached to them. It was a recognition that there were people among all nations who would believe in Jesus, and that not any fleshly family as such would be blessed of God. 53 So from that day forth they took counsel that they might put him to death.—The irresistible testimony that God was in him, given by raising one from the dead, was the time from which the more determined purpose to destroy Jesus dates. If we cannot confute his claims we will kill him is the demoniacal spirit that prompts them. JESUS RETIRES UNTIL THE Joh_11:54-57 54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews,—Jesus had done his duty to them; they were infuriated by the evidence; he withdraws from them and leaves them to their fate. He can do them no good. His presence would inflame their feelings and draw abuse upon himself. but departed thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there he tarried with the disciples.—Ephraim is supposed to be the place called Ephron (2 Chronicles 13:19), called also Ephrata, near Bethel, and about twenty miles from Jerusalem. It is supposed that he went to this place soon after the feast of the Passover. 55 Now the passover of the Jews was at hand: and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the passover,—When the Passover drew nigh many people from all the country where Jesus dwelled went up to the feast. They naturally expected Jesus who had created such a stir wherever he went, and who claimed to be a teacher sent from God, to be present. These people went up and after reaching Jerusalem prepared themselves to eat the passover. to purify themselves.—[This explains why they came in advance of the time of the Passover— to purify themselves from ceremonial uncleanness before the feast. While there were no special rites of purification required of the Jews before the Passover, yet they were expected to purify themselves before participating in any important event (Exodus 19:10-11), and were accustomed to go through certain special rites of purification before the Passover (2 Chronicles 30:13-20).] 56 They sought therefore for Jesus, and spake one with an-other, as they stood in the temple, What think ye? That he will not come to the feast?—There was general conversation concerning him and an interest among the people, each asking to know of the others if they thought he would come. 57 Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given com-mandment, that, if any man knew where he was, he should show it, that they might take him.—The chief priests and Pharisees expected him to be present and had come to the fixed determination to kill him at this feast, so had given the direction that they might be aided in their work. Other scriptures say that they required his presence to be made known to them-when in a retired and quiet place that they might take him without exciting the multitude. [Bear in mind that it was the Sanhedrin that published the edict commanding any man who knew of his whereabouts to reveal it in order that he might be arrested.] [Note here— 1: How baneful and destructive evil counsel is, especially out of the mouths of leading men, and how soon embraced and followed. Caiaphas no sooner propounds the putting of Christ to death, but from that day forward they lie in wait to take him. The high priests had satisfied their con¬sciences, and now they made all possible speed to put their malicious designs and purposes in execution. Note 2: The prudential care and means which Jesus used for his own pres-ervation, to avoid their fury he withdraws himself privately. Observe 3: When the time was come that he was to expose himself; when the time of the Passover drew near, in which he, being the true Paschal lamb, was to be slain, to put an end to that type; he withdraws no more, but surrenders himself to the rage and fury of his enemies and dies a shameful death for sinners, as the next chapter more at large informs us.] [Observe from these latter verses that the spirit of prophecy did fall sometimes upon very bad men and that God has been pleased to reveal some part of his mind to the worst of men. Thus Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar had in their dreams a revelation from God— what things he intended to do. It is consistent with the holiness of God sometimes to make use of the tongues of the worst of men to publish and declare his will. Caiaphas, though a vile and wicked man, was, it is thought by many, influenced by God to prophesy and speak as an oracle. God may, when he pleases, employ wicked men this way without any prejudice to his holiness.] Verse 1 This entire chapter deals with the resurrection of Lazarus, the seventh of the great signs. We do not wish to accommodate with those who deny this miracle as a historical event, such denials being satanic in origin, unsustained by historical refutation, and so contrary to all reason as to require greater faith in believing the denials than is required for believing the gospel record. The resurrection of Lazarus is omitted from the synoptics; but if that is a reason for denying it, then the omission by John of the other two instances of Jesus' raising the dead is grounds for denying them! Why was this sign omitted from the other Gospels? (1) The synoptics reported the miracles done in Galilee. (2) Lazarus was still alive when the synoptics were written, and it would have endangered his life to have included this miracle, the Sanhedrin being determined to put him to death (John 12:10). (3) It might have endangered the soul of Lazarus. He had already won the crown of life but was recalled to all the dangers of mortal existence with potential consequences so grave that Jesus wept at the contemplation of his recall. Widespread publication of this miracle during Lazarus' second lifetime would have been an additional hazard to him. He is presumed to have been deceased at the time John wrote. (4) The most convincing reason of all was outlined by Ryle, thus: Each evangelist was inspired to record what God saw to be best and most suitable. No one, I suppose, imagines that the evangelists recorded a tenth part of our Lord's miracles, or that there were not other dead persons raised to life, of whom we know nothing at all (John 21:25).[1]The inspired writers were not governed by ordinary rules and were unaffected by considerations which uninspired men would have honored; and this is nowhere more evident, than in the selection of materials for their writings. It is a marvel that the inspired men would have recorded the martyrdom of the apostle James with only seven words (in the Greek) and devoted nine verses to the undisturbed grave-clothes. The Gospels defy the arrogance of men who seek to understand them apart from their inspired origin. Another device for denying this miracle is that of making it a fiction, invented by John to make a point. Richardson wrote: Luke related a parable of Jesus in which it was declared that, even if someone returned from the dead, the unbelieving Jews would not repent (Luke 16:19-31). John turns the saying into a story in which someone actually does return from the dead - and the Jews do not repent. Significantly, the name of the person who has died in each story is Lazarus![2]Lazarus was a common name, then as now; and the device of supposing that John invented a fable based on Luke's parable, with the presumed PROOF of such a thing appearing in the name of Lazarus (common to both passages), is fantastic and preposterous. It is precisely this type of "explanation" which is the disgrace of some of the schools of Biblical interpretation. If Lazarus' resurrection was not historical, how does one explain the fact that the event has been commemorated for nineteen centuries and perpetuated in the name of the village where it happened? "Bethany is called `El Azeriyeh,' meaning `The Place of Lazarus.'"[3] If this memorializes nothing more than John's "drama," behold a greater than Shakespeare is here! To suppose that a fisherman of Galilee could have written any such drama requires more faith than believing the miracle. All efforts to discredit this narrative perish in the overwhelming gospel history of the event, so complete, so thoroughly in balance, so exactly fitted to the historical matrix in which it is embedded, and so thoroughly believable. Nobody, but nobody, ever invented an event like this. As Dummelow said: The last and greatest of the seven "signs" recorded in John is related with such photographic minuteness of detail, that it is clear that the evangelist was present. Three points about it are especially noteworthy: (1) that it was a physical miracle, which no ingenuity can reduce to a case of faith-healing; (2) that it was definitely worked to produce faith in Christ (John 11:42); and (3) that, more than any other miracle, it was performed under test conditions; - Lazarus was really dead (John 11:39), and hostile witnesses were present (John 11:42).[4]Added to the logical reasons given by Dummelow is the logical progression of the entire Gospel to the climax of this seventh sign. Jesus had said that "greater things" than healing the invalid would be done by himself, and that such a "greater" work would be the occasion of those very men's marveling at it (John 5:20). Furthermore, that very promise was accompanied by a statement that the Son of God had power to raise all the dead who ever lived (John 5:25-29). Thus nearly two whole years previously to this, Jesus had announced what he would do and named the witnesses before whom it would be done (the Pharisees and priests) and that they would "marvel." [1] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), II, p. 54. [2] Alan Richardson, The Gospel according to St. John (London: SCM Press, 1959), p. 139. [3] J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 793. [4] Ibid., p. 792. THE SEVENTH OF THE GREAT SIGNSNow a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha. (John 11:1) Specifics with reference to Lazarus were necessary due to the common nature of the name; therefore, members of his family were named to make identification certain and also in view of their own importance in the Gospel records. Of Bethany ... distinguishes Lazarus from others of the same name; and "of the village of Mary and ... Martha ..." distinguishes which Bethany was meant. This one was less than two miles from Jerusalem; the other was fifty miles away beyond the Jordan River. Some see this and the next verse as certain proof that John was familiar with the text of Luk 10:38-42, where the two sisters are named together, and that of Mar 14:3-9, where the anointing is recorded.[5]ENDNOTE: [5] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 138. Verse 2 And it was that Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.We are not primarily concerned here with the distinction between various Mary's mentioned in the New Testament. Identification of this Mary with the gross sinner who bathed the Lord's feet with her tears in the house of Simon the Pharisee is rejected. There were at least two anointings of Jesus, possibly three; and the Roman Catholic interpretation of melding all three into one is without doubt incorrect. John here identified this Mary with the one in Mark 14:3-9, the event recorded there taking place in the home of Simon the leper; and there is no basis for supposing that he was the same as Simon the Pharisee. Verse 3 The sisters therefore sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.As Barnes observed: The transactions recorded in this chapter occurred nearly four months after those mentioned in the previous chapter; those occurred in December, and these at the approach of the Passover in April.[6]These sisters did not say to Jesus: "Do something; heal our brother; come quickly," or any such thing. Their conduct was like that of Hezekiah who spread Sennacherib's insulting letter before the Lord in the temple (2 Kings 19:14). Like Hezekiah, they left the handling of the emergency totally in the hands of the Lord. ENDNOTE: [6] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 295. Verse 4 But 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.Not unto death ... meant that death would not be the end of the matter, but that the Son of God would be glorified in the event. This was evidently uttered in the presence of the messenger who brought Jesus the word of Lazarus' sickness; and there is every reason to believe that he reported this observation of Jesus to the sisters (John 11:40). Verse 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.Jesus loves all of his followers as individuals, and not merely in groups or families; hence, it is recorded not that Jesus loved the Lazarus family, but that he loved Martha, and Mary, and Lazarus. All who love Jesus may write their own names in the sequence with perfect confidence. Verse 6 When therefore he heard that he was sick, he abode at that time two days in the place where he was.Westcott is doubtless correct in maintaining that: The supposition that the interval was left in order that the Lord might raise the dead instead of heal the sick, and so show greater power and win greater glory, is alien equally from the spirit and from the letter of the narrative.[7]The journey from Bethany to where Jesus was would have required at least a day; and thus Lazarus died when the message came. Jesus knew already of Lazarus' death and did not wait for it, using the next two days to finish the work at hand. ENDNOTE: [7] Brooks Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 165. Verse 7 Then after this he saith to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. The disciples said unto him, Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee: and goest thou thither again?After this ... means after the two days delay after receiving the message of Lazarus' illness. The disciples said unto him ... This shows that the apostles had been with Jesus throughout the events related in these chapters and were thus eyewitnesses of all that he did. They were astounded that Christ would incur the risk of going back to the vicinity of Jerusalem. Verse 9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If a man walketh in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because the light is not in him.Twelve hours in a day... This means that the days of life will be continued sufficiently for life's work. Jesus' enemies could not murder him until the hour arrived for his death, an hour appointed by the Father. As Henry stated it: Man's life is a day ... The consideration of this should make us not only very busy, as to the work of life, but also very easy as to the perils of life; our day shall be lengthened out until our work is done, and our testimony finished.[8]Thus, if Jesus had yielded to the fears of his disciples, ignoring the manifest will of the Father that he go and raise Lazarus from the dead, it would have been to walk in the night, and to stumble. The light which men receive is from God and should be followed without regard to considerations of human wisdom and prudence alone. In this light, it is clear that Jesus undertook the raising of Lazarus as a direct heavenly assignment, in full harmony with God's will, and in obedience to it. (See John 11:4.) ENDNOTE: [8] Matthew Henry, Commentary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), Vol. V, p. 1045. Verse 11 These things spake he: and after this he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep.ASLEEP IN JESUSLazarus is fallen asleep ... Of all that Jesus ever said of death, this is the most encouraging. (1) Sleep is a temporary thing; and so by this our Lord revealed that death too is not permanent. (2) Sleep refreshes and rejuvenates; thus in the resurrection this mortal shall put on immortality and this corruptible shall put on incorruption. (3) From sleep, men awaken; and the promise is secure in the Master's words that all that are in the tombs "shall come forth" (John 5:29). (4) Sleep is a time of rest; and the dead also "shall rest from their labors" (Revelation 14:13). The respect of the human race for this word of Jesus Christ is revealed in the fact of their inscribing these words, "Asleep in Jesus," upon millions of tombs in all ages since then. But I go that I may awaken him out of sleep .... Jesus never told how bad it was with men, except that in the same breath he provided the remedy. The announcement that Lazarus was dead was followed by the word that Jesus would awaken him. Jesus reveals our sin, but in the same breath offers pardon, salvation, and eternal life. Verse 12 The disciples therefore said unto the Lord, If he is fallen asleep he will recover.If he is fallen asleep he will recover ... regards the usual fact that when seriously people have passed a crisis, they sleep. There could have been the thought of the disciples that "Since he is going to get well anyway there is no need for us to go." Verse 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death: but they thought that he spake of his taking rest in sleep.There was no easy way out, such as seems to have been suggested by the disciples; all of them would go to the tomb of Lazarus, and they were filled with fear at the prospect of it. Verse 14 Then Jesus therefore said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.Paraphrase: I am glad I was not there; if I had been, I would have yielded to the cries and entreaties of the sisters. Healing him would have been a great wonder, but raising him from the dead will be a greater one; and I am glad for this opportunity to raise your faith to a higher level. Verse 16 Thomas therefore, who is called Didymus, said unto his fellow-disciples, Let us go, that we may die with him.Gaebelein wrote: When Thomas said this, he expressed fear that if the Lord returned to Judea he would be killed. While much has been said about "doubting Thomas," here we behold that his heart was greatly attached to the Lord Jesus Christ.[9]Well, it may be; but it appears also that Thomas had the gravest doubts of the Lord's power to raise Lazarus; and, indeed, if he believed any such thing, it was surely submerged and invisible in this reply. ENDNOTE: [9] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John (Neptune, New Jersey; Loizeaux Brothers, 1965), p. 197. Verse 17 Now when Jesus came, he found that he had been in the tomb four days already.Henry placed the healing of a blind man at Jericho and the interview with Zacchaeus within the interval between John 11:16 and John 11:17.[10] If this was the case, it would indicate no hurry on Jesus' part to arrive in Bethany. Four days ...According to rabbinical tradition, the soul of a deceased person hovers around the body for three days in hope of a reunion, but takes its final departure when it notices that the body has entered a state of decomposition.[11]He found ... Jesus already knew what situation was there; thus he "found" it to be what he already knew it was. Due to the superstition of the rabbis, cited by Hendriksen, the four days of Lazarus in the tomb were significant. Jesus removed from his enemies any such possible explanation of the resurrection of his friend Lazarus, "an explanation" they doubtless would have resorted to if it had not been removed. [10] Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 1048. [11] William Hendriksen, op. cit., II, p. 146. Verse 18 Now Bethany was nigh to Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off.See under John 11:1. This is mentioned to explain the presence of so many distinguished mourners. Verse 19 And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.Hovey said the Greek words here rendered "Martha and Mary" are so written that they include the meaning of "with the women about them."[12]The usual time of mourning was about a week; and the death of a member of a wealthy, prominent, and distinguished family like that of Lazarus and his sisters accounts for the multitude of mourners. ENDNOTE: [12] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 231. Verse 20 Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary still sat in the house.Martha, as the more practical of the two sisters, left the house and hastened to meet Jesus; but Mary remained shut up with her grief. Martha had risen above personal grief to assume the duties of hostess. In the light of all that has been written of these two sisters, it is not amiss to note that it is Martha who shines in this narrative. This is not to discount the Lord's words regarding "the better part" chosen by Mary. How many noble and industrious women there are who, in the last analysis, are best described as daughters of Martha! THE OF MARTHAThere's the bed to make and the mail to meet, The bills to pay and a guest to greet, The phone to answer and a dress to press, The house to order and a child to dress. There's the shopping list and a million things As the duties mount and the doorbell rings; For Martha's daughter is a busy one, And a woman's work is never done. In summer and winter and day and night, She toils and finds in the task delight. She heals the hurt and foils the stroke, And proudly indeed she bears the yoke. But toiling hands at the last are stilled, And the toiler's place by another's filled; And the better part she might have won Is forever lost when the day is done. - James Burton Coffman December 4,1965 Martha's haste to go and meet Jesus could have sprung from her desire to speak with him first in the presence of friends, rather than before his enemies; for it must be remembered that many of the mourners were among the bitter foes of the Lord. Verse 21 Martha therefore said unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here my brother had not died. And even now I know that, whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee.As noted above, Martha shines here. "Even now I know, etc...." meant that she had not ruled out the possibility of a resurrection; although, from some of the things she later said, it seems that she did not really expect Jesus to raise Lazarus. Still, had not the messenger brought back the word that "this sickness is not unto death"? (John 11:4). Difficult as Martha must have found it to believe such a thing, her statement here shows that she was doing her best to receive it and believe it. If thou hadst been here, my brother had not died ... This must not be understood as a complaint that the Lord had not come soon enough, for Lazarus died about the time the Lord got the message. It was an exhibition of the kind of thinking that always accompanies the death of a loved one. "If ..." if we could have reached a doctor, if only the ditch had been dry, if she had only stayed at home, if she had only left the window open - a million "ifs" torment the survivors. Verse 23 Jesus said unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.Martha should have accepted this as assurance that Jesus would raise Lazarus; but she was not exempt from the common human failing of limiting the promises of God. She limited what he said to what she supposed he meant. Verse 24 Martha said unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.Although, in context, a limitation of the power of Jesus, this statement of Martha is one of tremendous hope and consolation. The intimacy of that family with the Lord gives great weight to her confidence of the resurrection at the last day. She associated the resurrection with the "last day," as conspicuously taught by Jesus; and in this instance of Martha's knowledge, it certainly exceeds that of exegetes who deny that John's Gospel has any teachings of the "last" things. Verse 25 Jesus saith unto her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die. Believest thou this? In this lies the full explanation of Jesus' words, "If a man keep my word, he shall never see death" (John 8:51). Such statements of Jesus never were intended to deny the necessity of physical death. This is one of the most beloved passages in all of the sacred Scriptures. I AM THE AND THE LIFEThis is the opening sentence in the litany for the dead in the Book of Common Prayer; and its healing, comforting message has echoed over millions of graves, and as bodies were buried at sea, or wherever the bereaved have turned in sorrow from the unanswering faces of their beloved dead. This statement of Christ is the great inheritance of the human family. I. Jesus' words here contrast a belief in a doctrine with a belief in himself. Martha found little comfort in the thought of a resurrection at the last day; but Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life." Without disparaging Christian doctrine in any sense, we may say that it is faith in a Person, even in Jesus, that makes all the difference. II. This means Jesus is God in human form, a truth he promptly proved by raising Lazarus. Jesus had claimed Godhood as Light of the world, the Good Shepherd, the giver of eternal life, the door of the sheep, as existing before Abraham was born, and in numerous other ways. Here he appeared as Resurrection come in the flesh. III. This means far more than an assertion of Jesus' power to raise Lazarus, extending to all the dead who ever lived (John 5::24-29). The "Come forth," shortly to be sounded over Lazarus' grave, is the same cry that shall awaken all the dead on earth. IV. In this appears what is meant by "shall not see death." The Lord has not abolished physical death, but its significance, having made it a beginning instead of an end. As Hunter said, "The Christian will of course pay the last debt to nature; but, because of that saving link with Christ, the physical death he must one day experience loses all reality."[13]Believest thou this ...? Jesus probed Martha's heart to bring out her faith; and her announcement of it was as great as any apostle's. ENDNOTE: [13] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 115. Verse 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even he that cometh into the world.The weight of this confession is colossal. In the words, "I have believed," is the meaning that for an extended time she had believed and that she continued to believe in Jesus as a supernatural person. She called him "Lord" and "Christ" and "Son of God" in a single breath, adding that she meant the divine Messiah, the holy One foretold from of old as coming into the world from God. What a magnificent confession! Verse 28 And when she had said this, she went away, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Teacher is here and calleth thee.As Barnes observed, Jesus probably directed Martha to do this: "Though the evangelist has not recorded it, for she said to Mary, `The Teacher is here and calleth thee.'"[14] The use of the title "Teacher" by a family so close to the Lord indicates that it was a common one among the disciples. Secretly ... There is no evidence that Jesus instructed secrecy in this call of Mary; but Martha discreetly understood that it might not be proper to let Jesus' enemies know that he had arrived. ENDNOTE: [14] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 299. Verse 29 And she, when she heard it, arose quickly, and went unto him.Speculations as to why Jesus did not go at once to the house of mourning, but remained at a distance, have suggested many reasons for it, the most convincing being that Jesus was at the tomb where Lazarus slept because this is where the wonder would occur. The Lord would not go to the mourners; they would come to him. The spiritual overtones of this are significant. Mary's response was prompt and obedient. Verse 30 (Now Jesus was not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met him.)This was probably at the tomb of Lazarus, but the sacred record does not so state. See under preceding verse. Verse 31 The Jews then who were with her in the house, and were consoling her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up quickly and went out, followed her, supposing that she was going unto the tomb to weep there.Cyril, as quoted by Westcott, noted that "The secrecy of Martha became of no avail, and so it came to pass that the work was wrought in the presence of a mixed body of spectators."[15]It may be assumed that Jesus had intended that this sign be performed in the presence of his foes (John 5:20); and, therefore, the following of Mary by the Jews was a providential overruling of Martha's intention to secrecy. ENDNOTE: [15] Brooks Foss Westcott, op. cit., p. 170. Verse 32 Mary therefore, when she came where Jesus was, and saw him, fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.Mary's unabashed worshiping of Jesus was received by him, even as he received that of the blind man (John 9:38), indicating that Jesus desired and accepted human worship, the same being another proof of his identity with God. Lord if thou hadst been here, etc. ... These were also the words of Martha, showing that the sisters had often spoken thus to each other during Lazarus' illness. Verse 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping who came with her, he groaned in the spirit and was troubled, and said, Where have ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see.He groaned in the spirit, and was troubled ... Hunter said that this is "Clear proof that Christ's miracles were not done without cost to himself."[16] In this connection, see also Mark 5:30. Being moved with indignation in the spirit ... is an alternative translation of this place (English Revised Version margin) and this merits attention. Of what was Jesus angry or indignant? We shall not trouble the reader with various opinions but cite the one which seems to meet the question squarely. See also under John 11:37. Death itself caused this indignation ... He saw all the agony of it in millions of instances. There flashed upon his spirit all moral consequences of which death was the ghastly symbol. He 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 raise in his spirit a divine indignation, and he groaned and shuddered.[17]Lord, come and see ... Here is the place where the progression to the tomb is recorded; but this does not preclude the possibility that all of them were already at the cemetery, though not exactly at the tomb. [16] A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 115. [17] H. R. Reynolds. The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952), II, p. 93. Verse 35 Jesus wept. The Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved him.The weeping of Jesus is another mystery. Was it merely the sympathetic reaction to the grief and sorrow of loved ones, or was there some deeper reason for it? Our Lord was about to call back to our world of temptation and sin a valiant soldier who had already won the crown of life; and, in such a thing, there was an undeniable danger to the soul of Lazarus. The prospect of Lazarus again facing life with its inevitable dangers to the soul, and particularly with the additional burden that would be imposed by his resurrection (for the Pharisees would try to kill him) - all such considerations are of such profound weight that they may be rightly viewed as plunging the Son of God into tears as he thought of them. Verse 37 But some of them said, Could not this man who opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also should not die?The attitude of such men as the ones quoted in this verse may afford another explanation of the indignation discussed under John 11:34. Those hypocrites who had so stoutly opposed admitting that any miracle had occurred in the healing of the blind man appear here as perfectly willing to admit it if it can be made a tool of slander in the present case. There were two classes of witnesses: (1) Some said, "Look how he loved him!" (2) Others said, "Well, here is certainly a man he could not heal, no matter about the man born blind!" Verse 38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone lay against it.Being moved with indignation in himself ... is again the marginal reading (English Revised Version (1885)) for the first clause; and its being mentioned so closely in connection with the attitude of those quoted in John 11:37 is a strong suggestion that such was the cause of it, or at least partially so. Verse 39 Jesus saith, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time the body decayeth; for he hath been dead four days.Take ye away the stone ... Jesus never did for any man what the man might do for himself. His divine power could have caused the stone to roll back of its own accord; but he commanded that men move it. The same principle is evident in the commandment a little later to "Loose him, and let him go." Here, as always, there was respect for the heavenly economy. The wonders of Jesus were never wholesale and capricious displays of supernatural power, but were calculated, ordered, and fully in harmony with God's highest laws of dealing with mankind. As Welshimer said, "God does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, and God never does what we are able to do. This is seen in both the natural and spiritual realms."[18]Martha ... Like Peter who walked on the sea, Martha at first believed and then faltered. Her remonstrance here was designed to prevent what she, in her moment of weakness, feared would be an embarrassment of the Lord. The opened grave would reveal only a decaying corpse. Four days ... See under John 11:17. ENDNOTE: [18] P. H. Welshimer, Welshimer's Sermons (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Company, 1927), p. 33. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 There were several Marys in those times, and John wanted his readers to know which one he was writing about, so he specified by referring to her deed of wiping the feet of Jesus with her hair. That event had not occurred at the time of Lazarus' sickness, but it had been done at the time John wrote his record. He knew it would be read, and mentioned the incident as a mark of identification. Note that John did not merely say "it was that woman which anointed the Lord," etc., for that deed was performed by another woman a!so (Luke 7:36-50), and the cases were different in some respects. The other woman was classed as a "sinner" which did not apply to Mary. That woman washed the feet of Jesus with tears (of penitential sorrow), while Mary only anointed his feet before wiping them with her hair. Hence the writer says it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, etc. 3 He whom thou lovest. We are taught that Jesus was a friend of publicans and sinners, and that he loved everybody. That is true, of course, but Jesus was human as well as divine, and he could have his per sonal favorites as well as other human beings could have. There is nothing wrong in such affection as long as one does not allow that sentiment to influence him in the wrong direction, which we know it did not do with Jesus. But the word love is so much used in the New Testament, and has so many applications because of the definitions of the original Greek, that I insist the reader see the long critical note given at Matthew 5:43. 4 Not unto death means the death of Lazarus was not to be permanent. Jesus knew he was going to die, but that he would be restored to life after a few days. The purpose of the event was that the Son of God might have an opportunity to be glorified by performing the miracle upon Lazarus. 5 This is commented upon at verse 3. 6 When he had heard has virtually the same meaning as "when the Lord knew" in John 4:1; see the comments at that place. At the time the news was sent to Jesus, Lazarus was still living but nearing death. In order to have an unquestionable proof of His power, he remained two days longer where he was (verse 6), which place is named in chapter 10:40. 7 Going into Judea did not necessarily mean going to Bethany. When Jesus proposed going into that general territory, the disciples did not know that the conditions with Lazarus had anything to do with it. 8 This intended stoning of Jesus is recorded in chapter 8:59 and 10:31. Having escaped the wrath of the Jews, the disciples wondered why Jesus would expose himself again and thus give them another opportunity to carry out their evil intentions. 9 Jesus used the hours of literal daylight to illustrate the idea of acting according to the light of truth and right doing. It was necessary for him to go even into Judea, in order to perform the righteous deed of raising Lazarus in the presence of witnesses. That being a proper act, it would be like a man working while he had the light of day so that he could see what he was doing. It would follow, then, that the Father would see after the safety of his Son. 0 This verse is to be understood in the light of the comments on the preceding one. That is, the night is just the opposite of the day in that passage. 1 Having given the disciples the preliminaries of the great subject, Jesus named that subject in a manner that will need further information. 2 All the disciples knew about Lazarus' condition so far was that he was sick, and they thought that since "sleep is the best medicine," it would be well not to disturb him. They did not realize the uses of figurative and literal language, which the Bible as well as other compositions uses. The reader may see a full explanation of these forms of speech in the comments at Matthew 9:24. 3 The literal fact about Lazarus was that he was dead. The figurative appearance was that of sleep, and that is what the disciples had in mind. 4 Plainly is the same as saying that Jesus spoke literally. 5 This verse explains why Jesus tarried the two days in verse 6. 6 Thomas was one of the apostles, and is the one who is popularly referred to as "doubting Thomas," on account of the incident in John 20:24-29. He was called Didymus as a surname, but the word in the Greek means "a twin." Why the title was applied to him as part of his name is not very clearly stated in the reference works I have seen. Die with him was said according to verse 8. He was so certain that Jesus would be slain as soon as he reached Judea, that he proposed to the other apostles that they share in his fate. 7 This verse with verse 39 indicates that people were buried the same day of death. When Martha suggested that the body of Lazarus was decaying, she based it on the fact that it had been dead four days. That cause for the decay would have been the same whether the body had been put into the cave or retained in the home. 8 This verse gives us about two miles for distance from Bethany to Jerusalem. 9 Jerusalem being so near to Bethany explains how many of the Jews could come to the home to show their sympathy for the sisters. 0 No specific reason is given why Martha only went to meet Jesus. It was not for any lack of interest or confidence in Jesus on the part of Mary, for each of them expressed the same belief in his ability to prevent death. However, from the account in Luke 10:38-42, it seems that Martha was the head of the house and generally more forward in social and personal demonstrations. 1 Martha presumed that Jesus would have prevented the death of her brother had he been there. Whether he would have seen lit to prevent it is another matter, for he would have been able to prevent it though absent. He prevented the death of the nobleman's son though absent (chapter 4:46-53). But the remark of Martha showed her faith in Jesus, and the feeling of friendship on which she based it. 2 Her faith was not put to any strain even by the death of her brother. Yet she recognized the cooperation that existed between Jesus and his Father, and based her expectation on their joint wills. 3 This statement was so indefinite that it did not satisfy the sorrowing sister. But Jesus took that plan of introducing the subject. 4 Martha thought Jesus had reference to the general resurrection at the last day. She spoke of that as if she had previously been informed of its truth and had fully believed it. Doubtless it was often the subject of conversation between Jesus and these dear personal friends as he was passing the time in their humble home. 6 It would be difficult to do justice to these verses without including them in one paragraph. In thought or subject matter they correspond with Revelation 20:5-6. In the forepart of the chapter we are studying, Jesus spoke of the physical death of Lazarus in both figurative and literal language. In this paragraph the language is partially figurative, but Jesus is speaking of spiritual death and life. I am the resurrection means that Jesus is the giver of life. It is true of him in two senses; in him all mankind will be brought to life physically at the last day whether good or bad (chapter 5:28, 29; 1 Corinthians 15:22). But the spiritual death is that of men in sin, referred to by the words though he be dead. Such a person will be brought to spiritual life, saved from his past sins, if he will believe on Christ. After he has thus been made alive through belief in Christ (which includes primary obedience to the commands of the Gospel), he becomes one of the persons designated by the word liveth. But he must be faithful to the rest of the commands and so continue to show that he believeth, by a faithful life as a Christian. Such a person has the assurance that he shall never die. This death means the second one, when those who are not faithful to the end of life will be cast into the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels, which is the second death (Revelation 20:14). 7 In answer to the question of Jesus, Martha made the good confession of the divinity of him as the Son of God. She coupled her confession of faith with the fact that it had been predicted of him as the one to come into the world. 8 We did not hear when Jesus made the request for Mary to come, but the statement of Martha gives us that information. 9 How sweet it was for Mary to go quickly to Jesus. 0 Jesus was not far from the town, but tarried until Martha could return with her sister. 1 Verse 28 says Martha called her sister "secretly," which explains why the others in the house did not know why she left the room. Goeth to the grave to weep there. While that was not the reason Mary left, yet the remark shows it was a practice in those times to manifest sorrow for a departed loved one in such a manner. It is natural and right for us to sorrow for our dead friends, but it is worse when we have to sorrow as those without hope. In the case of the sisters of Lazarus it was the sorrow that was lightened by their hope for the resurrection of the just. 2 Mary expressed the same faith in the power of Jesus to control disease as did Martha. See the comments on the subject at verse 21. 3 Groaned is from EMBRI-MAOMAI, and Thayer defines it, "To be very angry, to be moved with indignation." Weeping is from KLAIO, and Thayer's definition is, "To mourn, weep, lament." It has the idea of outward and audible demonstrations. We should note that Jesus not only saw Mary weeping, but also the Jews that were with her. Mary's actions were genuine and prompted by true sorrow for her dead. The Jews were merely going through it as the usual formality of mourning for the dead. Jesus knew the hearts of all of them and could see the coldness therein, notwithstanding their outward show of sympathy. It was this fact that moved him to indignation. Yet he restrained himself from expressing his feelings, but groaned in the spirit. 4 Jesus never had to ask a question for information, but he wished to show a sympathetic interest in the case, and asked where they had laid him. Have you ever visited a home where death has entered? You asked to see the form of their dear dead and were told to "come this way." The look of utter dejection on the faces of the relatives as they said this, then started toward the silent chamber where lay the loved one, could not be described in words. 5 Such a look as the preceding verse describes was doubtless on the faces of these sisters as they led Jesus to the tomb of their brother. There could be no question as to the sincerity of that look or of the tone of voice when they bade the Lord to "come and see." Jesus wept. The second word is different from the one in verse 33. It is from DAKRTJO, which Thayer defines, "To weep, shed tears." This is the only place in the Greek New Testament where this word is used. It does not indicate any audible expressions. Jesus had restrained himself from such demonstrations, even when he saw Mary convulsed in sor-sow, because he wanted to ignore the hypocritical performances of the Jews. But the sight of these sorrowing sisters, and the pathos in their sweetly-sad voices, was so overyhelming that he burst into tears that were so generous that they could be seen. 6 The Jews missed the point as to why Jesus wept. It is true he loved Lazarus, and that feeling blended with his sympathy for the sisters. Yet he had as much love for him at the time of his death, although he was many miles away; but there is no indication that he wept then. This flow of tears was caused by his sympathy for the sisters. (See the comments on Verses 33-35.) 7 The Lord did not see fit to prevent the death of Lazarus, and the people implied that it was because he could not do so. 8 Jesus therefore. Because of these cruel words of the people, it caused Jesus to have a renewal of the feelings described in verse 33. Mof-fatt's rendering of this place is, "This made Jesus chafe afresh." By this time he had reached the grave or tomb, and found it closed by a stone. 9 Jesus told them to take the stone away. "The Lord helps those who help themselves," is an old and true saying. The people could not restore Lazarus to life, but they could remove the stone. The statement of Martha about the condition of Lazarus' body was a mild protest against opening the tomb. We are not given any explanation of this, in the light of her great faith as expressed in verse 22. She could not have doubted the ability of Jesus to raise him even out of his state of decay, when she had already affirmed belief in his ability to resurrect him out of death at the last day (verse 24), at which time the entire body will have returned to dust. Her statement was a suggestion that Jesus restore her brother to life before removing the stone, to save those present from the offensiveness clue to decomposition of the body. 0 Sometimes people will propose faith in the Lord's power to do the greater things, and then manifest doubt concerning the lesser ones. For instance, they will ascribe to Him the power necessary to create the universe with its millions of items, then question his ability to cleanse a man's soul by washing his body in water. Not that one miracle really is greater than another, only it might appear to be so. Martha professed to believe that Jesus could raise the body of Lazarus out of the grave long after it had been absorbed by the elements of the earth, but manifested doubt about his ability to care for the sense of smell over a decaying body after but four days since death. 1 In obedience to the instruction of Jesus, they removed the stone from the grave or cave that was being used for burial. Before proceeding with the act of resurrecting the dead, Jesus first went to God in prayer, thereby setting a good example for others who claim to be children of God. This also was to demonstrate to the ones present that He was accomplishing his great works in cooperation with his Father. If the prayer is answered, it will show also that God is recognizing that cooperation. It was appropriate to express gratitude for the past support his Father had given him. 2 Jesus never had any doubts of his Father's assistance, but the people might have had some questioning in their minds about it. This thought is suggested by verse 37, where they intimated that Jesus had been unable to prevent the death of Lazarus. Now if these same people hear him appeal to his Father, and then see the favorable response to that appeal, they will know they were wrong in their accusation as to his failure to intervene and prevent Lazarus from dying. 3 Loud is from MEGAS, and in the King James Version it has been translated by "loud" 33 times, and by "great" 145 times. It means here that the voice was not only of great volume as to degree of tone, but was one that indicated authority. 4 Even after reviving *Lazarus from death, it required miraculous power to enable him to come out of the tomb, for he had been bound hand and foot. That is why Jesus instructed them to loose him., and let him go. 5 This miracle caused many of the Jews to believe on Jesus. That was one of the purposes for which the deed was done. (See chapter 20:30,31.) 6 While many of the Jews believed, some of them did not. And of that class, some went to the Pharisees in the spirit of talebearers and reported the event of the resurrection of Lazarus. 7 This council was the Sanhedrin, the highest court the Jews were allowed to have in the time of Christ. Upon the report brought to the Pharisees from the tomb of Lazarus, they became alarmed and called a special session of the council. For detailed information about the Sanhedrin, see the note with comments on Matthew 26:3. 8 The Jews finally lost their place (Palestine, with Jerusalem as the capital) and nation as a governmental unit. But it was because they persecuted Jesus, and not because they allowed him to teach the people. (See Matthew 23:38-39; Matthew 27:25.) The first reference in the parentheses is a prediction of the desolation of Jerusalem, and the second is the rash proposition of the Jews for that very thing to happen, although they did not realize what their mad statement would mean to their people. 9 Ye know nothing at all means the same as if Caiaphas had said: "You have not gone far enough in your suggestion." The speakers in the Sanhedrin had suggested only that something should be done to stop the miraculous works of Jesus. 0 The proposition the high priest had to offer was the very thing that God intended should come to pass. However, the motive Caiaphas had was only that it would be a short and sure way of stopping the work of Jesus. But God used the mouth of the high priest to deliver this weighty speech to the Sanhedrin. 1 Such a use of the high priest as stated in the preceding verse was nothing new. (See Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 17:9; Malachi 2:7.) As time went on after the writings of Moses were completed, it was necessary occasionally to give the people further revelation of truth. That was done through the words of prophets or the lips of the priests as the passages cited show. That is why it says he spake this not of himself, which means it was not something that originated with him. The Holy Ghost (Spirit) was guiding him in this lofty speech, just as it had done to the prophets in Old Testament times. (See 2 Peter 1:20-21.) 2 No mere human being, especially a wicked man like Caiaphas, would or could make such a grand statement as this verse. Not for that nation only denotes that Jesus was to be the sacrifice for all nations of the world. The children of God is spoken prospectively, just as Jesus spoke of his "other sheep" in chapter 10:16, referring to the Gentiles who would accept the Gospel when it was offered to them. 3 The Jews accepted the proposition made by the priest, and began at once to plot the death of Jesus. In so doing they would not only gratify their wicked personal designs upon the Lamb of God, but would unconsciously carry out the great work of Jehovah in "providing for himself a. Lamb" for the atonement of the human race. 4 Jesus knew the Jews were plotting to kill him, but his time for death had not yet come, hence he maintained some privacy in his walk. He went to a city called Ephraim that was near the wilderness, and thus evaded the evil schemes of his enemies. 5 Nigh at hand is a comparative phrase, for the first verse of the next chapter shows that it was at least six days before. To purify themselves. The law of Moses required all persons to be both physically and ceremonially clean before participating in the passover. (See Leviticus 22:1-6). 6 When these Jews gathered in the temple in the days before the feast, they became curious as to whether Jesus would come to it. He had disappeared sometime previously and gone into the region of the wilderness. This fact led some to intimate that he would be afraid to attend the passover. 7 This was like an official advertisement for the whereabouts of some wanted criminal. The Jews did not realize that whenever his "time had come," Jesus would be at hand and not make any effort to escape from them. The truth of this statement is clearly shown in chapter 18:4-11. Jesus fully intended to let his presence be known as soon as it was the proper time. In the meantime he associated with his disciples and personal friends, making his last visit in the town of Bethany near Jerusalem, as the next chapter shows. David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Twelve HIS ARRIVAL AND TO THE Joh_12:1-50 HE IS AT A SUPPER IN BETHANYJoh_12:1-8 1 Jesus therefore six days before the passover came to Beth-any, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead.—The Passover began on the fourteenth day of the month of Abib or Nisan, the first month of the Jewish year. Six days before would be on the eighth day of the month. The most marked thing that had occurred at Bethany so far is that he raised Lazarus from the grave. The raising of Laza¬rus made him the most distinguished person in the village. [Bethany was the scene of the resurrection of Lazarus (11: 44) and of Christ’ s own ascension (Luke 24:50). These two great events gave the village its notoriety.] 2 So they made him a supper there: and Martha served; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at meat with him.—The supper was made on what we would call Saturday evening; but, according to their division of time, the beginning of the first day of the week, Saturday night, after six o’ clock. It is not said that this supper was served at the house of Lazarus. Matthew (26: 6, 7) says that a feast was made for him at Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper, and that a woman poured on him an alabaster box of ointment. There has been diversity of opinion as to whether there were two occurrences of this kind at Bethany the last week of his life. There is no means of definitely determining this question. There is no in¬compatibility in the idea that Martha with her talent for serv¬ing would serve at a feast at a neighbor’ s house, or that Mary with her tender and earnest devotion should anoint his head, or that Lazarus should be a guest of honor at the table with Jesus who had raised him from the dead. 3 Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious,—The ointment was pure, costly, and of exquisite odor. [It was the most expensive anointing oil of that date.] and anointed the feet of Jesus,—Matthew (Matthew 26:7) and Mark (Mark 14:3) say that it was poured upon his head. Both head and feet and the exposed parts of the body were all anointed. To anoint him for his burial would suggest this. and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.—John who alone tells who did the anointing says that the loving humility of Mary led her to anoint the feet and to wipe them with the hair of her head. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples,—Judas was a lover of money, carried the purse kept by Jesus and his apostles, and, as with other men, it required evil surroundings to call the evil disposition into activity. His love of money now caused him to grumble at the wasteful expenditure of Mary. that should betray him, saith,—When the prospects of Jesus grew darker still, and the evil passions were aroused, this evil spirit led him to betray his Lord. 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings, and given to the poor?—Evil desires in men often clothe themselves under pretense of good. It is possible that Judas persuaded himself that he cared for the poor; but John, after seeing the full manifestation of his course, saw that he did not. It was selfish greed. [Judas, through his selfish motive, gives us an insight as to the worth of the ointment used by Mary in anointing Jesus. It was worth, according to his statement, around three hundred dollars. He was so narrow and covetous that he could see nothing in the gift but a “ waste.” He cared nothing for the poor. His plea was only a greedy pretext. It is a well-known fact to close observers that those who love Jesus most will do most for the poor.] 6 Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein.—He wished to get possession of the money and keep control of it. [Jesus and his disciples had a common treasury from which they drew money to defray their ex¬penses. Judas was treasurer. He carried the money around with them in a “ bag”— purse. Being a thief, he desired the oint¬ment to be sold and the money turned into the treasury so that he could steal it. The fact that a few days later he sold his Lord and Master for about seventeen dollars shows his greed for money. But the Judases are not all dead. He is a good type of all those treasurers, cashiers, and managers of business institutions who steal trust funds and money en¬trusted to them. He will have plenty of company at the res¬urrection and beyond the judgment, many like himself claim¬ing to be very religious and friends of the poor.] 7 Jesus therefore said, Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying.—Jesus reproved his complaint at her and told him that this was anointing him for his burial. Not that he ex¬pected to die then and be buried, but he knowing his end was near said it could serve as the anointing for his burial. [Judas virtually accused Mary of robbing the poor. So Jesus came forward in her defense and complimented her, saying she has anointed my body before death and prepared it for burial. This was the only anointing the body of Jesus received from the hands of his female friends since he arose from the grave before they reached the sepulchre with their spices. Mary did not know the full import of her act of love at the time she be¬stowed it.] 8 For the poor ye have always with you; but me ye have not always.—Jesus knew that it was not care for the poor that moved Judas, so he told him that he could at all times help the poor, but these acts of kindness could not be always ex¬tended to him [for the reason he would shortly return to his Father, and what is done to my fleshly body must be done now]. ABOUT LAZARUS AND ITS EFFECTSJoh_12:9-11 9 The common people therefore of the Jews learned that he was there:—Jews here refer to the inhabitants of Judea as distinguished from the Galileans. The twelve apostles were all Galileans save probably Judas. The Jews in a self-righteous way held aloof from Jesus, but he now by the miracles he had done wrought up the idea of making him their king and hence gave him that royal reception of a king. and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.—His most noted miracle was raising Lazarus from the dead. He, as one who had been in the grave until the fourth day, was an object of curiosity to all. 10 But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus also to death;—The presence of Lazarus alive was a continual reminder of the power of Jesus over death and the grave, and the chief priests, seeing this, felt the necessity of putting him out of the way. It is singular that they did not see that if Jesus had restored him to life once he could easily do it again, and their madness gives added testimony to the claims of Jesus to be the Christ the Son of God. 11 because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.—The sight of Lazarus alive after he had been four days in the grave was a striking proof of the claims of Jesus as the sent of God. HIS PUBLIC WELCOME BY THE PEOPLEJoh_12:12-19 12 On the morrow a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,—[Josephus tells us that from two to three millions attended a passover. All four of the divine writers of the gospel give an account of his entry into Jerusalem. (See Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-44.)] 13 took the branches of the palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried out, Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.—It had been the expectation of the Jews that a king would arise to deliver them from their bondage to the Roman Empire. The miracles and wonders wrought by Jesus drew their minds to him as the deliverer, so they work themselves into a state of enthusiasm over him as their king. They came out to Bethany to meet him, and they treated him as their coming king. They cast their garments in the way and when these did not suffice they cut the branches off the palm trees and cast them in the way that the king and even the ass on which he rode might not be defiled by walking upon the earth. [They literally carpeted the Master’ s pathway with leaves of the palm trees. He is not seeking privacy now. He is now publicly forcing the issue.] 14 And Jesus, having found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,—It had been foretold that the king would come as here described. He came in fulfillment of these promises and was the King, but they misunderstood the nature of his kingdom, and when a few days later, the prospects of an earthly kingdom having vanished, it is likely that many of those who honored him as a King, joined them in the cry, “ Crucify him, crucify him.’’ 15 Fear not, daughter of Zion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’ s colt.—He found the young ass, as related by Matthew (Matthew 21:1-11) and Mark (Mark 11:1-9) and rode upon this ass to the city of Jerusalem as foretold by the prophet: “ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.” (Zechariah 9:9.) 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, and that they had done these things unto him.—His disciples did not at this time understand that these things had been foretold of the Messiah by the prophets, but after he ascended to his Father, they remembered these things had been written concerning Christ and that they had been done as foretold. 17 The multitude therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from the dead, bare witness.—The raising of Lazarus and the fact that he was present in their midst kept it fresh in their minds, and many who were present and saw him come forth from the grave were now in Jerusalem and testified to the facts and so caused added honor to be bestowed on Jesus. [The miracle, raising Lazarus to life, had its effects on this great demonstration.] 18 For this cause also the multitude went and met him, for that they heard that he had done this sign.—On account of these witnesses, the interest of the people in Jesus was greatly increased. 19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Behold how ye prevail nothing; lo, the world is gone after him.—These Pharisees were determined not to believe, and to such then as now added testimony excited wrath and bitterness rather than produced faith and repentance toward God. So in wrath they say the world is going after him. But they persist in a course that would have done them honor if they had been in a good cause. [These opposers had joined the Sanhedrin to put Jesus to death, and were astounded when they thought that practically the whole nation had gone over to him and demonstrated his popularity.] A REQUEST OF CERTAIN GREEKSJoh_12:20-26 20 Now there were certain Greeks among those that went up to worship at the feast:—It has been a question of doubt as to who these Greeks were. The Jews dwelling in Greece were called Grecians. All the texts call them Greeks. They were proselyte Greeks most likely. As strangers they desired to see Jesus and came to Philip. 21 these therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.—As strangers, and since isolated by their nationality, they desired to see Jesus, and sought the interview through Philip himself, a Grecian Jew, as his name indicates. He doubtless understood their language and was approachable on this ground. [“ See” is used in the sense we desire a conversation with him. Surely they could see Jesus with the natural eye without any intervention with Philip.] 22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew cometh, and Philip, and they tell Jesus.—[Andrew takes the lead. The request of these Greeks evidently assumed importance, for it is the occasion of a remarkable discourse. These men represented the Gentile world in its unrest, its hopelessness, its deep yearning for some divine Redeemer, to lift the helpless race out of its imbecility and despair, and guide it into nobler life.] 23 And Jesus answereth them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.—Jesus tells them that the time of his glorification is now at hand. He calls himself usually the Son of man, leaving it to his teachings and works to declare him the Son of God. In a few instances when they were disposed to doubt, he called himself the Son of God. [The disciples had always had inadequate ideas of what his kingdom was to be, and the pathway through which it was to be reached. Doubtless their faces at once lit up with the radiance of expectation, that the time was close at hand for the high places of the kingdom to be distributed. But Jesus has a lesson for them they little expect. Glory is coming, through a pathway of which they would never have dreamed, a pathway of tears, and sorrow, and pain and death.] 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit.—Preceding his glorification, his humiliation, his sufferings, his death, and his burial must come. Naturally must the humiliation precede the glorification, but his death and resurrection would result in bringing many into his service and so to eternal life. He compares himself to a grain of wheat. If the grain is not planted and does not die, it will remain alone. But if it die in the ground, it gives its life to the production of many seeds. So if he preserved his life, his disciples would not multiply; but if he died, out of his death would come a multitude of disciples. [A grain of wheat might lie on a hard, smooth, dry surface a long time and never be anything but a grain of wheat with large possibilities of fruitfulness within it; they would never be developed into realities. Falling into the ground, covered over, exposed to soil, and warmth, and moisture, the grain dies and decays; the germ within is released; it feeds upon the very decay of the enveloping grain, and lo, the plant; and not another grain, but thirty, sixty, a hundredfold. Life comes out of death and more abundantly. It is almost certain that even yet the disciples did not understand him, but it is equally evident, in the light of after events, that he meant to tell them that his glorification was to come through his death. From this the coming of the Greeks could not save him, but was valuable as a symbolic indication of how, in the end, he would draw all men unto him.] 25 He that loveth his life loseth it;—If Jesus had so loved this present life that he had refused to give it up, he would have gained no future life for others. He gives as a general truth of all beings that love this life so as not to sacrifice it to honor God and bless men could not gain the life that is eternal. [Indicating thus the joyousness with which he went forth to sacrifice in view of its results, he now proceeds to give the principle a general application to his disciples. A selfish love of life that keeps a man from duty only entails its ultimate loss.] and he that hateth his life in this world—To hate this life is to be willing to surrender it, or to hold it in less esteem than the spiritual life in the future. [“ Hates” it, only as its careful preservation interferes with duty; “ hates” it, in this sense, that he will ever make it subordinate to high and holy aims, to generous devotion to the glory of God and the good of men.] shall keep it unto life eternal.— [What seems to be its loss is only apparent. It never can be lost in that way.] 26 If any man serve me, let him follow me;—To follow Jesus is to do his will, to be actuated by the same principles that moved him. In living like him, we will be made like him in character and so will be fitted to dwell with him. [Follow me in the pathway of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice to which I have already alluded.] and where I am,—[The present tense used for the future. He would be with his Father in heaven.] there shall also my servant be:— [Having followed me in self-sacrifice, he shall be with me in glory.] if any man serve me, him will the Father honor.— As God honored his Son so will he honor all who serve his Son. [How little does modern Christendom realize the lesson of this passage! On what miserable foundations of self-indulgence and self-saving are men building hope of glory and honor at God’ s right hand, which can find a solid foundation only on self-denial and self-sacrifice.] THE HOUR OF HIS TROUBLE John 12:27-30 27 Now is my soul troubled;—[The full shadow of the awful experience through which he is so soon to pass falls across his pathway and overwhelms him with its darkness. The humanity shuddered with a horror that only proved its humanity, and brought into clearer relief the grandeur of its final victory over itself.] and what shall I say?—What prayer shall I offer to my Father and with what words shall it be clothed? In anticipa¬tion of the sufferings and death, he in his human feelings shrank back from it, and pondered whether he should ask God to save him from the sufferings that were before him. Father, save me from this hour.—He now thought of his having come into the world to endure the very sufferings from which he now shrank so he did not make the prayer. [A footnote has the interrogative “ hour” ? Some think this to be the only form that can be reconciled with the character of Jesus, and the outcome of the struggle. Passing through the profound trouble of his soul, he soliloquizes in the presence of those surrounding him: “ Oh, what shall I do? Shall I yield to my human shrinking, and ask my Father to save me from this supreme hour which is approaching?” ] But for this cause came I unto this hour.—[All that has preceded, the incarnation, the life, the teachings, the miracles, leading up to this hour, were important because of their rela¬tions to this hour. The atonement is the climax of all that has preceded.] 28 Father, glorify thy name.—Instead of praying for deliv¬erance from that hour, he prayed that God would do that which would promote his glory regardless of the suffering of himself. This was equivalent to the prayer, “ Not my will, but thine be done.” (Luke 22:42.) [The struggle is over. This is the victor's cry. Glorify thy name! No matter what it costs me, no matter through what pathway it leads me, no matter what self-denial or self-sacrifice it requires, yet glorify thy name through me!] There came therefore a voice out of heaven, saying, I have both glorified it,—[Jesus had ever ascribed his mighty works to God, and, as the Father thus heard and answered his prayer, as so recently in the case of Lazarus, he glorified his own name in these displays of power.] and will glorify it again.—God glorified himself in sending Jesus into the world to die for sinners. He would glorify it again in glorifying Jesus at his right hand as Lord of lords and King of kings. [This was to be accomplished in that wondrous series of events, culminating in the resurrection and ascension, upon whose threshold they now stood. 29 The multitude therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it had thundered: others said, An angel hath spoken to him.—This voice most likely spoke in the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue as the voice to Saul did. The people hearing the sound and not understanding what was said, thus concluded from the temperament of the hearers. [They heard it as well as Jesus, but their ears were not attuned to heavenly speech. Others realized that it was more than a sound, that it was a “ voice,” but were not able to distinguish it from a clap of thunder.] 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice hath not come for my sake, but for your sakes.—This voice came from heaven to convince the people that God was in Jesus and spake through him. It was for the profit of the hearers, not for that of Jesus. [He needed nothing to strengthen and confirm his faith, for the victory was gained before the voice spoke, but they did need much.] JESUS HIS John 12:31-36 31 Now is the judgment of this world:—He warned them that the contest between him and this prince of the world, the evil one, was close at hand. This contest was to take place in the grave. Jesus surrendered himself into the power of the evil one. He was carried down into the grave by the evil one — "him that hath power over death and the grave.” “ Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” (Hebrews 2:14.) Jesus in his flesh and blood went down into the grave as a prisoner of the devil. [“ Now” is the vivid presentation of the near future. The world’ s crisis is just at hand. Calvary will inaugurate it, and tremendous consequences flow from it.] now shall the prince of this world be cast out.—In the grave he contended with the devil, overcame him in his own dark domain, and was a victor over him. The prince of this world was overcome, cast out of his authority by the resurrection of Jesus from the grave. In the grave the battle was fought; in the grave the victory was won that freed the world from the domain of the evil one. [His dominion is to cease. And this is to be accomplished through that very death of Jesus which Satan is now scheming to bring about, but which, unwittingly to him, is but the prelude to the resurrection and glorification of Jesus, and the rescue of humanity. Satan, like Samson, pulled his own pillar from under his building.] 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.—He again refers to the fact that his dying on the cross and his burial would be the means of drawing men to him by his resurrection from the dead. He “ was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holi¬ness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 1:4.) So men were drawn to him by his being lifted up on the cross. [He will draw all kinds of men — men of all nations. The relation of what has preceded, to the coming of the Greeks, comes out in this verse. As one king is dethroned, another and mightier one takes his place who invites all men to him by persuasion of the cross.] 33 But this he said, signifying by what manner of death he should die.—His lifting up referred to his death upon the cross. [This passage in which Jesus, after having shuddered in view of the cross, strengthened himself by tracing in broad outlines the picture of the immense revolution which it will effect, may be compared with that of Paul (Colossians 2:14-15), where he represents Jesus as making a spectacle of the infernal powers, despoiling them of their power, and triumphing over them on the cross.] 34 The multitude therefore answered him, We have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever:—They referred to the language of David: “ Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalms 110:4.) And to such other prophecies as: “ Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his king¬dom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.” (Isaiah 9:7.) “ And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:14.) All the Old Testament scriptures are classed as the law. It is true that he was to abide forever, but not in the flesh. and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?—[Jesus had frequently applied this term to himself, which they quote also from Daniel 7:13-14. Realizing that he refers to death in the “ lifting up,” they ex¬claim against the incongruity of this with the Jewish idea of a glorified, victorious Messiah.] 35 Jesus therefore said unto them, Yet a little while is the light among you.—Jesus was the light of the world. While he was with them they should listen to his teaching and walk by the light of his wisdom. When he was gone they would have none to give light. This is the same as he told his disciples, “ A little while, and ye behold me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see me.” (John 16:16.) Walk while ye have the light,—[Turn your footsteps into the path of faith which it marks out while the light is shining.) that darkness overtake you not:— [Out of the pathway of duty, for it will then be so difficult to find it. The thought is — seek the light and walk in it while you have an opportunity, for the opportunity may soon pass away and you be left in the dark unsaved.] and he that walketh in the darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.—[He stumbles over the many obstacles in his path. Since the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, Israel has wandered in the wilderness of this world, as a caravan without a goal and without a guide.] 36 While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons of light.—While Jesus was with them, they should believe in him that they may be children of the light— practice the truths taught as constituting the truth. To walk in the light we must appropriate the opportunity as it is offered to us. These things spake Jesus, and he departed and hid himself from them.—[He withdrew from them so they could not find him. He departed from the temple, where he was never seen again. They never saw him again in the city until he was a prisoner in the hands of the Sanhedrin. It is a sad dark day when Jesus departs either from an individual, a city or a nation for the reason destruction is sure to follow. Unbelief closed their spiritual eyes against the truth Jesus presented and was the cause of his departing from them. Unbelief will damn the world today.] JESUS RETIRES AND JOHN ON THE OF THE JEWSJoh_12:37-43 37 But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him:—Additional testimony does not produce faith where the heart is wicked and bitter. Jesus said: “ If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.” (Luke 16:31.) [John only records seven of these miracles, but often refers to a great number of them. (2: 23; 4: 45; 7: 31; 20: 30.) Some of them had a sort of faith in Jesus as a man of God, or as the “ prophet of Galilee,” but they did not confess that faith which believes, trusts, obeys, and devotes one’ s life to his service.] 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?—In view of the fact so few would believe in Jesus, notwithstanding his many miracles, Isaiah asked, “ Lord, who hath believed our re¬port,” and who have recognized the power of God in the miracles performed? [This quotation is found in Isaiah 53:1. The prophet predicted such a condition as we here find existing among the Jews.] 39 For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again,—In their condition of heart, no amount or degree of signs could produce faith. [The cause of their failing to be¬lieve is not the fact that God, through Isaiah, said thus and thus, but he simply points out the cause of their unbelief in what he said. The reason why they could not believe was not that God had decreed their unbelief and destroyed their free agency, but that, in the exercise of their free agency, they had made themselves, by the operation of God’ s moral laws, incapable of belief. Then, too, the same means that God uses, the gospel of Christ, to save the world, will soften the heart of one and lead him to heaven and at the same time harden the heart of another and cause him to be banished away from God at the last day. The gospel will either lift a man to heaven or else send him to hell. It all depends upon whether one opens his heart and cooperates with God as to which place he goes.] 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them.—Because they loved sin and rebellion, God hardened their hearts and stiffened their necks to lead them on to their ruin. Isaiah foretold that they could not believe so as to be healed or saved by God, but he meant in the disposition of heart they were cultivating they could not do these things. [“ This explains why they could not believe. Whether they were morally responsible for their unbelief depends on how God blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. If he did it by a direct act, regardless of their moral condition, then they were not responsible. If, however, he did it by a law of the universe that whoever turns from the light shall become blind, and whosoever steels his heart against the truth shall find his heart hardened, then they were morally responsible if they had turned from the light and hardened their hearts. It is a physical as well as a moral law that he who turns from the light and seeks to abide in darkness will become blinded until he will ‘ believe a lie and be damned.’ The men who are the champions of unbe¬lief, such men as Voltaire, Paine, and Ingersoll, are unbelievers because they did not wish to believe. Their moral condition was such that they could not justify their course of life only by refusing to believe on the Christ. They sought the darkness, and as a result finally they became so blinded that they could not believe. They blinded their own eyes because they brought upon themselves the penalty. God blinded their eyes because their blindness resulted from the action of his universal law. Thus it is said of Pharaoh that ‘ God hardened his heart,’ but it is also said that Pharaoh hardened his heart. He chose, in the exercise of his voluntary agency, to harden his heart, but it is God’ s law that those who harden their hearts shall be hardened, and hence God, by this law, hardened his heart. By reference to Matthew 13:14 the reader will find this passage from Isaiah quoted and applied by the Savior to the Jews. In the application he shows how they were blinded, ‘ Their eyes have they closed.’ The Savior’ s words settle how God blinded their eyes. It was by the application of his invariable law to their own acts. French says: ‘ The Lord, having constituted as the righteous law of moral government, that sin should produce darkness of heart and moral insensibility, declared that he would allow the law to take its course.’ ”— Johnson. The means God used to touch and tender the hearts of the children of Israel and cause them to follow Moses, their leader, also hardened the heart of Pharaoh.] 41 These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.—Isaiah foresaw the glory of the works and power of Jesus and foretold of these, and yet how few would believe him. 42 Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him;—Notwithstanding the general unbelief and hardness of heart, some of the leading men believed in him, who did not as yet confess him. Among this number were some who for the time seem not to have openly confessed him. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were among these. But these did not love the praise of men more than the praise of God, for they in the darkest hours do confess him and so could not have been of the class to which reference is here made. but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:—The Jews had threatened that any who would confess that he was the Christ should be put out of the synagogue. This must refer to physical or bodily exclusion from attendance in the service of the synagogue. It involved the forfeiture of all rights pertaining to membership in the synagogue. Here faith failed to bring the salvation from God because those who believed had not courage to act on the faith; they did not exercise the faith; faith did not perfect itself in works of obedience. This faith left the man a poor, helpless, self-condemned outcast sinner. A faith that fears man, that loves the praise of men more than the praise of God, engulfs itself in deeper ruin, leaves the soul without excuse in the hands of an insulted, outraged, and angry God, who whets the sword of his wrath to execute ven-geance on those who refuse the gospel of his Son. He who knows his Master’ s will and so believes and yet refuses to do it will be beaten with many stripes. 43 for they loved the glory that is of men more than the glory that is of God.—This class here mentioned must have been of that class of which Jesus spoke when he said: “ He that denieth me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God.” (Luke 12:9.) [The fact that these rulers did not confess Christ openly for fear shows their cowardly spirit and only added to their sin. They were dis¬honest and the worst hypocrites. There is no hope for such characters.] OTHER WORDS OF JESUS ABOUT BELIEFJoh_12:44-50 44 And Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, be¬lieveth not on me, but on him that sent me.—He does not be¬lieve in Jesus as the author and founder of the good that he did and taught, but in God who sent him and gave him all powrer and whose will he came to do. 45 And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me. —He was only the representative of the Father who sent him, and in hearing and seeing him they saw the Father who sent him. 46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness.—The world as created was enveloped in darkness— physical and spiritual— and Jesus came in his life and teaching to become a moral and spiritual light to the world. [It was the work of Jesus to make all things clear. He illuminates the mysteries of our being and destiny when we grasp them in their fulness. Those who walk in his light will have their doubts solved, mysteries cleared up, and the clouds rolled away from the fue.] 47 And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.—Jesus in person was not to judge or condemn, but to save the world. He spoke the words of God that through these words the world might be saved. [It is not the office of Jesus to judge those who keep not his sayings. While he will sit upon the throne in the day of judgment, yet he will not judge and condemn the world that he came to save. Each individual will be either saved or condemned on his arrival at the judgment. His word that he left in the world will decide the destiny of every one. The work assigned to Jesus in that day is to consign each to the place for which they are prepared.] 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.—One who was not saved by the word of God, made known through Christ, would be con¬demned by that word. These words will be the standard by which in the last day all shall be judged. The great trouble with most religious people is that they desire to be religious, they desire to honor God, but they desire to do it in their own way. They have confidence in their ability to invent ways that will please God. This is a fatal mistake. [Christ and his doctrine are inseparable; to receive his doctrine is to receive him; and to reject his doctrine is to reject him. Such rejecters of Christ and the doctrine of the gospel shall not escape the judgment of Christ in the last day. The word is now the rule of living, and it shall be hereafter the rule of judging.] 49 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.—What Jesus spoke did not originate with him, but came from God. God gave the rule by which the world must be judged. Jesus as the Son of God, sent by him into the world, delivered no message or command of his own, but only the things given him of God. [The Son was the Father’ s agent and he spake through him.] 50 And I know that his commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.—Jesus knew the commandment was from God and that it would give or lead all who followed it to life everlasting. The following teaches the same thing: “ And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.” (1 John 5:11-12.) The laws that God gave to Jesus grew out of the principles that moved God. Jesus was God in the flesh, showing what the principles and life of God would be in the flesh. For man to receive these principles into his heart and to live them is to make him like God in character and will fit him to live with God forever. [Jesus said, “ My words are spirit and they are life.” There are life-giving principles in the word of God when received in the heart and become the law of life. John here closes his record of the revelation of Jesus to the world.] Verse 1 Jesus' public ministry was concluded between the events of the last chapter and the Passover which comes into view in this. A number of important things in the life of Christ took place between John 11:54 and John 11:55. According to Robertson, these were: He started the last journey to Jerusalem, via Samaria and Galilee. healing ten lepers en route (Luke 17:11-37). He gave two parables on prayers, those of the importunate widow and the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:1-14). He gave his teaching on divorce (Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 19:1-12). He received little children (Mark 10:13-16, etc.). He spoke with the rich young ruler and gave the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Mark 10:17-31, and parallel accounts). He gave the third prophecy of his death and resurrection and rebuked ambition of Zebedee's sons (Mark 10:32-45, etc.). He healed Bartimaeus and a companion at Jericho (Mark 10:46-52, and parallel accounts). He visited Zacchaeus, gave the parable of the pounds, and went on up to Jerusalem (Luke 19:142:8).[1]All the above events were in the Galilean and later Perean ministry, thus accounting for their omission by John, who recorded, for the most part, events in Judaea and Jerusalem. It is not known why John omitted so much of what the synoptics recorded nor why they omitted so much of what John recorded. The speculations of radical critics have shed nothing but darkness on the question by their contradictory and unreasonable hypotheses. For example: Gardner-Smith's investigations have led him to the startling conclusion that the Fourth Evangelist had not read any of the Synoptic Gospels.[2]Alan Richardson thought the apostle had read all three accounts, in fact, scrambling them in the instance of the anointing mentioned in this chapter! His words are: "St. John has fumbled in making her wipe off the ointment!"[3]The destructive critics are like the Pharisees of the last chapter who denied the miracle of the blind man's healing, but then quickly admitted it and made it the basis of a slander of Jesus for not preventing the death of Lazarus. The twelfth chapter falls into four divisions: (1) the supper for Jesus and Lazarus (John 12:1-11); (2) the triumphal entry (John 12:12-20); (3) coming of the Greeks, and the voice from heaven (John 12:21-36); and (4) Jesus sums up his claims (John 12:37-50). Jesus therefore six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead. (John 12:1) For purposes of this study, the date here is construed as Friday night, after Robertson, Hovey, and many others. Regarding the questions that inevitably surface with reference to this, and as to the day of the week upon which the Lord suffered, see under John 19:31. [1] A. T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), pp. 139ff. [2] W. F. Howard, Christianity according to St. John (London: Duckworth Press, 1965), p. 17. [3] Alan Richardson, The Gospel according to St. John (London: SCM Press, 1959), p. 147. Verse 2 So they made him a supper there; and Martha served; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at meat with him.This is the only New Testament reference to activity on the part of persons raised from the dead by Jesus; and the glimpse of Lazarus' life is one of normality. As might have been expected, the friends of Jesus and of Lazarus made them a supper, defying the order of the Sanhedrin that they should be informed of Jesus' whereabouts. Verse 3 Mary therefore took a pound of pure nard, very precious, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.Pure nard ... Spikenard was a perfume highly prized by the ancients, and was produced from Nardostachys jatamansi, a small plant (which is) a native of the Himalaya Mountains.[4] The high cost derived partly from the transportation of it thousands of miles from India to Jerusalem. There were "cut" varieties of it, but this was expensive pure nard itself. Anointed the feet ... See below. And the house was filled with the odor ... Again the unmistakable mark of an eye-witness appears in John. The possession of a whole pound of so rare a perfume is evidence of the wealth and social position of the Lazarus family. THE TWO It is an unqualified wonder that some scholars view this anointing as the same one recorded in Luke (Luke 7:36-50), an interpretation which is here rejecled out of hand as being illogical and unreasonable. The melding of the two accounts serves no purpose except that of giving the critics an excuse for alleging "contradictions" between Luke and John. Where is any PROOF that both incidents did not occur? Resemblances between the two events are harder to find than differences. Note: IN LUKE IN JOHNIn home of Simon the Pharisee. In home of Simon the leper. Dinner given by a critic of Jesus. Dinner given by friends. Dinner was not in Jesus' honor. Dinner was in Jesus' honor. Occurred at least a year before Occurred the last week of the Lord's death. the Lord's life. This took place in Galilee. This occurred in Bethany. The woman here was a "sinner." This woman was noble Mary. The woman wept. Mary did not weep. This woman wiped her tears Mary wiped the excess ointment from Jesus' feet. from his feet. Here, Simon the Pharisee was In this, Jesus rebuked Judas rebuked. Iscariot. Jesus forgave the woman's sins The sins of Mary are not in but not Simon's sins. view at all. This was received as a token of This was received as a the woman's love. preparation for his burial. Modern commentators should do better than to confuse these two incidents, as there is absolutely no excuse for accepting the superstition to the effect that the sinful woman mentioned by Luke, Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany were all the same individual, a confusion referred to by Robertson as "a medley of medieval mysticism."[5][4] New Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Inc., 1972), Vol. 22, p. 154. [5] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 60. Verse 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples that should betray him, saith, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings, and given to the poor?Matthew and Mark record this anointing, in which it seemed to have occurred on Tuesday or Wednesday of the following week, Matthew making it the incident that triggered the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. All the Gospel accounts place it in the last week of the ministry; and while John's account SEEMS to say it was on Friday, it is not SO STATED. His words are, "They made him a supper THERE (not THEN)." Robertson and most harmonizers place the event in the sequence mentioned by Matthew and Mark, construing John as slightly unchronological here. In Matthew and Mark, it is the "disciples" who complained of the waste of the nard; in John, the center of the objection is revealed as Judas. This is the kind of "contradiction" so delighted in by critics. Judas, of course, had persuaded other disciples to go along with his objection, Matthew himself probably having been one that did; and thus it would have been improper for Matthew to have laid all the blame on Judas for something he participated in. Note too that John did not say that JudasALONE objected. Where, then, is the contradiction? It isn't. Three hundred shillings ... The word in the Greek (shilling) denotes a coin worth about eight pence half-penny, or nearly seventeen cents.[6] The relative value of the coin appears in the fact of its being a day's wages (Matthew 20:9), making the value of the nard to have been the amount of money a man might have earned for three hundred days of labor. ENDNOTE: [6] Marginal note (English Revised Version (1885)). Verse 6 Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein.Richardson wrote that "St. John adds some disparaging remarks about his (Judas') character and conduct."[7] Since "disparage" means "to undervalue," it would have been enlightening if Richardson had told us what higher value he placed upon Judas' character and conduct than that which is stated here. It is incorrect to believe that John here improperly added to the odium properly belonging to the name of Judas; on the other hand, it is a true statement of the traitor's conduct and remarks, together with a revelation of what motivated him. ENDNOTE: [7] Alan Richardson, op. cit., p. 148. Verse 7 Jesus therefore said, Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying.Suffer her to keep it ... Scholars misunderstand this as meaning Mary had not used all the nard, supposing this to mean, "Let her keep what is left." The cruse had been broken; there was nothing left in it (Mark 14:3). Howard's statement that John's record is contrary to "the synoptic statement that the box had been broken"[8] is untrue. Jesus' perfectly clear meaning is: "Let her do what she has done (kept it against the day of my burying)." Moreover, the peculiar use of the present tense (and we believe prophetic tense), "Suffer her to keep it," indicates the achievement of a timeless and world-wide memorial to Mary's name and honor. Christ commanded that the record of this loving deed be preached throughout time until the judgment; and, in such a proclamation, she did in fact truly "keep" the last drop of that precious perfume poured upon Jesus' feet. Did not Joseph of Arimathea keep his tomb and the lad his basket, after giving them to Jesus? Did anyone ever give anything to Jesus without at the same time "keeping it"? What is given to the Lord is kept; all else is lost; and can it be any different with this nard? Mary poured all the nard on Jesus; but she "kept it all." Against the day of his burial? Yes, but also for all time until the judgment! ENDNOTE: [8] W. F. Howard, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), p. 657. Verse 8 For the poor ye have always with you; but me ye have not always. The priority of Jesus Christ and his requirements, even above and before the legitimate needs of the poor, appears in a statement such as this. The claims of the poor upon the believer's bounty are high; but the obligation to Christ is higher. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:11. Verse 9 The common people therefore of the Jews learned that he was there: and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.The common people ... of the Jews ... This construction explains John's use of "Jews" throughout the Gospel as primarily a designation of the religious hierarchy who opposed Jesus; thus it was necessary to explain the distinction here. "Jews ..." was never used by John in a racial or anti-Semitic manner. The common people loved Jesus and believed on him. Verse 10 But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.Howard's condescending remark that "The chief priests were alarmed at this recrudescence of popular fanaticism and added the name of Lazarus to the list of the condemned"[9] is to be deplored for its use of the term "fanaticism," applied to the popular movement, toward Jesus. Are those who still seek and believe on Jesus also "fanatics"? It is in such off-hand statements as this that one may often determine the existence of hostile thoughts against the Lord and thus be able to explain comments which are otherwise a mystery. ENDNOTE: [9] Ibid. Verse 12 On the morrow a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches from palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried out, Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.THE ENTRYHendriksen noted: the triumphal entry is in all four Gospels declaring that "Although the accounts differ, they do not conflict in any way."[10] For comments on the primary features of this event, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12. Went forth to meet him ... The two sources of the great throng of people were: (1) the crowd following from Bethany, and (2) the great crowd who, hearing that Jesus was coming into Jerusalem, went forth from the Holy City to meet him. Branches of palm trees ... This was a customary greeting of popular heroes; and the prevalence of many palm trees facilitated this type of demonstration. Hosanna... has the meaning of "O Jehovah, save now!" It had not, at that time, developed into a mere "hurrah!" but had overtones of deep religious feeling. The Old Testament has this: Save now, we beseech thee, O Jehovah: O Jehovah, we beseech thee, send now prosperity. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of Jehovah (Psalms 118:25-26). According to Westcott, this Psalm was written as the dedication Psalm for the second temple,[11] making the quotation both appropriate and significant. The King of Israel ... The popular recognition of Jesus, even in this outpouring of demonstration, fell far short of any true appreciation of Jesus' actual mission and purpose. It would appear to be certain that Jesus permitted such an outpouring, along with this reference to "the King of Israel," in order to bring about the confrontation with the hierarchy. The Pharisees, having already decided not to kill Jesus during the Passover (Matthew 26:1-5), would be overruled in their strategy of delay; and such a thing as this triumphal entry was exactly calculated to spur them into a change of strategy. [10] William Hendriksen. Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 184. [11] Brooks Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 179. Verse 14 And Jesus, having found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Zion: behold thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.Ass's colt ... John did not narrate the manner of this beast's procurement, as in the synoptics, but did make reference, as did they, to the prophecy (Zechariah 9:9). It is incorrect to make any point of Matthew's reference to "Son of David," contrasting with John's "King of Israel." The reference by both to the prophecy show exactly who was meant; and, in such a mob welcome as that, these and possibly other titles of Jesus were used in the popular greeting. Verse 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, and that they had done these things unto him.The failure of Jesus' most intimate and faithful disciples to comprehend the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies concerning him, was evidently due to their also having been so full of the "earthly kingdom" idea which dominated the minds of the Jewish leaders. Not until after the resurrection did the apostles finally get everything into the proper focus and have the full glory of the Saviour's glorious work finally dawn upon their understanding. We should be thankful for this; because here is the positive and unanswerable proof that the disciples, having the attitude they held, could not possibly have contrived any such thing as stealing Jesus' body, or any kind of hoax regarding his resurrection. As a matter of truth, they did not even expect his resurrection, having no thought of it whatever, until after it happened. Verse 17 The multitude therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from the dead, bare witness.This means that the multitude were shouting his praises and telling to all men the marvel of how Jesus raised a man from the dead who had been dead four days. Only John pointed out the contribution made by the witnesses of the seventh sign to the triumphal entry. Verse 18 For this cause also the multitude went and met him, for they had heard that he had done this sign.It was the raising of the dead that triggered the appearance of such a large and enthusiastic multitude; and the people who had seen it were telling the story to all whom they met. The popular frenzy at the thought of seeing one who could do such a thing increased as Jesus approached Jerusalem, an immense throng being caught up and swept along by the momentum of such a demonstration. Verse 19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Behold how ye prevail nothing: lo, the world has gone after him.Here again, the Pharisees' comment, probably inspired by, or even spoken by, Caiaphas, was prophetic without their intending it so. The whole world had indeed gone after Jesus; even the Greeks would shortly afterward make their appearance! Of course, the Pharisaical answer to such popular approval was to murder the Lord judicially, little dreaming that their very act of doing so would accomplish exactly what Jesus came into the world to do. Verse 20 Now there were certain Greeks among those that went up to worship at the feast: these therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.THE COMING OF THE GREEKSAs Knox observed: The "Greeks" were Gentiles - we do not know from where - who had already become proselytes to Judaism or faithful friends of the synagogue (God-fearers) ... Notice that it is the desire of the Greeks to see Jesus which alone interests this writer. He does not tell us whether or not these particular Gentiles saw him. Presumably they did; but that does not matter.[12]Throughout John to here, the enemies of Jesus could not harm him because his hour had not yet come; but Jesus saw in the awakened interest of the Gentile world that the time had come. At last, it was his "hour," and there would be no further providential hindrances of what his enemies planned to do. Many questions of curiosity arise around this incident, such as whether or not the Gentiles went to Philip because he had a Greek name, or if they had come with an offer of sanctuary from Jesus' enemies, etc. The Spirit-inspired evangelists never catered to human curiosity, relating only the facts which were pertinent to their holy message of salvation. ENDNOTE: [12] John Knox, The Fourth Gospel and the Later Epistles (New York: Abingdon Press, 1945), p. 64. Verse 22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew cometh, and Philip, and they tell Jesus.What was it that they told Jesus? Eusebius mentions a tradition (and it is merely that) that these men had been sent by the Syrian King Edessa with a commission to invite Jesus to come to his realm, assuring him a hearty and princely welcome ... The coming of these Greeks was prophetic. The leaders of the nation were seeking even then to kill him, but Gentiles came to seek to know him; rejected by his own, the Gentiles would turn to him.[13]Andrew ... once more appears in Scripture as the man who brought someone to Jesus, corresponding with what is said of him in the instances of his bringing Peter and the lad with the loaves and fishes. ENDNOTE: [13] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1965), p. 227. Verse 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.Far from being glad to have an offer of sanctuary (if such a thing was involved), Jesus instantly recognized that the moment of his suffering was at hand. His sufferings, death, and resurrection would be the "glorification" referred to here. He viewed it thus, because in that would be the means of his winning millions of souls. Verse 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit. He that loveth his life loseth it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.Three applications of this metaphor are: (1) in nature, the death of seeds is necessary to their production of fruit; (2) Jesus consented to die as a means of winning the world to himself; and (3) for all who would be saved, the process is the same. One must renounce himself, loving not his own life, but losing it, and taking up fully the identity of Jesus in order to be saved. Note here the promise of eternal life. The doctrine of the "last things," or eschatology, as some like to call it, is alleged by some to be lacking in this Gospel; but, as Howard noted, "That favorite term in the Johannine vocabulary, `eternal life,' is eschatological in its origin."[14] The reference to final resurrection and judgment (John 5:24-29), and the recurring refrain, "I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:39-40; John 6:44; John 6:54) along with such passages as the one before us, make it clear that John's Gospel, in this particular, is no different from the others. ENDNOTE: [14] W. F. Howard, op. cit., p. 109. Verse 26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be: if any man serve me, him will the Father honor.Where I am ... is also a reference to last things. Dummelow wrote: "(This means) where I am soon to be, viz., in heaven,"[15] this making Jesus' promise to be that his true followers shall join him finally in heaven. If any man serve me, him will the Father honor ... claims an equality between Jesus and the Father, requiring the deduction that serving Jesus is the same as serving God. ENDNOTE: [15] J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 796. Verse 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour.The English Revised Version (1885) margin has "save me from this hour?" interrogatively, which is necessary to sustain the thought. It means that Jesus would thus have prayed if his purpose had been otherwise than that of dying to save men. Is my soul troubled ... The events unfolding before Jesus were extremely ugly and tragic, not simply for himself, but also in the profound implications for the chosen people. The total rejection and casting off of Israel loomed ominously in this visit of Gentiles who would accept Jesus, contrasting so tragically with the obduracy of the chosen nation. As Westcott expressed it: The shock has come already ... The presence and petition of the Greeks foreshadowed the judgment of the chosen people, and brought forward the means by which it would be accomplished. The prospect of this catastrophe was perhaps the crisis of the Lord's present conflict.[16]ENDNOTE: [16] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 181. Verse 28 Father glorify thy name. There came therefore a voice out of heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.Three times God spoke out of heaven during the ministry of Jesus: here, at the baptism, and at the transfiguration (Mark 1:11; Mark 9:7, and parallels). The Jews are said to have regarded thunder as an echo of the voice of God; but, "In all four Gospels, it is no mere echo of God's voice that is heard, but the direct speaking of the Father to the Son."[17]Glorify thy name ... Offered in the emotional tension arising from Jesus' consciousness that his "hour" was at hand, this prayer is surprising in that it has no petition for himself, but only for the glory of the Father's name. I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again ...Christ had glorified God by his ministry among the Jews, and he was now to glorify him by his death for all men, and by the gradual spread of the gospel among all nations.[18][17] Alan Richardson, op. cit., p. 153. [18] Alvah Hovey, op. cit., p. 255. Verse 29 The multitude therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it had thundered: others said, An angel hath spoken to him.That some of the multitude heard the words is obvious. The apostle John heard and understood the words himself, without any need of anyone's interpreting them to him (for no such thing is mentioned). Thus it may be assumed that they were intelligible words, wanting only attention on the part of hearers to be understood. As Frank L. Cox expressed it: Here we have an illustration of the fact that people often hear things differently according to what they are themselves. Some hear thunder, others an angel's voice, but Jesus understood.[19]It is one of the mysteries of life that some see and hear the things of God, and others do not see nor hear. Daniel was by the river Hiddekel when he saw the holy vision, but his companions were not aware of it; and Paul's companions on the Damascus road heard the noise but not the words of the Lord out of heaven. ENDNOTE: [19] Frank L. Cox, according to John (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1948), p. 81. Verse 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice hath not come for my sake, but for your sakes.Since the voice was given for the multitude's sake, it follows that they should have understood it. That some did not may be a reflection upon themselves, in that their moral condition did not permit them to hear God's voice. Jesus did not need such a testimony, but the carnal multitude did need it. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 According to Matthew 26:6, this supper was in the house of "Simon the leper," who evidently had been healed by Jesus. Made him a supper denotes that Jesus was the honor guest, but his disciples also were present. Martha served, even as she did in her own house on another occasion (Luke 10:38-40). Lazarus was one of them.. The supper was had in honor of Jesus, but Lazarus was given special mention because of the miracle that had been performed upon him. 3 This anointing should not be confused with the one in Luke 7:37-50. That was done by a woman from the outcast ranks and was known as a "sinner," but the present case was by the sister of Lazarus, who was one of the personal friends of Jesus. 4 Should betray him is translated, "was about to deliver him up," by the Englishman's Greek New Testament. The statement was made to explain the actions of Judas here and elsewhere as they pertained to money. 5 Three hundred pence. Weights and measures, as well as money values, changed from time to time and in different places. But in any way it is estimated, the value Judas placed on this ointment was great, which agrees with the statement of John (verse 3) that it was very costly. 6 No doubt Judas sincerely regretted seeing this valuable product used in this way, but it was not because of his interest in the poor. He was covetous and it hurt him to see that much value bestowed upon another. Had the bag means Judas was the treasurer for the group, and hence he was especially interested in anything that looked like money value. Bare is from BASTAZO, and Thayer defines it at this place, "To bear away, carry off." The general meaning of the word is to have charge of the money, but the more specific meaning applies to Judas according to Thayer's definition. In chapter 13:29, 30, the bag was still in the hands of Judas just as he was ready to leave the group. He went out with the bag and was never again with Jesus and the other apostles, so that he truly "carried off" the treasury as the specific definition states, and verifies the charge of John that he was a thief. 7 Against the day of my burying. It was an old custom to anoint the dead and use spices at the time of burial. (See 2 Chronicles 16:14; John 19:40; Luke 23:56.) Mark 14:8 quotes Jesus as saying, "She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying." 8 Poor always . . . with you. Jesus did not criticize the idea of giving something to the poor, for he regarded that as a good work. He instructed the rich young man (Mat-they 19:21) to give his possessions to the poor. But this statement was about the idea of using present opportunities that are soon to pass. He was soon to leave the world and that would stop all chances of doing him a bodily favor, while they would never cease having opportunities for helping the poor. 9 The presence of Jesus only would have brought the people out to Bethany, but they had a sepcial interest in seeing Lazarus alive, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. This was a visible evidence of the power that Jesus possessed, for the deed had been done in that very place where Lazarus had lived, and there could be no question about his identity. 1 It would be difficult to form a just description of minds as wicked as those possessed by the chief priests. We frequently hear of witnesses being slain or otherwise removed to prevent their testifying in an important case. But generally it is done on behalf of a felon who is about to be brought to trial for his crimes. Lazarus was only enjoying his natural right to live after having been restored from the dead by the Lord. And the motive for removing him was to destroy a visible but silent testimony in favor of Jesus, who had incurred the wrath of these priests by exposing their hypocrisy. No wonder such people could find it in their hearts finally to cause the death of the Teacher they hated. 2 Bethany was near Jerusalem, and the movements of Jesus were being made known in the city. The news evidently came back by the ones who had gone out to Bethany, mentioned in verse 9. 3 It was an ancient custom to honor an approaching dignitary by making a carpet of garments and the foliage of trees on which he might proceed. The season of the Passover was at hand, and great numbers of Jews from all over the world were at Jerusalem to attend it. That is why the preceding verse mentions much people. Hosanna is a Greek word and Robinson defines it, "Save now, succor now, be now propitious." He says further that it is from a Hebrew word that means "a joyful acclamation." Thayer's definition agrees with this but is more condensed. The passage denotes an expression of good will to Him who is able to save others because he is coming in the Lord's name. 4 Found a young ass. The accounts of Mark, Luke and John, leave out all mention of the mother of the colt, and the reader may be somewhat confused over it. The subject is fully discussed in the comments on Matthew's account (chapter 21:1-7), and I urge him to see that place. 5 The passage cited is in Zechariah 9:9. The prophet not only predicted the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, but said he would come "having salvation." It would be useless repetition to say this means "saving himself," as the margin renders it, for that truth is included in the fact of his riding triumphantly into the city. But Jesus was coming into the capital of the Jewish nation to bring salvation to all people in the world, whether they be Jew or Gentile. 6 The word glorify has several shades of meaning, and the one to apply in any given place must be determined by the context. In verse 23 it is stated that the hour is come (is at hand or very near), when the Son of man was to be glorified. This denotes that as yet He had not been glorified in the sense the word is used in this passage. Furthermore, John 7:39 says the reason the Holy Ghost was .not yet given, was because Jesus was not yet glorified, and John 16:7-13 shows that the Holy Ghost was not to be given until Jesus had gone to his Father. All of these truths give us the meaning of glorified in this verse to be the eternal form of Jesus in Heaven; the form referred to in 1 John 3:2. After that great circumstance of the glorification of Jesus, the disciples recalled the many things He had said to them, and the meaning of them became clear to their understanding. 7 These people related what, they had seen and heard on the occasion of the resurrection of Lazarus. Bare record means they made their statements as eye and ear witnesses of the miracle that had so deeply impressed many in the community. 8 The testimony of the witnesses mentioned in the preceding verse, caused many others to believe on Him, which accounts for their actions described in verse 13. 9 World is from KOSMOS, which means the inhabitants of the earth. The statement of the Pharisees was one of envy and fear. Their complaint was among themselves, as if each one thought the other should "do something about it" 0 The question may arise why these Greeks (who were Gentiles) were permitted to worship at the feast, which was primarily a Jewish affair. In 1 Kings 8:41-43 is a part of Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple. He predicted that "strangers" (people outside the Jewish nation) would come to the temple to pray, which is one act of worship. Solomon asked God to grant the prayer of these people. Then in chapter 9:3 of that book, the Lord told Solomon that his prayer was heard, which means it was to be granted, and that included what was asked on behalf of the prayers of the strangers. It will help the reader to understand this matter if he will consult the note on "worship" at Matthew 2:2. The word has such a wide range of meanings, that it would have been easy for these Greeks to perform some phase of it on the present occasion, without infringing upon any ceremony that was the exclusive right of the Jews. 1 Philip was of Galilee as stated here and in John 1:44. It was natural, therefore, for these Greeks to contact him in their inquiry to see the greatest of Galileans. The fame of Jesus had reached so far that these visitors had heard of it. 2 I have not seen any account of the previous association of Philip with Andrew, but they seem to have been close personal friends. Philip passed on to Andrew the request of the Greeks, and together they reported it to Jesus. 3 We have no information as to what was done about the aforementioned request. However, Jesus stated to Philip and Andrew (perhaps in the hearings of these Greeks), that the hour was at hand when the Son of man was to be glorified. The last word is explained in the comments at verse 16. This glorification was to take place in Heaven, which had to be preceded by His death and resurrection. That brought the conversation to the point where it was necessary to say something about the death of Jesus, which will be the subject in the next verse. 4 The original word for corn is defined "grain" in the lexicon. Jesus used the subject to show why his death was necessary. If a grain could be kept alive, it would never be able to grow into another stock of the species. All that its owner would have would be the single grain; no reproduction. Likewise, if Christ had not died, he would never have produced others to share with him in the glorified state. 5 The meaning of this verse is set forth at some length in the comments on Matthew 10:39, as it pertains to the two kinds of life. As the word hate is used here, it Is defined by Thayer to mean, "To love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight." Robinson defines it, "Not to love, to love less, to slight." 6 Serve is from a different Greek word from the one that suggests a slave. It means to minister to or wait upon, such as serving one with the necessities of life. No one can render such service to Christ today directly. But that kind of service can be given to his disciples as he taught in Matthew 25:35-40. On the principle that such service is regarded by Jesus as if it were done for him personally, so the Father will honor that servant for his loving ministry as having been done for his Son. But this material ministration should be considered only as one phase of our service to Christ. We should be even more concerned with rendering service to Him in the great Cause for which he died and "fell into the ground." 7 Troubled means to be agitated, which was the condition of mind that was upon the Saviour. He was beginning to feel the awful emotions that came to him in greater force later in the garden. Save me from this hour was equivalent to his prayer for the removal of the "cup," mentioned in Matthew 26:39. More will be said on that subject when we come to John 18:11. Jesus asked his Father to save him from this hour (not the cross). When later He prayed "if it be possible" let the cup pass, it meant virtually the same resignation of spirit that is expressed here in the words, for this cause came I unto this Dour. The human nature of Jesus longed for relief from his mental suffering, but his divine knowledge told him that he must endure it. 8 The original word for glorify as used here is defined by Thayer as follows: "To make renowned, render illustrious, i. e., to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged." God answered the prayer of Jesus in an audible voice but in words the people did not understand. This made the third time God spoke with words that could be heard; at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:17), and at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5), being the other two. That voice was not heard in audible form again that we have any account of, but the Almighty demonstrated his majesty on behalf of his Son more than once afterward, particularly when he raised him from the dead. 9 The voice from heaven was somewhat indistinct so that the people did not understand it, yet sufficiently different from the noise of thunder that some of them knew it was some form of speech addressed to Jesus in answer to his prayer, and they interpreted it to be the voice of an angel. 0 Jesus did not need the voice of his Father to satisfy Him, but some kind of demonstration was necessary as evidence for the crowd. 1 Now denotes that the time was very near when the great test was to be made. Jesus was soon to be slain as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and thus counteract the work of the prince of this world. Chapter 14:30; 16:11; Luke 4:6; Ephesians 2:2, shows this prince is Satan. 2 This verse is directly connected with the preceding one, showing that Christ was to be lifted up on the cross to accomplish the sacrifice. Draw all men unto me. Jesus never contradicted himself, and since he taught (Matthew 7:13-14) that most people will be lost, he would not here teach that all would come to him. The point is with reference to what person was to be the most important drawing power. Hitherto it had been the influence of Satan and his agents, but the lifting up on the cross of the Son of man would draw men to Him and not Satan. 3 This verse is added to indicate that the lifting up mentioned in the preceding one was to be a literal action upon his body. 4 As usual, the people failed to recognize in Jesus a person who was both human and divine. As a result, they could not understand how he could die bodily, and yet establish a kingdom that would "stand forever." 5 Jesus did not give the people a direct reply, for he had already given them many lessons about his great work in cooperation with his Father, and they seemed to be overlooked by most of them. But he intimated that his personal instructions would soon be ended, and they should make use of them while they could. 6 Jesus gave them one more parting exhortation to walk in the light that had been offered to them, then he disappeared from the crowd. 7 The hardness of men's hearts prevents them from taking a fair view of the plainest evidences. The miracles that Jesus performed were so many and under such varied circumstances, that it should have been more difficult to doubt than to believe. 8 God never did force a man to do wrong; but He knows all about the future, and can see the actions of men for centuries before they are born. With such knowledge of the future, God inspired his prophets to write about it. The common phrase "that it might be fulfilled," means the same as if it said, "and in so doing, it fulfilled," etc. The prophecy of Esaias (Isaiah) cited is in chapter 53:1 of his book. 9 Could not. The first word is from DUNAMAI, and the definitions of Thayer and Robinson agree, but the latter is clearer and I shall quote it as follows: "To be able, I can." He then adds the following explanations: "Both in a physical and moral sense, and whether depending on the disposition and faculties of the mind, on the degree of strength or skill, or on the nature and external circumstances of the case." Upon further consideration, I think it will be helpful to quote Thayer's definition also: "To be able, have power," and his comments are, "Whether by virtue of one's own ability and resources, or a state of mind, or through favorable circumstances." This information from the lexicons teaches us that these people had deliberately closed their eyes and hardened their hearts against the light of God's truth. In such a state of mind they could not believe in the sense of the word as explained by the lexicons. Because that Esaias said means that Esaias (Isaiah) said it because God knew it would happen, and caused the prophet to write it. (See comments, preceding verse.) 0 This verse is to be understood in the light of comments on verses 38. 39. 1 The account of this vision is in Isaiah 6:1-10. Saw his glory is described in the first four verses of the passage cited. 2 The significance of being put out of the synagogue is set forth at chapter 9:22, 23. But though it was a great privilege to be admitted to these assemblies, neither that nor any other personal advantage should have been counted above the honor of being a believer in Christ. 3 This verse states the motive of the conduct mentioned in the preceding one. It is hard to understand, but perhaps it is because the favor of God is connected with requirement that one shall sacrifice some of his selfish practices. 4 Jesus means that believing on him did not stop there; it includes belief in God also. The truth is that no man can truthfully say he believes on either the Father or the Son without believing on the other. 5 This verse embraces the same principle as the preceding, but the difference is due to the personalities of the two. In order for man to see Jesus, he had to take on himself the fleshly body. But in spirit and purpose they are the same, so that seeing Jesus was virtually equivalent to seeing God. 6 By coming into the world in human form, Jesus was enabled to bring the light of Heaven within the grasp of man, thereby delivering him from spiritual darkness. 7 The original word for judge has several shades of meaning; one of them is, "to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong." The world had already been pronounced wrong or "in unbelief" (Romans 11:32) before Jesus came into it, hence he did not come for that purpose. Instead, He came to provide a plan whereby the world might be saved from its bondage of unbelief. 8 If a man rejects the plan offered by Jesus for his salvation, then God will judge him in the last day. When that day arrives, God will bring condemnation upon the disobedient man, finding him guilty under the words that were spoken by his Son, and using him as the acting judge (Acts 17:31). 9 It will be consistent for the Father to judge the unbeliever by the words of Jesus, because He has delivered to mankind the words that his Father gave him. 0 Jesus could speak in this positive manner about the laws of his Father, because he was with Him from the beginning, and had direct and personal knowledge of their eternal character. (See John 1:1; John 1:14.) David Lipscomb Commentary On John 13 HE WASHED THE ’ FEETJoh_13:1-11 1 Now before the feast of the passover,—[How long before is not specified. I take it to mean just before. This feast re¬fers to the eating of the paschal lamb.] Jesus knowing that his hour was come—[The exact hour was close at hand— the time was come. The preliminaries had already begun.] that he should depart out of this world unto the Father,— [Calvary was no accident. Jesus knew that he would die on the morrow.] having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them unto the end.—[I take “ his own” here to mean his disciples. They were “ in the world,” and were to remain in the world, exposed to its temptations and trials. He is filled with a ten¬der sympathy for them, knowing that they are soon to be de¬prived of his presence and counsel. Having given them abun¬dant proofs of his love in word and deed heretofore, now at the close of his intercourse he will give them a crowning proof in the acts and words of this memorial night.] The Passover was approaching when he knew that he must suffer and die. The knowledge of his approaching sufferings did not destroy his interest in his disciples, but rather increased unto the end. Indeed all the sufferings that he endured were for the sake of these disciples— not the world. He suffered all for them and his desire for their happiness increased as the end approached. This was said in view of what follows. 2 And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’ s son, to betray him,—This is Thursday evening as is generally believed. On the day pre¬vious, Judas had bargained with the chief priests and elders to betray him. It was to be done in the absence of the crowds without strife or confusion. The Common Version reads: “ After supper” ; the Revised, “ During supper.” A better ren¬dering than either is the Bible Union Version, which renders it, “ Supper being served, ready to be eaten.” It was after it was served, ready to be eaten, knowing all things about to occur, after they had seated themselves at the table. Jesus arose and washed the feet of his disciples. [The fact that the devil put into Judas’ heart to betray Jesus does not exculpate or excuse Judas. It is true that Satan may cast darts of temp¬tation into the heart, but we need not allow them to rankle. We are not responsible for the evil thought suggested by the devil, but we are responsible for harboring it and acting upon it] 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God,—To understand this, we must look at the circumstances attending. It was the Passover to which no unclean person could approach. When the Jews came up to Jerusalem to observe the Passover, they purified themselves: “ Now the passover of the Jews was at hand: and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the passover, to purify themselves.” (10: 55.) These disciples of the Lord had thus prepared themselves when they came to the city of Jerusalem; but in passing to and from the city were liable to have their feet contaminated by the touch of something unclean, and to avoid this, after they approached the supper, their feet were washed. This was the occasion of the washing at this time, hence the language of Jesus to Peter: “ He that is bathed need eth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.” (Verse 10.) They had been purified when they came to the city and now only needed the washing of the feet to be clean entirely so they could partake of the Passover supper. Another fact that should not be overlooked is that “ there arose also a contention among them, which of them was accounted to be greatest.” (Luke 22:24.) This was after they came to the table. The washing of one another’ s feet, it seems proba¬ble, gave rise to this contention. The humbler should wash the feet of the greater was the rule among the Jews. While they were disputing over this and to reprove them for their untimely contention, Jesus prepared himself to wash their feet. This gives significance to Peter’ s language: “ Thou shalt never wash my feet.” While contending with his fellow disciples that some of them should do it, the emphasis was that Jesus should not. The presence of the basin and towels at the place indicate the correctness of this statement. [Here Jesus asserts anew his divinity and anticipates his ascension. He did not allow the treachery working in the heart of Judas to prevent him from doing what follows. He did not wash Judas’ feet in ignorance that he would betray him, but with full knowledge of it.] 4 riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and he took a towel, and girded himself.—While they were contend¬ing who should wash the feet of the others, Jesus laid aside his outside robe and girdle as a servant does and tied the towel around his waist. 5 Then he poureth water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel where¬with he was girded.—He then proceeded to perform the office of a servant. 6 So he cometh to Simon Peter. He saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?—With whom he began it is not certain. It may mean, in beginning to do the work, he came to Peter first. If he did not begin with Peter, the one with whom he began seems to have made no remonstrance. This question of Peter, with the reply of Jesus, seems to show that he came first to Peter with water before he had washed any others. 7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou know- est not how; but thou shalt understand hereafter.—What Jesus did Peter did not now understand, but when he came to know the true spirit and mission of Jesus he would understand the significance of the service he rendered them. Connect with this the teaching recorded by Luke (Luke 22:24-27) in reproof of the strife as to who is greatest: “ And there arose also a contention among them, which of them was accounted to be greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gen-tiles have lordship over them; and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For which is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am in the midst of you as he that serveth.” [This is not a mere foot washing, for then another and not I ought to have performed it. It is a symbol. Peter ought to have realized the meaning of these words, but, with his usual rashness, answers hastily.] 8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet.— Peter with his impulsiveness and promptness, in deciding and acting, told Jesus he could never submit to so dishonoring Jesus as to permit him to wash his feet. [He is stupid. He does not realize that Jesus must have a lofty reason. He only sees the humiliation of the Master he loves and he cannot bear it.] Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.—This response of Jesus may have a deeper and more farreaching meaning than we are in the habit of seeing in it. If I wash thee not, if I cleanse thee not, thou hast no part with me. [Your part is submission to my will. It is not for you to question— only to obey. Make your choice, submission or exclusion.] The reply of Jesus had a double meaning. The question of purification was brought out again: If I purify you not, you have no part with me. While this literal washing was primarily referred to, the deeper significance of a spiritual purification was implied. (Revelation 1:5-6.) 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.—Peter with the same quick and decisive spirit asks him to wash his face and his hands also. [Here is the same Peter who rushes upon the water and a moment afterwards cries, “ I perish!” Who strikes with the sword and who takes to flight, who enters into the presence of the high priest and yet denies his Master. The loyalty of heart which was under all this insubordination speaks out here. If it is a question of union with thee, wash me completely. Consecrate my whole body. He still does not enter fully into the thought. He is imagining something efficacious in the physical act. [Peter, with his earnestness and impulsiveness, seeing his favor with Jesus depended on his being washed by him runs to the other extreme and asks him not only to wash his feet, but his hands and head also. “ Wash me all over,” in other words. 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is bathed—[He who has washed his whole body once for the day.] needeth not save to wash his feet,—[Which may have become soiled from the defilements of the road.] But since they had been purified and only the feet had been exposed to contamination, only the feet needed to be washed and the whole person was cleansed. but is clean every whit:—[In all other particulars. So he who, by earnestly attaching himself to Christ, has broken with sin once for all has no need at each particular defilement to begin anew this general consecration; he has only to cleanse himself from the stain by confession and recourse to Christ.] and ye are clean, but not all.—Here he gives a spiritual sig-nificance to his language and says that not only the body was clean, but they were all spiritually clean, save one, whom he knew would betray him. [There was one of the little crowd who had not spiritually bathed himself, to whom mere foot washing would do no good.] 11 For he knew him that should betray him.—Jesus already knew that Judas had bargained to betray him. therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.—After the service had been performed, he asked if they knew the significance of it. [By expressing in this way the grief which they thought his crime caused him to feel, Jesus makes a last effort to bring Judas to repentance. And if he does not succeed, he will at least have shown to his disciples that he was not the dupe of his hypocrisy. (Verse 19.)] HE ON THE WASHING John 13:12-2012 So when he had washed their feet,—[Peter therefore submitted, and his feet were washed with the rest.] and taken his garments, and sat down again, he said unto them,—[The object lesson is over. Now comes the explanation of its teaching.] Know ye what I have done to you?—[You know the literal act, but do you understand its significance, the spiritual application?] 13 Ye call me, Teacher, and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.—They all recognized him as their Teacher and Ruler. [Jesus exalts his relationship to them in order that the lesson to be drawn from his act of humility may be the stronger.] The word “ Lord” has a distinct meaning, and in reading the word of God that meaning should be kept in mind. You call me your Ruler and Teacher. “ And ye say well [or rightly]; for so I am.” He had come from God to teach them. They had left all to follow him, as his servants and pupils. He im¬presses the relationship and his superiority upon them, for, without feeling this, they could not understand the lesson he was teaching them. 14 If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’ s feet.—I have per¬formed the office of a servant for you and you ought to do such acts for one another. 15 For I have given you an example,— He is enforcing on this occasion the great lesson of his mission—that the true end of the servant of God is to serve and not to be served, that men and angels will find their highest and best good in helping others. Man can bless himself only by blessing others. that ye also should do as I have done to you.—This washing of the feet was the cleansing that they might eat the passover supper. The special service could not again occur save on a similar occasion. As the Passover passed away or was swallowed up in Christ, our Passover, the same service might occur. But the principle taught in this by example was: let him that would be greatest be servant of all. There is nothing in this that could indicate a special ordinance or formal observance to be perpetuated in the church. The foot washing of both the Old Testament and the New were acts of helpful kindness when needed. [To take these words as a command to establish the church ordinance of foot washing, as some have done, is to utterly miss the spirit of the whole scene, and the great lesson it was intended to convey.] 16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him.—If the Master could perform such acts for the servants, the servants should not object to doing it for one another. I send you— do not think you are better than I. If you are my servants, as you are sent by me, you should not feel yourselves above doing what I do; you should follow my footsteps and be led by the Spirit that moves me. 17 If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them.—If they understood the lessons taught it would add much to their happiness if they would do them. The spirit that is willing to serve is one that will always bring happiness, and without which true happiness cannot be attained. A person that is always expecting and exacting deference will be unhappy. Seek to show deference, let such esteem others better than themselves, is the spirit that Christ inculcates and is one that will bring happiness in time and eternity. What will bring true happiness in time will also bring it in eternity and vice versa. Then if you have understood these things, you shall be blessed if you do them. The principle of helping the helpless, of weeping with those that weep, and of encouraging the lowly and encouraging the sinful to sin no more is the essential and fundamental spirit of Jesus Christ and his holy reli¬gion, and to cultivate the spirit and practice of doing good to others is the work that fits mortals for the home with him for¬ever. 18 I speak not of you all:—In these commendatory remarks he embraces all save Judas. I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.—He fulfilled the prophecy of Psa 41:9. The action of Judas fulfilled this scripture rather than he did it to fulfill it. The scripture foretold it because it would be done. 19 From henceforth I tell you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.—Jesus foretold the treason of Judas as of other things that would occur at once to prepare them for what would be done, and that after they came to pass as he foretold they would, they might see his divine foreknowledge and believe in him as the Son of God. 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.—In connection with the assertion of his authority he tells them that those he might send out would go clothed with his authority as he was clothed with the authority of him who sent him, and the treatment given them and their message would be received as done to himself. [Those who received the apostles not only received the messengers of Christ, but Christ himself. To receive Christ would be to receive the Father who sent him.] John 13:21-30 21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in the spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.—After saying these things, his mind recurred to the treason of Judas, and the sufferings before him and this troubled him. Jesus had all the repugnance of a strong sensitive nature to suffering and he shrank from it, as his prayer “ remove this cup from me” indicates, and he repeats in sorrowful tones “ that one of you shall betray me.” 22 The disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.—The disciples, save Judas, did not know to whom he referred. So wondering and inquiring glances were exchanged in doubt as to whom he referred. There seems to have been nothing in the conduct of Judas heretofore that directs suspicion or attention to him as the person to whom reference was made, notwithstanding it had been said that he was a thief in carrying the bag. 23 There was at the table reclining in Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples,—It is said that the persons at the table reclined on couches placed around the table, each resting on the left elbow, leaving the right hand free for use. One in front of the other could easily turn the head and rest on the bosom of the person behind. whom Jesus loved.—John who is known as the beloved of Jesus occupied this position nearest Jesus. 24 Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh.—Peter, always prompt and forward in every case that arose, beckoned to John to ask which it was that should betray him. 25 He leaning back, as he was, on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?—[John complied with the request of Peter and asked, “ Who is it?” All innocent parties were interested in knowing who he was.] 26 Jesus therefore answereth, He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him. So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.—He dipped the sop and gave it to Judas Iscariot and in this way pointed him out as the person. This exposed Judas to the disciples as the traitor. It let him know that Jesus knew that he had already bargained to betray him. 27 And after the sop, then entered Satan into him.—[Up to this time he had doubts and impulses to do better, but now he gives himself up wholly to Satan's work. He was already under his influence, but now he plunges headlong into the bottomless pit.] Satan had entered into Judas and led him to go to the priests to bargain for his betrayal, now he enters to prompt him to put his purpose into execution. Jesus therefore saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly.—The time had come and Jesus desired that what he did should be done and completed. [Judas was not fully exposed. Christ knew he had covenanted to betray him, and bids him do it at once. He desired the wicked deed to be done that night and for the traitor to leave the little band at once so that he might be alone to give a last charge to the faithful disciples.] 28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.—Those at the table did not understand the significance of the language. 29 For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what things we have need of for the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.—Judas kept the treasury that the apostles had, and out of it things were bought for the feast and the poor were helped. They expected something would be done promptly. There is difficulty in harmonizing all the facts connected with the Passover by Jesus. He had partaken of the Passover at this time, but he speaks of the feast yet future. Again on the next day the priests that accused Jesus did not go into Pilate’ s judgment hall “ that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.” (18: 28.) This would imply that the passover was not yet eaten. Two explanations are offered for this. One is that Jesus ate the passover at the appointed hour, but that throughout the week of the feast there were other meals to be eaten, and as no unleaven bread could be used during the week so all had to keep themselves clean for this eating during the week, and this language refers to some feasting at a later day of the week. The other theory is that Jesus ate the passover as is attested (Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-18; Luke 22:7-15), but that he ate it the evening before the regular time, and he himself was slain at the hour of slaying the paschal lamb, intended to typify the slaying of Jesus. This latter seems to me probable. He could not be slain at the time for slaying the passover lamb and eat the passover at the accustomed time too. He chose to die at the appointed hour and so was compelled to anticipate the time of eating it. 30 He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night.—Judas having been pointed out as the per¬son who should betray him and admonished to do it at once, immediately left the table and went out on his mission. JESUS HIS SPEEDY Joh_13:31-35 31 When therefore he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him;—Judas, leaving on this mission, brought more vividly to his mind that the time was now come for the tragedy that would end in his resurrection, ascension, and glorification at the right hand of God. He looks beyond the sorrows to this end. God would be glorified in glorifying Jesus. ' [The hour has come and Jesus is about ready to go through his bloody pathway into the presence of his Father. The disciples will be left without him to meet the trials and persecutions of the earth. The time has arrived for him to pour forth the deepest feelings of his soul in their behalf. In the discourse that follows he comforts, consoles, instructs, and points them to the glory, power, and grace of their Lord. He strives as never before to reveal himself to the disciples so fully that every doubt of his divin¬ity shall pass away when the darkness and gloom that gathered around his tomb shall have been dispelled by a deep knowledge of his glory.] 32 and God shall glorify him in himself, and straightway shall he glorify him.—The glorification is mutual. God glori¬fies himself in exalting and glorifying Jesus. So Jesus is glo¬rified in glorifying those who honor him. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you.—He spoke to them tenderly because they were but children in their ignorance of what was before them. He had often told them that he must die, be buried, and rise the third day, but in their weakness and blindness they failed to take it in. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say unto you.—He tells his disciples, as he had told the Jews before, that soon he would leave them and they could not come to him while he was absent. He would die, they would be scattered, and for a little while be in distress and doubt over their condition. [He would be in the grave and while there they could not come to him; but he comforts them by assuring them that he would come to them again.] 34 A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another;—This was given in anticipation of what would befall them. Moses had said unto them, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Leviticus 19:18.) even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.—Jesus introduced a higher order of love— a love that caused him to leave heaven, come to earth, and suffer and die for them. His disciples must partake of the same degree or measure of love, and give up earthly and temporal good for their spiritual and eternal good. [The commandment to love was not new, but such love as Jesus commanded was. This love demands that we give up all as Jesus did.] 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.—By this self-denying love for one another, partaking of the love he manifested all men should know that they were his disciples. [The presence of such love does more than cause those who see it working in others to marvel. It points them to Christ as its author, for all must admit, when it shines forth in its excellency, that it is of heavenly origin. When it is fully exhibited men know that those who possess it are the disciples of Christ.] PETER’ S DENIAL John 13:36-38 36 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow afterwards.—[Peter does not yet comprehend the Lord’ s death. We now come to one of the saddest points recorded by John, that is, the last moments the Lord spent with his own before his suffering, a moment in which he speaks words full of tenderness and heavenly meaning. The Lord’ s way was to the cross, the sepulchre, the ascension, and to heaven. Peter might follow in due time, but the Lord had other work for him now. The Lord does not answer his question directly. Tradition says that Peter did follow Christ to the cross in death. He was also crucified.] 37 Peter saith unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now? I will lay down my life for thee.—Peter felt mortified by Jesus saying that they could not follow him now. He felt that Jesus had implied that they had not the courage and fidelity to follow him, and Peter really felt that he was ready to die for and with Jesus, and why could he not go with Jesus wherever he went. Peter was in this claiming the same love for Jesus that Jesus had for them. Peter was sincere and thought he was ready to die with Jesus, but he did not understand himself. He was rashly bold and courageous, but when the conditions called for discreet and patient endurance without display Peter failed. Jesus knew what was in Peter. He knew the good and he knew also his weakness. 38 Jesus answereth, Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.—John refers to but one cock crowing. The other writers refer to two. There are two times for cockcrowing. At midnight the cock crows, but only a little. At three o’ clock in the morning the principal cock- crowing takes place. When only one is spoken of as the cock- crowing, the three o’ clock, when the chief crowing occurs, is meant. When two are spoken of, both the twelve o’ clock crowing and the main one at three o’ clock are referred to. When Jesus said to Peter, “ The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice,’’ he meant before the second or time for the main crowing, or as we would say, “ Before three o’ clock you will deny me.” When John says, “ The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice,” he means the chief crowing of the cock will not take place till thou hast denied me thrice. Both mean you will deny me before three o’ clock. (“ The Lord reveals to him his weakness. It was then night. Before the cock shall crow for the dawn of the next morning he will have thrice denied his Lord. For the fulfillment of this prediction, see Luke 22:54-60. Peter had bravely attempted to defend his Master with a sword when the company came, led by Judas, but when Christ was led away, he ‘ followed afar off.’ His courage was departing. First, in the hall of the high priest, he denied to the maidservant that he knew Christ, then a little while later he denied to another. About an hour later another said, ‘ Of a truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean.’ And Peter denied with oaths, declaring, ‘ Man, I know not what thou sayest.’ Just then the cock crowed for the approach of day.” ] Verse 1 A dramatic break in the outline of this Gospel appears here. The previous chapters related to Jesus' revelation to the chosen people who rejected him, and with significant overtones of revelation to the entire world. Beginning here, the narrative develops Jesus' special revelation to the disciples who received him, despite the betrayal by Judas and Peter's denial. This chapter details the washing of the apostles' feet (John 13:1-11), the statement of Jesus' purpose in the painful disclosures about to be made (John 13:12-20), the identification of the traitor (John 13:21-30), the new commandment (John 13:31-35), and the prophecy of Peter's denial (John 13:36-38). This section, which begins here and extends through John 20, records the events of the final week, climaxed by the resurrection. Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them unto the end. (John 13:1) Before the feast of the passover ... We take these words in their simplest and most obvious sense as declaring that the supper about to be narrated occurred in advance of the Jewish Passover; and, although it resembled the passover in so many details, it was nevertheless not technically the passover. Jesus was crucified on the Preparation (John 19:31), and the passover was eaten after sundown the day Jesus died. There is no way the Passover itself could have been called the Preparation. The synoptics are in perfect harmony with this, Matthew making it clear that Jesus ate this meal reclining (Matthew 26:20), which he would not have done had it been the passover. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:19. Knowing that his hour was come ... Christ was fully aware, throughout his ministry, of the Father's ordering of all of his steps and was fully conscious that the moment of his offering upon the cross was at hand. He loved them unto the end ... might also be rendered, "unto the uttermost." See the marginal reading. The true meaning probably includes both thoughts. It was the great love of Jesus for his own that motivated his supreme act of giving himself up to die for the remission of sins. Verse 2 And during supper, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him.The devil ... The great protagonist of evil on earth is a person, called here the devil, and identified as Satan throughout the Bible. He is a being of supernatural power but is himself a creature and does not share control of the universe with God. Satan has the power to suggest and motivate evil deeds, as here; but this power is effective only in those souls who have consented to evil domination. Judas had already consented to sin and readily became the instrument of Satan through an act of his own volition. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 4:2; 8:26,32; 112:29; 28:11,15. Judas Iscariot, Simon's son ... JUDAS Judas was named one of the Twelve by Jesus and, along with the others, was commissioned to "heal the sick and raise the dead" (Matthew 10:7); and it must therefore be inferred that at the time of his call Judas was not evil. However, by the time of the great defection recorded in John 6, Judas had fallen. "One of you is a devil" (John 6:70), Jesus said, which is sometimes amended to read, "a devil from the beginning," which of course is not true. A deduction from the events recorded in John 6 indicates that Judas, like so many of his countrymen, expected a temporal Messiah; and the knowledge that Jesus would never be that kind of Messiah turned his heart away from the Lord. In any case, he became unsympathetic to the ideals of the Master, used the common treasury, which he carried, for his own purposes, and drifted more and more into rebellion and defiance, even betraying the Lord, at last, for thirty pieces of silver. Judas, like all people, had freedom of the will and might have elected a more honorable course, but chose instead to betray the Lord. The thesis so often advocated that people "are not responsible for what they do,"[1] and that society is to blame for the vicious acts of criminals is negated by the record of Judas. Wherein did Jesus fail the traitor? See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:49. That Judas was truly an apostle at first is verified by the sacred record that he "by transgression fell" (Acts 1:25 KJV). It is axiomatic that one cannot fall from an eminence that he does not have. Some have sought to extenuate Judas' sin on the grounds that he probably expected Jesus to extricate himself by some supernatural act, or upon the theory that he "atoned" for his misdeed by returning the money and committing suicide. All sins can be rationalized, and Judas might indeed have rationalized the betrayal; but all such rationalizations of criminal behavior are futile. The deed of betrayal itself was one of unique shame and ugliness. The death of Judas and the disposition of the returned money are discussed in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:10, where particular attention is given to the alleged contradiction in the two accounts of Judas' death. ENDNOTE: [1] Clarence Darrow, Autobiography (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932), p. 76. Verse 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God, riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and he took a towel and girded himself.All things into his hands ... The Lord was about to give an object lesson in humility, but it was given in full consciousness of his power and Godhead. John was more perceptive in his association of the Godhead of Jesus with the darkest hours of the Lord's humiliation. Matthew mentioned "all authority" as belonging to Christ but associated it with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Of course, both Gospels are correct. Riseth from supper ... If this had been the passover, Jesus could not have eaten it reclining (Exodus 12:11). Jesus rose up from the reclining position customary at meals in those days, laid aside his outer robe, or garment, and girded himself with a towel, the clothing suggestive of a slave. Verse 5 Then he poureth water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.The background of this moving incident includes the jealousy of the Twelve among themselves as to who was "greatest," a jealousy that had been aggravated by the request of Zebedee's wife that James and John should have the chief seats in the new kingdom. The disciples' concern over questions like this could have been the reason that none of them volunteered to perform the menial task of washing feet. No one made a move; and, apparently, the supper had actually begun without the customary footwashing having taken place. This was not a ceremonial act at all, but a necessity due to the type of sandals worn and the dusty condition of all roads in those days. It would have been uncomfortable for them to have continued without washing their feet; but, since the task was usually performed by servants, and none of those disciples jockeying for position as "head man" in the kingdom would touch so menial a task, the Lord did it! In this act he truly took upon him the form of a servant (Philippians 2:1-9). Verse 6 So he cometh to Simon Peter. He saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?Peter was certainly among them who coveted the position of "head man" in the coming kingdom; and the paradox of Jesus the Lord of life stooping to wash his feet was such an incongruous thing that Peter protested it. Verse 7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt understand hereafter.The Lord was in the act of teaching an incredibly effective lesson in humility; but the full significance of it would not be realized by any of the apostles until long afterward. Verse 8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.Thou shalt never wash my feet ... Peter was like many in all ages who suppose that certain kinds of work are demeaning; but, in this marvelous episode, the Lord dignified the work of a slave by taking the towel into his own hands. If I wash thee not ... Here Jesus spoke of washing in a different sense. Unless Peter should be washed of his false pride and ambition, unless he should share in that ultimate cleansing of the soul that would result from Jesus' sacrifice, thus being truly "washed," he could have no part with Jesus. Verse 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and head.Peter vacillated between extremes. He could walk on the water and then cry out a moment later for help. He confessed Christ but promptly assumed a stance of rebuking the Lord. He affirmed undying loyalty to Christ and denied him the same day. Here he first refused Jesus' washing of his feet and then demanded to be washed all over. Some have explained this latter act as an over-enthusiastic submission to Jesus' will, but there is more to it than that. Peter mistakenly thought that Jesus was still referring to the physical act of foot-washing, when actually he was referring to the spiritual cleansing so much needed by Peter and all of them. Verse 10 Jesus saith unto him, He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet: and ye are clean, but not all.It is not necessary to construe the first part of this reply of Jesus as something mysterious and deep beyond human comprehension. It meant, "Only your feet need washing." It is only at the end of this verse that Jesus left off speaking of physical things, the final clause being intended spiritually. Verse 11 For he knew him that should betray him; and therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.Jesus' thoughts in this incident are quite clear. While literally washing the disciples' feet in order to teach them humility, the thought suddenly came to him: "This physical uncleanness is not really the big problem; it is their spiritual cleanliness which is needed." For discussion of Judas Iscariot, see under John 13:2. The thought of their spiritual cleanliness, or rather uncleanness, encompassing the treachery of Judas and the denial of Peter, led to the painful revelation of those events later during the supper. Verse 12 So when he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and sat down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done unto you?In John 13:4, it was stated that Jesus laid aside his garments, and here that he took them again. This laying aside and taking again of his garments has been referred by some to the analogy of Jesus' laying aside his eternal glory in order to enter human life and perform the act of human redemption, after which he resumed his eternal glory, thus making the incident of the foot-washing a figure of the salvation accomplished. The reading of rather lengthy discussions of this has failed, however, to persuade this student that any such analogy was intended. What the episode really meant, Jesus explained. "Do you know ..." has the weight of "Do you really know the meaning of what I have done unto you?" Verse 13 Ye call me Teacher, and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.Lord ... The use of this term by the apostles shows the exalted nature of their concept of Jesus Christ, thus hailing him as the divine ruler of life. The use of "Teacher" along with this title does not diminish the impact of it. Verse 14 If I then, the Lord, and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet.Jesus' reversal of the two titles, placing "Lord" first, is significant, because it is as "Lord" that he must be confessed (Romans 10:9). This dramatically emphasized his humility in washing their feet. Menial service for one's fellow Christians is taught by this example. Verse 15 I have given you an example, that ye also should do as I have done unto you.This verse is the anchor of certain religious teachings which would honor as a continuing ordinance the ceremony of washing feet; but this was not a ceremony in any sense of the word. As Lipscomb noted: There is nothing in this that could indicate a special ordinance or formal observance to be perpetuated in the church. The foot washing of both the Old Testament and the New Testament was an act of helpful kindness when needed.[2]Footwashing was a social custom of those times, founded on the wearing of sandals and the prevalence of dusty roads; and at the time Jesus washed the disciples' feet, it filled a definite need, a need no longer in existence and which, if feigned in some kind of ceremony, amounts only to play-acting. Certainly, the Lord did not say of this, as he said of the communion, "This do until I come." No apostolic instructions have come down to us with reference to when, where, or how such a thing should be observed; and the fair conclusion is that it was never observed as any kind of a religious ceremony during the times of the holy apostles. Also, it is not amiss to point out that the ceremonial washing of CLEAN feet by some religious groups today bears no resemblance whatever to what the Lord did here. Paul instructed Timothy regarding the enrollment of widows on the list of the church's charities thus: Well reported of for good works; if she hath brought up children, if she hath used hospitality to strangers, if she hath washed the saints' feet, if she hath relieved the afflicted, if she hath diligently followed every good work (1 Timothy 5:10). In Paul's words here, foot washing appears in a list of good works and on a parity with bringing up children and showing hospitality to strangers; and, until churches are willing to ceremonialize the other good works of this passage, it seems that they should also refrain from ceremonializing foot washing. Hendriksen said: No, he is not commanding the disciples to do WHAT he did; but he has given them AN EXAMPLE in order that they, of their own accord, may do as he has done .... Jesus has shown his humility under their very eyes.[3][2] David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 210. [3] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 235. Verse 16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him.An expression similar to this was used by Jesus to show that his disciples would be hated and persecuted like himself (Matthew 10:24; John 15:20), and that the disciples of the Pharisees were as blind as their leaders (Luke 6:40). Tertullian made the words of this verse a mandate that no disciple might advocate a doctrine contrary to the teachings of the Lord, saying, "If Marcion be even a disciple, he is not yet `above his Master.'"[4] Here, Jesus taught that disciples should not hold themselves above performing menial tasks for each other. ENDNOTE: [4] Tertullian, De Fuge in Persecutione, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), Vol. IV, p. 119. Verse 17 If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them.It is not in the mere knowledge of sacred truth, but in the faithful obedience of it, that men are blessed. Taken alone, this verse might be interpreted as meaning that merely doing the truth would bless the doer; but such is not exactly the truth for knowing and doing truth bless them that are in the true fellowship with Jesus. One of the Twelve (Judas) was not in fellowship; and, therefore, Jesus promptly indicated the exception. Verse 18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the Scripture might be fulfilled, he that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.McGarvey paraphrased this thus: I do not speak of blessing you all, for there is one who shall never be blessed. His conduct does not deceive or surprise me, for I know those whom I have chosen whether they be good or bad.[5]That the Scripture might be fulfilled ... Even the treachery of an apostle was prophesied in Psalms 41:9, which reads: Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, Who did eat of my bread, Hath lifted up his heel against me. Of the Twelve, only Judas carried the bag and sat next to Jesus at the table, even dipping his hand in the dish with him. The Psalm cited, therefore, has the effect of a positive identification of Judas as the traitor. There is no implication in this, that Jesus chose Judas for the purpose of the betrayal. God's foreseeing future events imposes upon those events no necessity of happening, any more than a mortal's knowledge of past events caused them to occur. ENDNOTE: [5] J. W. McGarvey, The Fourth Gospel (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1914), p. 651. Verse 19 From henceforth I tell you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.The treachery of Judas and denial of Peter were events of such negative force that Jesus moved to protect his disciples against the impact which such actions would have upon their faith. The whole terrible ordeal of the trials, crucifixion, and death, was almost upon them; and the apostles were here schooled against the very worst that could happen. That I am he ... Jesus never lost sight of the fact which he came into the world to establish, namely, that he was God appearing in human form, entitled to human worship and adoration upon the part of all who would enter into eternal life, and himself being the source of that eternal life. Even negative events like the betrayal and denial were laid under tribute to maintain and buttress the apostles' faith, this being accomplished by the Lord's accurate prophecy of them. Verse 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.The rejection of Jesus is the rejection of God. This was a constant theme of Jesus' entire ministry, and it means that Jesus is God come in the flesh. It was probably reiterated here in the final hope that Judas might, even at that late hour, repent. Verse 21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in the spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. The disciples looked one on another doubting of whom he spake.The prophecy had been quoted, along with the fact that a familiar friend would betray the Lord, and Jesus had taken the trouble to reveal his reason for the sad disclosure about to be made. Therefore, he would now become specific; the traitor would be singled out, and the sacred company would soon be rid of his presence. One of you shall betray me ... was a shocking announcement. Each disciple seems to have found some sense of evil in his own heart; and they began to question, "Is it I?" (Mark 14:19). What a dark hour it was when the innermost circle of the Lord's followers read the stain of sin within themselves and pondered the awful prophecy that one of themselves would betray him. A baleful doubting fell upon them all. He was troubled in spirit ... No wonder the Lord was troubled. The agony approaching was more than enough to fill the soul with dread, even the soul of the Blessed; but there was also the problem of the Twelve. Could they stand the acid test they were about to endure? It was the hour of darkness and the powers of evil. All the powers of hell would surge to their zenith and the full tides of evil reach their flood upon the cross. How could that little band, eating a last meal together in an upper room, overcome the gargantuan wickedness that would lay the Son of God in a tomb? How could they, without any of the sophisticated tools of wealth, education, and power, cope with the horrors about to be unfolded? The secret of their eventual triumph was disclosed in the first verse of this chapter, "He loved them to the uttermost!" That love proved to be motivation enough to overcome all human weakness. The troubling of Jesus' spirit here gave way, later on, to his brimming confidence that evil would be defeated. "Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" ( John 16:33). Verse 23 There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh.At the table reclining ... According to the custom of the times, the guests surrounded the table, which was not an elevated platform at all, such as modern tables, but only a slightly elevated place, or only a covering placed on the floor. Each guest lay on his elbow, leaving one hand free for eating. In such a position, it was easy for one guest to whisper to another. Whom Jesus loved ... This expression appears seven times in John, twice with reference to Lazarus and his sisters, and five times with reference to John himself. As Gaebelein said: John has been charged with egotism in speaking thus of himself; but the charge is unfounded. He wrote under the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit who put these words in his pen.[6]John had already stated in John 13:1 that the Lord loved all of his disciples "to the uttermost." Simon Peter ... used some kind of body language in his request of John, "beckoning" to him to find out who Jesus meant. Whatever the gesture was, John understood it. ENDNOTE: [6] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1965), p. 255. Verse 25 He leaning back, as he was, on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?Jesus promptly complied with John's relayed request from Peter. Matthew indicates that Jesus' reply was addressed openly to all. Verse 26 Jesus therefore answereth, He it is for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it to him. So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.Westcott and others speak of the custom of giving a sop to an honored guest, inferring from this that Jesus here made one last effort to reach Judas' heart; but nothing like that is evident here. Jesus was identifying the traitor by an action often engaged in before, but not with the overtones of this situation. As soon as this was done, Judas knew that his identity was known to all but pretended that it was not true, saying, "Is it I?" Jesus told him plainly that it was indeed he (Matthew 26:25), and commanded him to "do quickly" what he had purposed to do (John 13:27). Verse 27 And after the sop, then entered Satan into him. Jesus therefore saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly.The entering of Satan into Judas at this time indicates an unusually malevolent entry; because Satan had been in Judas before, as for example, when he bargained for the thirty pieces of silver. Therefore, this indicates that Satan took possession of Judas permanently, in consequence of his judicial hardening, a fact suggested, and even demanded, by the fact of Jesus' command for Judas to act quickly. Until this point, there had been hope for Judas; but, after Satan took him over, his descent into wretchedness and death was swift, dramatic, and irrevocable. The example of what happened to Judas here should give every person pause in the contemplation of evil. Once the die is finally cast and Satan claims possession of the soul, swift and inevitable destruction always ensues. Another example of this same ruthless destruction on the part of Satan is seen in the case of the demons being permitted to enter the swine (Matthew 8:32). What thou doest, do quickly ... God will not always oppose the will of evil men. There comes the day when Balaam is commanded to "Go with the men" (Numbers 22:22), and Judas is ordered to get on with the betrayal. The sop ... is repeatedly mentioned here and cannot fail to emphasize the triviality of Judas' reward. It was a mere trifle, a financial sop, a mere handful of change that he received for betraying the Saviour. Verse 28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what things we have need of for the feast, or, that he should give something to the poor.Here is final and certain proof that the meal eaten was not the passover; otherwise, it would have been impossible for some of the disciples to have thought that Judas was being dispatched on an errand to buy things needed for its observance. Or give something to the poor ... This affords an indirect glimpse of the habit of charity practiced by the apostles under Jesus' direction. The significance of this lies in the poverty of the group themselves. They, like Jesus, had nowhere to lay their heads, and sometimes they improvised lunch by plucking a few heads of wheat to eat as they crossed a field (Matthew 12:1); but, despite their own poverty, it was no unusual thing for them to give of their little store to those of even greater need. Verse 30 He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night.The spiritual overtones of many of the expressions found in this Gospel are magnificent. See concerning "sop" under John 13:27. And it was night ... What a commentary is this upon the situation confronting the Lord on this last night with his disciples before the crucifixion. The traitor was on the way to the high priest; within the hour, plans would be made for soldiers to take him; the Sanhedrin switched their strategy and would stage a formal trial, doubtless presuming upon what they hoped would be effective testimony from Judas; the Shepherd would be apprehended and the sheep scattered; suborned witnesses would spin their lies in exchange for temple gold; Caiaphas, who had already determined to kill Jesus, would pretend to be shocked and rend his priestly garments contrary to the law; and, for an hour, the wicked hypocrites would prevail. Even resolute Peter would falter under the questioning of a girl; and before the night ended runners would fan out over the dark city to summon a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin; which body would put out, so they thought, the Light of all nations; but instead they put out the Light of Jerusalem and plunged their city into a darkness from which it would not emerge for twice a thousand years. "And it was night!" He ... went out ... is another expression with connotations greatly in excess of the denoted fact that Judas left the sacred company. Sin always casts the sinner out. The parents of all living sinned and were cast out of Eden; Jacob sinned and lied against his brother and his father's sightless eyes and went out that night to rest his head upon a stone; Gehazi sinned and lied to Elisha and went out a leper white as snow; the prodigal son sinned and lusted after the wine shops and bright, lights of the far country and went out from a loving father to be a swineherd; Peter sinned and denied the Lord and went out into the darkness to weep; Judas sinned and betrayed the Lord and went out to a suicide's death and eternal infamy. On and on the record of sin repeats the monotonous tale, "Out, out, out ..." Always out! And the present day is no exception. Sin enters men's hearts, and then they go out: out from the homes of father and mother, out from the love of wife and child, out from the sacred fellowship of the church, out from the Bible school, out from the prayer meetings, out from the study of the word of the Lord, out from the tender devotions of the family, out from every decent and uplifting influence, out from hope and salvation; and, finally, when sin is done with the sinner, it casts him out into eternal darkness and remorse. When sin is permitted to have dominion over a man, his epitaph has already been written, "And he went out!" Verse 31 When therefore he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him; and God shall glorify him in himself, and straightway shall he glorify him.Four times the verb "to glorify" appears in these lines; but why this shout of victory at the very moment the traitor was dispatched for the act of betrayal? John wished to stress that the sufferings and death of Christ were not forced upon Jesus by circumstances out of his control, but were in fact accepted and directed by himself throughout. It was the Saviour's obedience to God's will that glorified both himself and the Father with whom he was one. Far from cowering before the blackness of the gathering storm, Jesus sent the traitor to perform the act that would trigger its release. The storm would not come, as the Pharisees planned (Matthew 26:1-5), after the passover was ended, but in the midst of it; because Jesus, not the Pharisees, was the architect of those awful events. Jesus would be glorified in the fulfillment of his sacred mission of salvation; mankind would be redeemed; the prophecies reaching back to Eden would be vindicated and fulfilled; the head of Satan would be crushed; and the purpose of God from before times eternal would be realized in the events which Jesus had that very moment set in motion. And straightway shall he glorify him ... The emphasis here is upon "straightway." It is as though Jesus had said, "Now the purpose of all ages shall be realized; let it begin now; action!" Illustration: Winston Churchill thus described the moment of decision which launched the invasion of Europe: The hours dragged slowly by ... conditions were bad ... the weather experts gave some promise of temporary improvement on June 6th, but predicted the indefinite return of rough weather after that. Faced with the desperate alternatives of accepting the risk or postponing the attack, General Eisenhower, with the advice of his commanders, boldly, and as it proved, wisely chose to go ahead with the operation ... At 4:00 A.M., June 5th, the die was irrevocably cast: the invasion would be launched on June 6,1944.[7]It was a long, long night for Eisenhower; but at the hour appointed he boldly commanded, "Let 'er rip!" This illustration is given for contrast. The Lord did not consult with advisors; there was no uncertainty as to the time; the issues were not in doubt; human experts were of no avail; only God could do what Jesus did; and there was never the slightest doubt that the operation would succeed. Jesus' triumphant words were, "God is glorified!" Hendriksen observed that: Whenever we think of Christ's sufferings, we never know what to admire most: whether it be the voluntary self-surrender of the Son to such a death for such a people, or the willingness of the Father to give up such a Son to such a death for such a people.[8][7] Winston Churchill, Closing the Ring (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951), p. 630. [8] William Hendriksen, op. cit., II, p. 251. Verse 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go ye cannot come; so now I say unto you.Little children ... is found nowhere else in the Gospels and was used here, perhaps, for the first time by the Lord. This tender address and the circumstances under which it was used endeared the words to John who made them a permanent part of his vocabulary (1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:12; 1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:28 etc.). As I said unto the Jews ... See John 7:34 and John 8:21-22. In those instances, Jesus referred to the eternal impossibility of wicked men having fellowship with himself; but here he referred to the temporary separation of the Lord from the disciples by reason of his approaching death and departure to the heavenly world. As Hovey noted: In going to his Father through the dreadful pathway of death, he would enter upon a life distinct from the present, and inaccessible to his own in their earthly state. In view of this impending separation, he proceeded to enjoin them to love one another.[9]ENDNOTE: [9] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 277. Verse 34 A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye love one another.THE NEW If this commandment had been merely a restatement of the Mosaic principle of loving one's neighbor as himself, it would not have been new. The newness of it is implicit in the words, "even as I have loved you." As Reynolds stated it: So a new type of love is given, as the Greek expositors generally have urged. There is a deeper intensity in this love than can be found in Moses' "Love thy neighbor as thyself." In that commandment which embraces the whole law, self-love is assumed and made the standard for the love of neighbor. The new commandment, on the other hand, is based on a new principle, measured by a higher standard than love of self. This is based on Christ's love, which was self-abandoning and self-sacrificing love.[10]R. W. Frank stated that: In Christian thought, "God is love." An everlasting, all-comprehensive, benevolent, and sacrificial love is held to be the very essence of God. This redeeming love was revealed in Christ who summed up the law and the prophets in the two-fold commandment of love.[11]In the earliest ages of the church, there seems to have been far more success on the part of Christians in obeying this commandment than in present times. The lack of love among Christians is a glaring weakness of faith today. Again from Reynolds: So long as this great power prevailed, the church made astonishing progress; when the so-called disciples of Christ began to hate and kill one another the progress was arrested. But thank God, "the new commandment" has always had marvelous power over the church of Christ.[12][10] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), II, p. 196. [11] R. W. Frank, Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), p. 453. [12] H. R. Reynolds, op. cit., II, p. 196. Verse 36 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered, Whither I go thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow afterwards.Peter was determined to follow Jesus both to prison and to death, and there is no doubt of Peter's sincerity. What he did not at that time realize was that the power to do such a thing is not resident in men but comes only from above. The access to such heavenly strength would come to Peter only after the victory of Jesus upon the cross had made it possible. In his reply, Jesus addressed Peter's intentions, not his question, and pointed out (1) Peter's present inability to follow the Lord, and (2) the full ability of Peter to do so after the enabling sacrifice on Calvary had been made. Verse 37 Peter saith unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now? I will lay down my life for thee.Peter's sincerity was so genuine that he could not understand why Jesus did not accept his intentions as fact. However, Peter had only mortal and imperfect knowledge of his own strength, whereas Jesus had full knowledge of all things; and Peter's unwillingness to accept Jesus' words revealed the weakness in Peter even in this moment of his boldest assertion of strength. His bold assertion of willingness to lay down his life for Jesus had a contradictory note in it, being squarely opposed to what Jesus had just said of his not being able now to follow Jesus. No disparagement of Peter's love should enter our thoughts; because, before life was over, he would make good the promise here, a promise impossible for him to keep until later; but a promise he would nevertheless honor with his martyrdom. Verse 38 Jesus answereth, Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.This was the second bombshell detonated in that small company on the dark betrayal night. Not only Judas - but Peter would deny the Lord! The reason for so painful disclosures was given (John 13:19); and Jesus stressed such things to prevent the faith of the whole group from utter collapse under the sledge hammer blows that would fall during that tragic night. For extended study of Peter's denial, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:58. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 This chapter corresponds with Luke 22:1-23 in most respects. There are some items of that last night given in Luke's account that John does not give, and vice versa. The most significant difference being at the point when Jesus instituted his own supper. Not that any disagreement exists, but the items are more detailed in some accounts than in the others, and I shall comment on that when we come to verse 23. Until then the comments will be made on the verses in their order. Being ended is translated "taking place" by the Englishman's Greek New Testament. That is correct, for the passover supper was far from being ended when Jesus did the things that are recorded now. The devil having put. This was done when Judas saw what he called the "waste" of the precious ointment. (See the comments at Matthew 26:14.) 3 Jesus knew that the work his Father had given him to do was about done, and that he would soon return to Him from whom he had come into the world. 4 The garments Jesus laid aside were the outer ones that were worn over the closer-fitting ones next to the body. They were discarded for the time in order to give more freedom for the manual performance he intended to do. 5 A great deal of confusion has come upon the religious world over the subject of feet washing. I shall quote from Smith's Bible Dictionary concerning this: "Washing the Hands and Feet. As knives and forks were not used in the East, in Scripture times, in eating, it was necessary that the hand, which was- thrust into the common dish, should be scrupulously clean; and again, as sandals were ineffectual against the dust and heat of the climate, washing the feet on entering a house was an act both of respect to the company and refreshing to the traveler. The former of these usages was transformed by the Pharisees of the New Testament age into a matter of ritual observance, Mark 7:3, and special rules were laid down as to the time and manner of its performance. Washing the feet did not rise to the dignity of a ritual observance except in connection with the services of the sanctuary. Exodus 30:19; Exodus 30:21. It held a high place, however, among the rites of hospitality. Immediately that a guest presented himself at the tent door, it was usual to offer the necessary materials for washing the feet. Genesis 18:4; Genesis 19:2; Genesis 24:32; Genesis 43:24; Judges 19:21. It was a yet more complimentary act, betokening equally humility and affection, if the host himself performed the office for his guest. 1 Samuel 25:41; Luke 7:38; Luke 7:44; John 13:5-14; 1 Timothy 5:10. Such a token of hospitality is still occasionally exhibited in the East." 6. The mere act of having his feet washed would not seem strange to Peter, but he was astonished that his Lord was going to do that for him. 7 What I do thou knowest not now. The customary practice of washing the feet, and the conditions that originated it, were known to Peter. (See the historical quotation at verse 5.) Hence we know that Jesus meant to teach a lesson aside from those facts, that would have a moral and spiritual significance. 8 Still seeing only the lowly service of hospitality in the act, Peter protested having Jesus wash his feet. This statement opened the way for Jesus to begin the lesson he intended by the performance. He introduced it by the assertion that such a protest was equivalent to rejecting the partnership with Him. 9 This suggested to Peter that he had missed the point of the whole performance, and that some great benefit was to be derived from his Lord that was not visible in the literal washing. With such a thought about it, he concluded he wanted even a fuller amount of the favor, and asked Jesus for a more general washing. 0 Jesus understood that Peter still had literal or material washing in his mind, although he seemed to expect some mysterious effects from it. He therefore made his first remarks from that standpoint, meaning that since they were normally clean in the main except their feet, those parts would need washing since they had just come in from a journey on foot. After saying that much on the material side of the subject, admitting them all to be clean in that respect, Jesus immediately added the exception that must be understood from the moral or spiritual standpoint, when he used the short phrase, but not all. 1 John explains in this verse what Jesus meant in the preceeding one. The act of Judas in betraying Jesus was planned by an unclean heart, and hence the Lord referred to him in this indefinite way as being unclean. 2 Jesus completed the feet washing while making the aforesaid speech, resumed wearing his outer garments, and again took his place at the table where the passover supper was still in progress. Set down is from , which Thayer defines, "To recline at table." In old times people reclined while eating, at a table only a few inches higher than the floor. The diners would lie on their sides and rest the head on one hand while serving themselves with the other. They lay at a 45-degree angle with the table, which placed the head of one person virtually in the bosom of the one behind him, and in very intimate cases the two would be very near each other. This position explains how Jesus could wash their feet even while they were eating without disturbing them, and without getting into any inconvenient or unbecoming posture, as would have been necessary were they sitting at a modern table with their feet under it. It explains also how the woman could stand behind Jesus while he was eating (Luke 7:36-38). After Jesus had taken his place again at the table, he asked them if they knew what had been done; meaning whether they knew what it signified. 3 Master is from a word that means teacher, and Lord means a ruler. The apostles had recognized Jesus as having both of these functions over them. 4 As the world would look at the matter, each of the aforesaid qualifications would entitle a man to the services of others. Instead of assuming such a superior attitude, Jesus acted the part of a servant in performing a necessary though humble favor. He specified the washing of each other's feet as an example of the kind of spirit they should manifest in their dealings with each other. 5 This verse is more general and shows Jesus intended his act to be an example of humility, a characteristic that had been wanting so many times in their conduct. 6 This verse is more teaching along the same line as the preceding ones. In the kingdom of Christ there are to be no great and small members as men count greatness. 7 This short verse contains a great principle that permeates the entire structure of man's relation to God. No one can serve Him without knowing what will please Him, but even that knowledge is useless unless It is carried out in performance. 8 I speak not of you all. Jesus knew his lesson of humility would not benefit all of his apostles, for a man like Judas would not be influenced by anything that did not contribute to his selfishness. Jesus did not name the traitor, but cited a prediction about him that is in Psalms 41:9. Lifted up his heel is a phrase based on the ancient manner of reclining at table while eating. (See the comments at verse 12.) In that position a person could receive a morsel of bread from another, and at the same time make the personal attack against him with his heel. 9 This verse shows another instance where a prediction becomes an evidence after it is fulfilled. (See the comments at Luke 21:13.) 0 This verse teaches the relation between God, his Son and the apostles. They all are so connected in the divine plan, that no man can either accept or reject either part of the group, without doing the same thing to the others. Jesus taught this same great truth in Matthew 10:40, which was just after selecting his 12 apostles and was giving them their "first commission." 1 Troubled is from the same Greek word as that in John 12:27, and the definition is the same in each place. However, the cause of His agitation in the present instance was the thought of being betrayed by one of the group at the table. 2 When Jesus announced in general terms that one of them was going to betray him, they each gave an inquiring look at the others. There was only one man among them who knew whom Jesus meant, and that was Judas the traitor. 3 The events of this last night, especially as they pertain to the Lord's supper, are not all stated in any one of the Gospel records; neither are the accounts given in chronological order. Before going any farther with this chapter, the reader should see the notes at Matthew 26:20. I shall now comment on the verses here in their order. Leaning on Jesus' bosom. This act is explained by the comments on verse 12, concerning the position of the body while eating. Whom Jesus loved. According to chapter 21:20, 24, this apostle was John. Jesus was human as well as divine, and had his personal friends as other men do. (See the comments at John 11:3.) 4 As John was nearest to Jesus, Peter made a sign to him that he should ask Jesus to point out the traitor. 5 John then asked Jesus direct whom he meant. 6 When Jesus answered John's question Judas did not hear it. The answer was accompanied with the act of dipping a piece of bread in the dish containing the broth. He did this at the same time that Judas did, which was part of the sign to the other apostles, that answered their question of who was to be the betrayer. (See Matthew 26:23.) There was nothing strange in their both dipping into the dish at the same time. (See the comments about hands and feet washing at verse 5.) The unusual thing was that of giving the piece to Judas when he had already served himself with one. According to Matthew 26:25, when this act was done, Judas asked Jesus if it was he who was to betray him. Judas could not have asked the question for information, for he had already contracted with the chief priests to betray his Lord. But all of the others had asked the same question, and if he had kept silent, it would have been so conspicuous as to manifest his guilt. 7 Satan entered into him. Not that it was the first time (Luke 22:3), for he had previously made his agreement with the chief priests to betray Jesus. But Satan made another and more insistent demand that he carry out his wicked promise. Jesus knew all about it, and hence he added the words of the last sentence. It means the same as if Jesus had said: "Since you have determined to betray me, do not delay .to perform the act according to your agreement with the chief priests. 9 Need of against the feast. Not the passover feast, for that was a one-day affair, and it was about over at this time. But that day was followed immediately with seven more days of unleavened bread which was also called a feast (Leviticus 23:5-6). The apostles thought that possibly Jesus meant for Judas to go and attend to that matter, since he was their treasurer and handled the money. They had just learned that Judas was going to betray Jesus, but they did not connect that with the suggestion of Jesus about the promptness to be exercised by Judas. 0 Judas "took Jesus at his word" and went immediately out after receiving the sop. He went to the chief priests and obtained a band of men for his wicked use. Thayer defines this band as "a detachment of soldiers." The sop was used as a part of the passover feast. Judas went out as soon as he had received the sop and never came back. The Lord's Supper was instituted after the passover supper. (See the comments at Matthew 26:20.) From the aforesaid truths we will see that Judas was not present when the Lord's supper was instituted. 1 Now is accommodative and means the time was at hand when the Son of man was to be glorified, referring to the scenes that were to end with the crucifixion. Glorified is from DOXAZO, which Thayer defines at this place, "To exalt to a glorious rank or condition." The supreme sacrifice which Jesus was soon to make would exalt him to the highest rank of worthiness, for it would constitute Him the atoning sacrifice for the whole world. It would also glorify God since it was his Son who was to be given to the world in this great loving sacrifice. (See John 3:16.) 2 This means virtually the same as the preceding verse. 3 Little children was an endearing term, used to indicate the nearness that Jesus felt for his apostles. Ye shall seek me means that after Jesus was taken from them, the apostles would long for his presence again, because they would miss his loving counsel. They would not be able to follow him then (verse 36), because he was going to die soon, and they must remain in the world to do the work for their Master. 4 New commandment. The people of God have always been commanded to love each other, hence that was not what was new. But the motive for that love was new, namely, because I have loved you. This was not an arbitrary reason but a logical one. If I know that Jesus loves my brother, I would conclude that the brother was entitled to that love. And if he is good enough to obtain the love of the Master, surely he is good enough for the love of me who am only a fellow-servant of the Master. 5 Since such love as the forementioned is so different, then when men see it manifested between the apostles, they will take it to mean they are disciples of Jesus. 6 Peter was referring to the statement of Jesus recorded in verse 33. Jesus repeated the statement, then added that Peter would follow him afterwards. He said this with reference to the manner in which Peter would die. (See chapter 21:18, 19.) 7 Peter was always inclined to be rash and impulsive. In his eagerness to go with Jesus (wherever that was to be), he made this exaggerating assertion. 8 This prediction of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 26:34; Mark 14:30, and Luke 22:34. In some of the passages the prediction includes a few more details than the present one. There is a special feature of the fulfillment in Luke 22:61. David Lipscomb Commentary On John 14 HE HIS FINAL RETURNJoh_14:1-6 1 Let not your heart be troubled:—Jesus had impressed them with the truth that he would leave them; that Judas had gone to bring a band of soldiers to arrest him; that Peter, the boldest of the disciples, would deny that he knew him, and more or less discouragement took possession of the hearts and minds of the disciples. Jesus under these circumstances spoke words of comfort and assurance to them. [There was everything to fill their hearts with gloom, and doubtless a silence like death had settled upon the little company, and they needed the comforting words spoken by Jesus.] believe in God,—[Have confidence in God! Do not let your faith fail because of these earthly troubles! God is still your Father, still supreme. He can, and will, overrule all for good.] believe also in me.—He and God are one. As they believed in God, so they were to have confidence in him. So listen to the words of assurance which Jesus speaks. [If God seems so far off and your troubles so near, here am I in your midst. He that hath seen the Father. You know that I love you; you know my power with the Father. But their hearts kept saying, “ Thou art going away from us.” ] 2 In my Father’ s house are many mansions;—[Many “ abiding-places” in the footnote; many homes; in short, besides this one we call earth. Leaving earth, there are other places to which to go, places all radiant with beauty.] if it were not so, I would have told you;—[I would not have allowed you to give up the things of this world if I had not had better things to offer you. I would have told you frankly that it was all sacrifice and no reward.] for I go to prepare a place for you.—[This separation that makes you so sad is only a step toward providing you with a better home than earth can furnish.] He had told them that he would be separated from them for a time; that he would go where for a while they could not come, but afterward they would be with him. The assurance he gave them was that there was ample room in his house for them to dwell with him, and that he went before to prepare a place for them. When Jesus went to prepare for them the Holy Spirit came to earth to guide and direct them, to prepare and fit them to dwell in the place he prepared for them. Had there not been ample place he would have told them. He could not deceive them. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you,—[What a thought is this that beautiful as the mansions of God must be, they are not beautiful enough; that Jesus goes to prepare them, make them fit for his followers! What must a home be when prepared by omnipotence and omniscience, moving at the dictate of infinite love.] I come again,—[(See Acts 1:11 Acts 3:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17.) Let no one rob you of your confidence in the return of your Lord in glory. Some refer this coming to the resurrection of Christ; others refer it to the death of the believer as in the case of Stephen; and still others refer it to the coming of the Holy Spirit. We think these positions inadmissible. The reference is not to Christ’ s return from the grave, but a return from heaven, the second coming of the Lord, which is a part of the Christian faith.] and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.—[Connected directly with the coming again. Evidently the condition of final glory. Evidently, also heaven is a locality as well as a state, and we have the most substanial joys to which to look forward. To be so purified as to be able to dwell where Jesus is, and to be so ennobled as to share his life and glory is to reach the most exalted destiny of which created intelligences are capable.] He would go as their fore¬runner to make ready for them. He would come again before the close of the earthly affairs. God always fits his creatures with honor suited for them. When the disciples were fitted to dwell with Jesus, they would have a home with him. 4 And whither I go, ye know the way.—He had told them of the place and that he was the way. They ought to have understood this. [Jesus probably uttered these words to provoke questions such as follow. He was going to his Father from whom he came and the way by which he would go was the cross, the tomb, the resurrection, and the exaltation. (Matthew 16:21 Matthew 17:22 Matthew 20:17.)] 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how know we the way?—Thomas was of a doubting and despondent disposition and found many difficulties in the way, so he was slow to take in what Jesus said, and especially the spiritual truths he spoke. [Thomas was a plain, honest, and plain-spoken disciple. He lost all faith and hope when Jesus died. He did not believe the Lord had risen until he saw with his own eyes. Now he affirms, “ We know not whither thou goest.” We expected you to stay with us and reign as our king in an earthly kingdom. We cannot under¬stand your going away and dying nor whither thou goest. Then how can we know the way?] 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way,—To enter into Christ and continue in him is the way. [Jesus only answers his difficulties in part. He is the exemplar, the living embodiment of what is needful to impart immortality. He who walks in his footsteps will travel the same road.] and the truth,—He was the embodiment of the truth of God, and embodied that truth in his life and words. [He was not merely truth, but the truth— the key of all truth— the revelation of all truth necessary to elevate man to God.] and the life:—He taught true and real life to the world. He brought life and immortality to light both by revealing the existence of both and revealing the conditions on which they could be enjoyed. [He is life itself— the bread of life— the living waters— the source from which the germ from which immortal life is imparted to the soul. Without him there would be no way revealed, no saving truth, nor immortal life.] no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.—[No one can enter heaven without him, neither can he come close enough to the Father to enjoy the spiritual blessings of Christ Jesus. All must hold to Jesus to be saved. “ For neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” “ By me,” that is, walk in the way I map out.] WITH THE FATHERJoh_14:7-14 7 If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also:—Jesus was the most complete and perfect representation of God that could be revealed to man. He was God “ manifested in the flesh.” Man is so fleshly that he cannot apprehend or appreciate true spirit. [After associating with Jesus as their teacher for about three and a half years they did not yet know, only in part. The central truth here is to know God is to know Christ. The universe which he created reveals his grandeur, the Old Testament his moral govment, but it is only in Christ that he reveals his surpassing love, mercy, and solicitude for the salvation of man. Through him he reveals himself as a Father. Previous to his coming men were not authorized to address God in prayer as “ Our Father who art in heaven.” ] from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.—So God clothed himself as humanity that man might live and know him. Jesus was this manifestation. So to know Jesus is to have the most complete knowledge of God that it is possible for him to know, and no man can come to God save through Jesus Christ. [They would see Jesus crucified the next day and from the cross they would know him. From the grave would burst forth upon their minds a new revelation of the character and mission of Jesus whom they had up to this time thought to be only an earthly, temporal king.] 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.—Philip failed to take in the truth, and still asked to see the Father. [He perhaps expected such a manifestation as Moses saw on the holy mount. (Exodus 33:8.) He, like many now, wanted to walk by sight instead of by faith.] 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?—[He, like the rest of the apostles, did not comprehend that the Son came to reveal the Father. He wanted a literal sight of God with the natural eyes. Natural eyes cannot behold God who is a “ Spirit" no more than they can see the soul of man. Man “ cannot see God and live," but he can see and understand “ God manifested in the flesh." Christ was not an ambassador from God, but “ Immanuel, God with us," the “ Godhead in bodily form."] 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?—Jesus entered into a more minute statement of the oneness of himself with the Father. the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works.—The oneness is so complete that the words of Jesus came from the Father and God dwelling in Jesus did the works done by Jesus. Jesus was the human body in which God dwelled and through which he spoke and worked. [The personalities of the Son and the Father was perfect union, and we may never on earth comprehend fully its nature, but we can understand it to be so complete that he was the manifestation of God in the flesh.] 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works* sake.—If he could not believe on the teachings of Jesus as from God, the works that he did through Jesus ought to convince him that God was in Jesus. Both the mercy and power shown in the works of Jesus proclaimed him divine. [The works Jesus did were never done by man, and they ought to convince them that he was divine.] 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also;—Jesus advances another step in his instruction. Not only did God work through Jesus, but he would work through all those that believe in him. Through the believers after his return to his Father’ s throne he would send the Spirit that would guide the apostles into all truth and would abide with his church forever. and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father.—During the life of Jesus on earth his work was restricted to the limitations of his physical presence. After he ascended to his Father and the Holy Spirit came in his name, a greater and more extended work would be done by the fuller inspiration of the apostles, and the more extended mission they would fill. Then when miraculous gifts should cease al¬together, the church through its members would enter upon its world-wide mission of carrying the truth of God to the world. This last, performed through the regular working of the laws of the Spirit, would be more far reaching than the miraculous manifestations. It is comparable to the works of God in the natural world. Jesus by the exercise of miraculous power created food to feed the multitudes; but this, while more showy and calculated to attract attention, was not so ef¬fective as the regular workings of God through the laws of na¬ture. [At the time he was crucified Jesus had, so far as we know, only about five hundred disciples; but on the day of Pentecost the apostles converted three thousand. It was necessary that the Son return to the Father to enable his disciples to do these “ greater works.” ] 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do,—To do anything in the name of Christ one must be in his name; become a part of his spiritual body and ask as the representative of Christ and for him. It means more than to ask by his authority. Asking as a member of his body, we must ask in accordance with his will. The prayer of Jesus in Geth semane—“ Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42)— should teach what prayer in the name and spirit of Christ means. We attach to our prayers, and properly so, “ in the name of Christ.” This implies an absolute self-sacrifice, and a prayer that our very prayers may not be answered except in so far as they are in accordance with the divine will. [To enjoy these promises, we must (1) believe; (2) we must ask in his name; (3) we must approach him with a complete submission to the Fathers’ will.] that the Father may be glorified in the Son.—[God is honored and glorified in his Son now through Christians. They are his representatives on earth. He works with and through them. He is glorified only when they work in harmony with his will.] 14 If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do.—This was to make the spiritual body on earth, and as the Father who sent him worked through him, so he would work through his body, the church on earth. After the passing of the fleshly body of Jesus, his disciples entered into a closer spiritual relation to him than they had hitherto been able to do. His spirit entered into and dwelt in them. THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY SPIRITJoh_14:15-24 15 If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.—He gives here the fruit and test of their love to him. If they loved him as their Lord and Master, they would cherish and obey his commandments. This is the divine test of love. Love as God views it is practical and embodies the actions of the whole man. And the test and proof of love is the desire to do the will and seek the honor of the one whom we love. To do God’ s will, to do it because it is the will of God, is God’ s test. Let us apply it. [Christ’ s own test of love was keeping the Father's commandments.] 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you an¬other Comforter,—In response to their love manifested by keeping his words, he would pray the Father and he would send them another comforter. This was addressed directly to his apostles, and had a more direct application to them than to others. Yet it presents a truth and a principle applicable to all servants of God. If these disciples would keep his words, the Father would send them another comforter. Jesus had been their teacher and comforter while he was on earth; he was about to leave them. They felt bereft and disappointed, and to comfort and assure them he makes this promise of the Father. that he may be with you for ever,—[Not to be with you a few years, as I, and then be taken away. He is to be the per¬petual counselor of the church.] The Spirit was to be the guiding, directing power of the spiritual world as he is of the material world. He gave the law; he dwells in and guides through the law. “ It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life.’’ (6: 63.) “ The seed is the word of God.’’ (Luke 8:11.) The seed is the dwelling place of the life prins. It is the body in which the life germ abides. The seed is placed in the soil to bring the life germ into contact with the juices of the soil. We take the word in the heart to bring the Spirit that dwells in the word into contact with the warm affections of the heart that the germ in all principle may spring forth and bear fruit in the life. “ Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth.” (1 Peter 1:23.) The word of God in the heart is in the mind, the affections, the will. It leads to prompt action so that its entrance into the heart leads to immediate obedience to Christ. No principle of life is imparted by birth. The principle of life is imd in the believing [the begetting] or taking the word in which the Spirit which gives life dwells into the heart. The old state is left. The new principle of life, imparted through faith, is brought into a new state by being baptized. In that new state it may develop a higher spiritual life. If the Spirit imparts life, he does it before birth; and without this impartng life there is nothing to be born. Yet without birth there can be no development or manifestation of distinct life. The life that is not brought to the birth perishes. 17 even the Spirit of truth:—The Spirit whose special mis¬sion is to guide them into all truth, to call to their remembrance all things that Jesus had taught them, and to enable them to record and teach all truth to the world. He is hence called the Spirit of truth. He approves all truth, rejects all falsehood. whom the world cannot receive;—The disciples who kept his word could receive his Spirit, but the world, as distinguished from the disciples or who rejected that truth, could not receive this Spirit. [He cannot enter into men of the world as distinguished from the church, and all theological theories that teach the opposite contradict Christ. “ Because ye are sons [not to make you sons], God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Galatians 4:6.)] for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him:— [The reasons why the world cannot receive the comforter: It does not observe him, does not give that sympathetic attention to him which results in knowledge; it had treated Jesus with contempt who was the only one through whom the Holy Spirit could be seen and known. Some had even ascribed his mira¬cles to Beelzebub. Such a world was incapable of receiving him.] ye know him; for he abideth with you,—[Present tense. It is something which they then have, and yet something less than they are yet to receive. It refers to Jesus being in their midst, he being filled with the Holy Spirit.] and shall be in you.—[Ultimately they are to have what Jesus then has. They, too, are to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and the beginning of the fulfillment of this was on the following Pentecost, and in this they were but the representatives and forerunners of all those who love Jesus and keep his commandments.] The Spirit up to this time had not, as representatives of God, abode with his servants on the earth. He had made visits and revelations to men, but had not entered into and remained with them. But he would come to them after Jesus ascended to his Father. (Verse 20.) In Christ the disciples would enter into a closer relationship to God than his servants had ever held toward him. They would become sons of God, and the measure of the Spirit that pertains to a son would enter in and abide with them. 18 I will not leave you desolate: I come unto you.—When Jesus left them, he would send the Spirit to dwell with them forever, so they would have a divine aid and comforter. Jesus and his Father would come to them and dwell with them for¬ever. 19 Yet a little while,—[Less than twenty-four hours Jesus would be crucified.] and the world beholdeth me no more;— [None but his disci¬ples saw him after his burial.] but ye behold me:—[The present use of the future.] because I live, ye shall live also.—[The mind of Jesus sweeps on in its outlook to the glorious consequences of the resurrection. Not only shall they see him for the few weeks between the resurrection and ascension, but they, too, will conquer death, and they, in their restored and eternal life, will continue to behold him.] In a short time he would be crucified. This was spoken on the day preceding his crucifixion. The world could see him till his burial. Then the world would see him no more. But his disciples would see him after his resurrection and would be with him through eternity. The world did not see Jesus after his resurrection, only his brethren. 20 In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.—After his resurrection, the disciples would know his union with the Father, and their union and oneness with Jesus. [Beginning, at least, on Pentecost, if not confined to it, for then began that clearness of spiritual per¬ception which goes on through the ages to the final glory. They shall realize the divine personality of Christ as never be¬fore. But they shall also realize, through the Holy Spirit, a divine exaltation for themselves which shall bring them into the most intimate spiritual relations with him.] 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:—Love as presented by Jesus is not a mere sentiment, but it is a living, active principle. “ For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:3.) So he makes the keeping of the commandments of God the test of their love for him. Man needs a test to try his love for God. When do I love him sufficient to be accepted of him is a question that will frequently come up to the believer. Jesus gives the test: If we are willing to do what he commands us to please him, he will accept us. He gives commands that man can see no wisdom in, and that are humiliating that he may be sure he keeps the command from a desire to obey God. [Jesus repeats his crucial test of love. It is of the highest importance to us that we shall not overlook this pregnant utterance and substitute for obedience emotional ecstasies.] and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father,—To those who show their love to God by obedience to his com¬mands, the Father will both love and manifest himself to them. and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him.—Jesus will be with and in them as feeling and bearing their weaknesses, temptations, and sins; and they would be in him as partaking of his strength and comfort and sharing his bless¬ings and honors. 22 Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him,—Judas was the brother of James and is the same person as “ Lebbaeus” and “ Thaddaeus” and is the author of the Epistle of Jude. Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?—He failed as yet to understand the spiritual nature of Christ’ s kingdom or the condition of his disciples after the resurrection; he expected an earthly, temporal rule and did not see how Jesus could manifest himself to the disciples and fail to do the same to the world. [This reveals again the carnal inability of the disciples at this time to comprehend the spiritual revelations of Christ. The spiritual manifestation in the heart they knew nothing about. They thought only of external, visible manifestation in Messianic glory, and they supposed, and rightly, that this would be to the whole world.] 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word:—Jesus declares that the rule he had laid down, or the test given, applied not only to his immediate disciples, but it was one that applied to all men. If any one loves him, he must believe in him as the Son of God, infinite in wisdom, goodness, and power, and one who so believes and loves him will keep his words. All pretenses to believe in him, and trust him, while refusing to keep his words, are false and misleading. and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.—This abode will be through the Holy Spirit as their representative. “ In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:22.) The Spirit as the representative of God dwells in his church. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words:—On the other hand, he who does not love God will not keep his words — will not obey and follow him. To keep his words is to cher¬ish and ponder them in the heart, and to obey them because they have been commanded by God. One may do the very thing commanded by God, and yet not keep the words of God. He may do it from some other motive than to please and honor him. All service to God must be with the desire to please and honor him. [No other evidence of the want of love is necessary. This is conclusive.] and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’ s who sent me.—All things spoken by Jesus were from God, hence to hear Jesus was to hear God. [He thus adds the final sanction to all that he has been saying. In refusing to keep my words, they are refusing to keep the Father's word, and, thus rejecting all divine instruction, they are unworthy of all divine presence.] OTHER WORKS OF THE SPIRIT AND WORDS OF COMFORT John 14:25-31 25 These things have I spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you.—Jesus knew the hour of his departure was now at hand. This was spoken the very night of his betrayal. Judas had already gone to bring the band to arrest him. 26 But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,—The disciples were now distressed that Jesus was about to leave them. The coming of the Holy Spirit to teach and strengthen them would be an especial comfort to them so he is called the Comforter. The Father would send him in his name to take the place as the representative of Jesus. he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.—He was to teach all things needful to their well-being and to guide them into all truth, and to recall to their remembrance his teaching. Man is forgetful and a divine Monitor is sent to them to call to their memory all things he had taught them. The ground for their reliance on the certainty of the word of God is that the Spirit of God guided into the truths stated. All departure from the word of God concerning entrance into the church and into Christ comes from the idea that the Spirit teaches outside of the word of God. All additions to the church in its order, organization, and work come from the idea that the Spirit dwells in, guides, and directs the church apart from his teaching in and through the word of God. To give up the word of God as the only direction and guidance of the Spirit is to give loose reign to the dreams and imaginations, the reasonings, and philosophies of men as the directions of the Holy Spirit. It is to substitute these for the revelations of God when “ men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21.) There used to be a dilemma about creeds. If a creed has more than is in the Bible, it has too much; if it has less than is in the Bible, it has too little; if it differs from the Bible, it is wrong; if it has just what the Bible has, it is the Bible, and not a human creed. So if the Spirit teaches more than the Bible teaches, he teaches too much; if he teaches less, he teaches too little; if he teaches different from the word of God, he teaches wrong; if he teaches what the word teaches he teaches through the word, for no uninspired soul ever learned a spiritual truth save through the words of the Bible. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you:—The peace that Jesus gave them was not peaceable and pleasant surroundings. It was not an outward or external peace, but it was a composure and peace of mind and spirit that no external surroundings or troubles can destroy or disturb. This is the only sure and true peace on earth. Disturbances, trials, and troubles will arise in the world, and the mind that is dependent upon the external surroundings for peace will never find peace on earth. One who believes and trusts in Jesus, the Spirit of God dwells with and imparts to him the Spirit of Jesus, and he becomes a partaker of the peace that Jesus possesses. With the peace of Jesus in our hearts, we may look without fear on all the troubles and disturbances of life. This is unlike the peace the world proposes. not as the world giveth, give I unto you,—[Either in quantity or quality. I give richly, abundantly, my presence and my Father’ s presence in the most intimate communion.] Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful.— [Neither caring for what has come, nor dreading that which may still come. Thus he returns to the beginning of the les¬son begun at the opening of the chapter. Believe in God, be¬lieve also in me, and rest in perfect peace!] 28 Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you.—It was for the good of the disciples and of all who keep his words that Jesus should go away. The Holy Spirit would not come unless he went away, and it was as needful that the believers in Jesus should enjoy the presence and offices of the Spirit as that they should those of Jesus. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father:—An intelligent love of Jesus would desire that he should go unto the Father that he might send the Spirit. “ Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.” (16: 7.) for the Father is greater than I.—His returning to the Father would be the occasion of God bestowing greater or fuller blessing in sending the Spirit. The blessings of the Spirit were greater than those of Jesus only in the sense that the Spirit completed and perfected the work begun by Jesus. 29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe—In knowing before¬hand what was coming to pass would give them composure and endurance in passing through the trials, and be an assurance to them, after they had taken place as Jesus foretold. The object and purpose of prophetic foretellings were not to produce a completed faith in the things foretold in those to whom the announcements were made, but that when the fulfillment did come, the people then seeing the fulfillment of the announcements would believe the matter was prearranged and under the direction of God, and hence provided and inspired of God. 30 I will no more speak much with you, for the prince of the world cometh:—The prince of the world was Satan. He was embodied in the wicked rulers, Jewish and Gentile, that were compassing the death of Jesus. and he hath nothing in me;—As the rulers of the kingdoms of this world, instigated by the prince of this world, they found nothing in Jesus for them to uphold, defend, or cherish. His works and spirit were antagonistic to theirs. [There was then, as now, nothing in common between the prince and spirit of the world and Christ, and hence had no sympathy for him. The devil never did, and never will, capture a man unless he finds something in him common with himself. If he finds a sinful ambition or lust in him, he seizes upon it and makes it the means of his ruin.] 31 but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.—The test of love is the keeping or obeying the commandments of God. This is the test of love in all the relations of life. The child shows its love for the parents by keeping the commands of the parents, so of the wife to the husband, the citizen to the earthly ruler. The dependent or subject shows love to those over them by keeping their commandments. The superior shows love for the inferior by sacrifice and condescension to help the inferior. The test of Christ's love was to do the commandments of God, even unto the giving up of his life to please and honor him. This speech, beginning at chapter 13: 21 and continuing through this chapter, was spoken while they were still at the table. Jesus not only abode in his Father's love by keeping his Father's commandments, but he showed this love for the Father to the world by keeping his commandments. He knew of no better way to show his love to his Father than by doing his Father's commandments. Are we wiser than he? Can we show our love to God in any better way, in any other way, than by doing the commandments of God? “ He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. ... If a man love me, he will keep my word. . . . He that loveth me not keepeth not my words.” (John 14:21-24.) “ He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. Hereby we know that we are in him.” (1 John 2:4-5.) “ Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:2-3.) Arise, let us go hence.—They arose and went toward the Mount of Olives. On the way this discourse was completed, embracing the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters. Verse 1 The supper with its tragic revelations was over. Judas had departed, and all of the disciples were in a state of shock and grief following the announcement that even Peter would deny the Lord. The greatest tide of evil ever known on earth was already rising around that little company huddled in the upper room. The forces of darkness, with God's permission, were in command; and there was no moon in the blackness of that spiritual night which settled like some evil fog over the Holy City. It was a time of doubts and fears and falling tears. The unaided strength of natural man was no match for the desperate frustrations and shattered hopes of that critical hour; but Jesus was more than a match for that satanic storm moving so ominously upon them. In words of supernatural calm and confidence, the Lord reassured his chosen ones, loving them, encouraging them, and protecting them in every way possible. Before leaving the scene of the supper, he spoke the words of this chapter concerning: (1) the Father's house, (2) the Way, the Truth, and the Life, (3) the Comforter, and (4) the eternal necessity of what he was about to do. Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me. (John 14:1) Let not your heart be troubled ... is the theme of this chapter, the same words being repeated in John 14:27. Believe in God ... in me ... One of the difficulties of translating the Greek New Testament is that certain sentences are capable of more than one rendition, as here. These words mean either: "Ye believe in God" (indicative affirmation of fact), or "Believe (ye) in God" (imperative commandment to be obeyed). The English Revised Version (1885) rendition is preferred because the indicative that the disciples truly believed in God would seem to have been more than Jesus would have credited to them in the circumstance of their doubts and fears. Reynolds noted that: This (the English Revised Version (1885) rendition) is approved by the great majority of interpreters from the early Fathers to Meyer and Godet ... the different order of the words in the Greek, bringing the two phrases, "in God" and "in me," together, gives potency to the argument of the verse, which is that of the entire Gospel.[1]Thus, one of the overtones of this passage is that believing in God and believing in Jesus are one and the same thing. ENDNOTE: [1] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), II, p. 220. Verse 2 In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you: for I go to prepare a place for you.Hunter has a very perceptive comment on this, thus: The day before, Jesus had sent two of his disciples to secure a "large room upstairs" for the Last Supper (Mark 14:12 f). They did not know the way but had to follow the owner. Arriving, they found everything "prepared." It looks as if Jesus here made the disciples' journey of the day before a parable of eternity, in which the upper room foreshadows the home of God with its many habitations.[2]Speculations regarding the "many mansions" are fruitless. It is enough for us to know that they are indeed a reality, despite their existence beyond the perimeter of mortal vision. The souls which are of the faith of Jesus Christ shall truly inherit the upper and better habitations, and the Lord is even now preparing for the reception of the redeemed in the eternal world. Here in these beautiful words of Jesus lies the secret of the Christian's triumph over every mortal disaster. When things on earth have issued in their superlative worst; when even life itself ebbs and the soul contemplates that ultimate terminus in the grave, then let the worshiper lift his eyes to see the City Foursquare coming down out of heaven from God. Such a refuge only Zion's children know. ENDNOTE: [2] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 141. Verse 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.And if I go ... is not a statement of uncertainty but an argument that, as certainly as the Lord shall go, that certainly will he return and receive his own. I come again ... The second coming of Jesus is dogmatically affirmed here and throughout the New Testament. As Dorris said: Some refer this to the resurrection of Christ, others to the death of a believer as in the case of Stephen, and still others to the coming of the Holy Spirit. We think these positions inadmissible. The reference is not to Christ's return from the grave, but to his return from heaven, the second coming of the Lord, which is a part of the Christian faith.[3]THE SECOND ADVENTNot only here but in Acts 1:11; Acts 3:21; 2 Thessalonians 4:13-17, etc., the doctrine of the second coming of Christ is emphatically taught, the same being one of the foundational teachings of Christianity. I. What Christ will not do upon his return. A. He will not offer himself a second time for the sins of the world (Hebrews 9:26-28). B. He will not restore any phase of fleshly or national Israel. The Scripture makes it absolutely clear that race is nothing with God (Galatians 3:27). C. He will not set up a kingdom, having already done that, the church being his kingdom. It has existed continuously since the first Pentecost after the resurrection, and wherever the Lord's Supper is, there is the kingdom (Luke 22:30). D. He will not extend a second chance for unbelievers to repent (Hebrews 9:27). II. What Christ will do upon his return. A. All the dead shall be raised to life (John 5:24-29). B. The judgment will occur (John 5:24-29; Matthew 25:31-36). C. The wicked shall be destroyed and the righteous rewarded (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). D. The crown of life shall be given to the faithful (2 Timothy 4:7-8). E. Christ will stop reigning, delivering up the kingdom to God (1 Corinthians 15:28). III. What Christ is now doing. A. He is reigning until all of his enemies have been put under foot (1 Corinthians 15:25 f). B. He is interceding for the redeemed (Hebrews 7:25). D. He is administering all authority in heaven and upon earth (Matthew 28:18-20). E. He is providentially overseeing the fortunes of his church on earth (Matthew 28:19-20). F. He is preparing a home for the faithful (John 14:3). ENDNOTE: [3] C. E. W. Dorris, A Commentary on the Gospel by John (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Co., 1939), p. 200. Verse 4 And whither I go, ye know the way. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how know we the way?Ye know the way ... means that the disciples in knowing Jesus did indeed know the way to eternal life; but the full realization of what they did, in fact, already know would not come until after the resurrection of Christ. Thomas was speaking for them all in this disclaimer. Verse 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.Another of the great "I am's" of John, this is one of the profoundest teachings ever uttered. It presents Jesus as the unique means of access to God. Buttrick devoted most of an entire book to the mountain truth of this text, presenting Jesus Christ as the sole answer to the human problems of sin, ignorance, and mortality. As the way, Jesus is the answer to man's sin; as the truth, he is the answer to man's ignorance; and as the life, he is the answer to man's mortality.[4]Man is constitutionally ignorant, endemically wicked, and irrevocably mortal ... There is no book logic to refute or uphold these contentions, only the logic of life ... Man is not delivered from his lower life by his own power but remains helpless without the Great Companion.[5]I AM THE WAY; AND THE TRUTH; AND THE LIFEJesus is the way. Apart from him there is no solution of the problem of sin. Part of the problem is the universal tendency to deny that sin exists. Every crime, however vicious, is rationalized. The major thesis of humanism is that there is really nothing much wrong with man as he already is. True, certain restrictions are admitted; but men fancy that if they can only shake off the chains that bind them they will be all right. Strike off their political chains, their economic chains, their psychological inhibitions, etc., and presto! the new age will appear. All such human air-castles fall in one awful consideration, that of the universal wickedness of mankind. Every utopian ship of all history has split open and sunk upon the submerged reef of unregenerated human nature. In trying to find out how to live, men try to evaluate and compare various concepts and systems, and by deduction hope to find what is best; but the universal experience of humanity has demonstrated that whatever of the good, the pure and the beautiful that men have discovered - all of it derived from him who is the way. The sin problem is solved only in Christ. He alone reveals man's sin, ransoms him from the tyranny of it, removes him from the practice of it, remits it, and even overrules it for his benefit - provided only and always that the sinner must yield himself to the Lord and walk in his way; for he is the way. Jesus is the truth. In this, our Lord is the answer to man's ignorance; but, in this sector also, man professes no need, pretending to be wise. In the dictionary that he wrote himself, is he not listed as "homo sapiens"? Look at the letters he has written after and before his name: Ph.D., M.D., Hon., Pres., etc., etc.; but, if man can bear to hear it, he would be just as accurately listed as "homo ignoramus"! Human wisdom is foolishness with God (1 Corinthians 1:20); and only a little reflection will reveal that God is right. Apart from God, man is ignorant of his origin, destiny, and the meaning of life. He cannot see one split-second into the future, but builds a house the day before an earthquake, elects scoundrels to public office, and in all social and political considerations moves with the intelligence (!) of a buffalo herd on stampede. Even in the areas of his greatest achievements, man is embarrassed by the fact that every truth he has ever discovered only raised a hundred other questions harder than the one he solved. The discovery of the power of the atom is only the most recent example of this. He cannot know what caused time, space, or matter, and does not have the slightest idea of the extent or duration of such things. He is an infant crying in the night with no language but a cry, until he shall turn to him who is the truth. Man's vaunted knowledge has only multiplied his ignorance. He surveys from his tiny ant hill the morning star and the band of Orion; he cries for light, wisdom, and knowledge; but, as he pursues this will-o'-the-wisp, he is mocked by his own ignorance. The silent stars go by, and the whirling suns brush him into the grave. But in Christ who is the truth, all that is changed. He is the answer to man's ignorance. In Jesus, the soul is secure in the fact that ultimate truth is not another gadget, or a new formula, but a person, God in Christ, man's friend from above, who is at once the Cause and the explanation of all things. Jesus is the Life. In this, he is the answer to man's mortality. Death is an ugly problem for man, but how does he face up to it? He will not even speak of it. Even when the last agony is upon him, his physician will hardly tell him the truth; his wife assures him that he is better; and even his minister speaks of what he will do when he gets well. What a tragic blindness it is that forces the great, the intelligent, the prominent and powerful on earth to go on living as if death had no claim upon them. The greatest falsehood of the age is the allegation that Christianity is a psychological escape hatch for defeated and frustrated souls. In Christ only do men face up to the fact of death and go down to the grave shouting, "Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:57). All of man's efforts to negate the problem of mortality are pathetic. With what fanfare and enthusiasm he greets every new medicine or surgical skill; but has he abolished death? Here and there he might indeed have plucked a feather from the wings of the angel of death; but the shadow of those wings still darkens every threshold. Only in Christ does the redeemed soul march onward in the security of him who is the resurrection and the life. Jesus broke up every funeral he ever attended, promised to raise from the dead all who ever lived, and taught his disciples not to fear them that may kill the body. His is the glorious religion that teaches men how to live with all the facts of life and of death. His is the only name that means anything when spoken over the cold form of the dead. This is the sublime truth that has sent his church shouting down two thousand years, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. [4] George A. Buttrick, Christ and Man's Dilemma (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 29. [5] Ibid. Verse 7 If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also: from henceforth ye know him and have seen him.There is hardly a paragraph in this whole Gospel where the deity of Jesus is not either stated dogmatically, or, as here, emphatically implied. Here is another example of it. Knowing Jesus is equivalent to knowing God. Jesus' revelation to men, as far as verbal teaching goes, had here been completed. From henceforth ... From that point onward, the apostles had in their full possession the sufficient knowledge of God as revealed in Jesus Christ to enable them to find eternal life. Although not yet fully realized by them, the verbal statement of it was complete. However, the Lord would add other significant statements of the great truth before the evening ended. Verse 8 Philip saith unto him Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.Philip ... For discussion of this apostle, see under John 1:43. It seems that Philip was slow in comprehending the world-shattering truth of God in Jesus Christ; but his limitation was that of all men. Moreover, he did not have the advantage possessed by those who view the events of Jesus' ministry in the light of subsequent history. Verse 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father: how sayest thou, show us the Father?Something in the mind of natural man is reluctant to accept the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was actually Almighty God in human form. This reluctance on Philip's part might have been the thing that prevented his becoming a very distinguished apostle. About all that has come down to us concerning him is his name and the reluctance evidenced by passages like this. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ... Could Jesus have stated the fact of his deity any more clearly than here? All that he had said of himself as the door, the good shepherd, the living water, the Son of God, the Son of man, the light of the world, the bread of life, the way, the truth, and the life coupled with his mighty signs - all of this had still left Philip unable to make the great step of faith in Jesus as God; and there seems to be in the Saviour's words here an element of wonder that Philip had somehow failed to take it in. Show us the Father ... We do not know just what Philip meant by this request, but Hunter thought he desired to see a theophany: He asks for such a revelation of God as Moses enjoyed (Exodus 24:9-1; 33:18) ... He would like Jesus to pull aside the veil separating the seen from the unseen - to disclose a great Father-figure. But such a theophany is quite unnecessary.[6]ENDNOTE: [6] A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 142. Verse 10 Believest: thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works.This recapitulation of Jesus' teachings earlier (John 12:49-50) was for Philip's benefit. Verse 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.Exactly the same teaching had been given previously. See John 5:36 and John 10:37-38. Verse 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father.Verily, Verily ... With these words Jesus turned from replying to Philip and included them all (Judas absent) in the glorious promises about to be given. Greater works than these shall he do ... It is difficult to know exactly what Jesus meant by this, for no miracle could be greater than raising Lazarus from the dead, and no work could be greater than that of the enabling act of redemption on the cross. Thus, as Guthrie noted: Greater works would then relate to the wider opportunities which the disciples would have when Jesus returned to the Father. It would then be possible for Jesus to work through his people. The book of Acts is a commentary on this promise.[7]Lipscomb has this: During the life of Jesus on earth, his work was restricted to the limitations of his physical presence; but, after he ascended to the Father and the Holy Spirit came in his name, a greater and more extended work would be done by the fuller inspiration of the apostles, and the more extended mission they would fill.[8]The very nature of Jesus' appearance on earth required miraculous manifestations of his power; but those miracles, wonderful as they were, had an inherent limitation. Jesus' miracle of feeding the five thousand was as nothing compared to the feeding of all the populations of earth throughout history through the operation of God's natural laws. Similarly, the miracle of creating Adam and Eve was as nothing compared to the perpetuation of humanity through the ages by means of the natural laws of procreation. Just so, the miracles attending the establishment of the church, or kingdom of heaven, on earth, and even including the miracles wrought by Jesus, are as nothing compared to the salvation of countless millions of men through the operation of God's spiritual laws which were set in motion by Jesus. The superiority of the spiritual over the physical is evidenced by Jesus' words here. As Hendriksen said: According to this great saying of our Lord, the greater works are the spiritual works ... Does Jesus, by this means of comparison, which places the spiritual so far above the physical, hint that miracles in the physical sphere would gradually disappear when they would no longer be necessary?[9]Three thousand souls were converted from death to life on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, a feat far surpassing anything that was possible before Jesus returned to the Father. Because I go to the Father ... The great works wrought by the apostles did not take place in spite of Jesus' going to the Father but because he DID go to the Father. Thus, the "greater works" the apostles were to do were still truly the works of Jesus our Lord. [7] D. Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 958. [8] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 224. [9] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 273. Verse 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that wilt I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.In my name ... For discussion of Christ as the one mediator, see my Commentary on Romans, p. 14. Verse 14 If ye shall ask (me) anything in my name, that will I do.The insertion of "me" in this verse, as in many manuscripts, suggests that prayers might be offered directly to Jesus, as well as addressed to the Father in Jesus' name. Note the prayer of Stephen (Acts 7:59). Dummelow cited Acts 9:14; Acts 9:21,1 Corinthians 1:2, where "calling upon the name of the Lord" was construed by him as examples of the same thing.[10]ENDNOTE: [10] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 799. Verse 15 If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.The great tragedy of modern Christianity is that of the elevation of faith above love in the economy of salvation. Love is the sine qua non of redemption. He who does not love cannot be saved. Love, not faith, is the fulfilling of all the commandments, as stated here. Paul went so far as to declare that one might possess "all faith" and yet find it worthless without love ( 1 Corinthians 13:2). The reason why "faith alone" cannot save is that "faith alone," by any definition, is faith without love. Also, there is no special brand of faith exempted from Paul's all-inclusive "all faith." Faith without love or even with the love of the wrong things, can never justify or save. See under John 12:42. Verse 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.This is the first of the five Paraclete sayings in John, concerning which Hans Windisch published a thin tract upholding the thesis that these sayings form no part of John's original Gospel but are interpolations! After listing a few so-called arguments, he asserted: This confirms our thesis: the five Paraclete sayings do not belong in the original text of the farewell discourses. They are alien entities in the course of both dialogues (John 13-14, and John 15-16).[11]And what is the evidence that supports such a thesis? Absolutely none whatever, as a glance at Windisch's so-called reasons will prove. Here are the particular prejudices presented by him as "evidence." 1. "They can be removed from the context without leaving a gap."[12] Is this a reason? One might remove any of the beatitudes without leaving a gap, or take a whole paragraph out of the Declaration of Independence without leaving a gap. 2. "The idea that Jesus comes back to his own is nowhere to be found, apart from the Paraclete references."[13] The argument (!) of this is that: after removing the five passages from John's Gospel, the idea that Jesus will come to his own in spirit form is nowhere to be found. This is like saying, "When we take out a, e, 1o, u, and y, there are no vowels in the alphabet!" or "If we take out all references to it, the thing is nowhere visible!" Windisch is inaccurate in his allegation that these passages alone teach the coming of the Holy Spirit. See under John 7:37-39. 3. "The sending of the Holy Spirit is an entirely new idea which is not prepared for in what comes before it and is not referred to in what follows."[14] Only a person shutting his eyes against one of the most conspicuous elements in Christianity could make a statement like that. The preparation for this discussion of the Paraclete was laid as early as John 7:38-39 (which see) and was fully anticipated by the statement in John 14:12 that Jesus was going to the Father. Abideth with you ... refers to the unlimited identification of Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by the descending dove at his baptism. Further, as related by all the synoptics, and which John had in view throughout, the concept of the Spirit being in the disciples was dogmatically affirmed from the very first. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand for what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak but the Holy Spirit (Mark 13:11; Matthew 10:19 ff; and Luke 12:11 ff). In this light, it cannot be logically said that the reception of the Holy Spirit as an indwelling force in Christians (especially the apostles) is "an entirely new idea." We might ask, "New to whom?" Now the above three alleged reasons were presented as the sole support of Windisch's ridiculous thesis; and they have been presented and exposed here to show how groundless and unreasonable are the efforts of "scholars" to butcher the Gospel of John. We shall now give attention to the blessed words of the promise itself. He shall give you another Comforter ... Note that the Holy Spirit, called here the Comforter, will come as a result of Jesus' action in praying the Father; and this is consistent with the thought that Jesus himself sent the Spirit. His actions and the Father's actions are one, as repeatedly affirmed throughout John. Ferm's definition of the term "Paraclete" is: A term applied in John to the Holy Spirit, though in 1John it is used of Christ himself. It means literally, "called to one's side," for the purpose of assistance, and thus corresponds exactly to the Latin "advocatus". In the newer versions of the New Testament, it is translated "Advocate," but this unduly narrows the meaning. It implies not merely intercessory help but help of every kind; and the old rendering, "Comforter," is still the best one, when taken in its original sense of "strengthener."[15]Another Comforter ... identifies Jesus himself as the Comforter of the disciples up until that time, but he was preparing them for his departure to the Father. That he may be with you forever ... Unlike his own brief ministry, that of the Holy Spirit would be coextensive with the whole Christian dispensation. The Spirit of truth ... This is another name of the Comforter and stresses his function of guiding the apostles into all truth. Whom the world cannot receive ... The life founded upon materialism and sense alone cannot partake of the indwelling strength available to Christians. Ye know him, for he abideth with you ... The Holy Spirit "without measure" (John 3:34) dwelt in Christ during his ministry. Therefore, the apostles did "know him," whether "him" is referred to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, the latter being meant here. And shall be in you ... refers to the Spirit's indwelling, especially of the apostles. [11] Hans Windisch, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), p. 3. [12] Ibid., p. 2. [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid. [15] Vergilius Ferm, An Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), p. 560. Verse 18 I will not leave you desolate: I come unto you.Desolate ... actually means "orphans"; and from this premise, "I come unto you" is not speaking of the second advent but of an interim coming of the Lord in the person of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost and afterward. The second advent was in view in John 14:3, but here the coming of Christ's Spirit is meant. Hendriksen ably defended this interpretation thus, "The immediately preceding context refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and so does the following context."[16]ENDNOTE: [16] William Hendriksen, op. cit., II, p. 279. Verse 19 Yet a little while, and the world beholdeth me no more; but ye behold me: because I live, ye shall live also.Because I live ... is a prophetic reference to the resurrection, because Jesus was clearly speaking of a time when the world should no longer see him. This is a second "because," like that in John 14:12, and shows the necessity of Jesus' return to the Father. The divine plan of establishing a worldwide spiritual kingdom could only have been hindered by the continued physical presence of Jesus on earth. Advocates of a literal return of Christ to a literal throne should take this into account. Verse 20 In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.Here is the whole prospectus of God's kingdom in embryo, making this verse rank with Genesis 3:15 as a statement of the whole plan of salvation. Here is the achievement of God's righteousness, the secret of justification, and the basis of the redeemed's avoidance of judgment - the whole works; it's all here! Ye in me ... God's way of accounting men righteous is that of totally identifying them with Jesus Christ who is righteous. The righteousness God imputes to men is a genuine righteousness, a total and absolute perfection, achieved by Jesus Christ and made available to men "in him." Any so-called "righteousness" based upon anything else is spurious. Nothing that a sinner might either believe or do could make either his faith or his actions the grounds of his being accounted righteous in the sight of God. "All spiritual blessings are in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3). God therefore makes a sinner righteous by bringing him into Christ, identifying him with Christ and as Christ, thus enabling all the righteousness of the Holy One to be in fact the righteousness of the redeemed soul in Christ (Galatians 2:20). For full discussion of justification in Christ, see my Commentary on Romans, pp. 108-113. No man can be saved as John Doe, Joe Bloke, or whoever he is. The only way any man can be saved is as Christ and in Christ. The identification of believers with Christ is revealed in this verse to be exactly the same as the identification of Christ with God. God is in Christ; Christ is in God; Christ is in Christians; and Christians are in Christ. The loss of personal identity for purposes of procuring justification was what Jesus referred to in "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it" (Matthew 10:39). Verse 21 He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him.The thought here is like that of Joh 14:15 (which see); also, the oneness of Christ with the Father is the constantly recurring theme of the Gospel, and is apparent here in Christ's loving whom the Father loves, and in the Father's loving them that love Christ. Verse 22 Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?Judas (not Iscariot) ... Goodspeed identified this Judas thus: Thaddeus, as Judas the son of James is called in Matthew 10:13 and Mark 3:18, is credited to this day in Armenian tradition with having brought the gospel to Armenia with notable success.[17]Thou wilt manifest ... and not unto the world ... The belief that Christ would be some kind of overpowering earthly Messiah persisted even among the Twelve, and even after the resurrection (Acts 1:6). Thaddeus' question here was strongly flavored with the ideas of Jesus' brothers (John 7:3-4), regarding a "manifestation" in Jerusalem. He did not understand that the death on the cross would be a manifestation before the whole world. ENDNOTE: [17] Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Twelve (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1939), p. 30. Verse 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.See under John 14:15 and John 14:20 for discussion of thoughts repeated here. Christ was ever interested in the salvation of men's souls, and that is why he shifted the emphasis back to what had already been taught concerning salvation. Thaddeus' dream of an earthly kingdom was of no concern at all to Jesus. Verse 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.He that loveth me not ... This first double clause is a negative statement of Joh 14:15 and John 14:23. See under those verses. Not mine, but the Father's ... This repeats the thought of Joh 12:48-50. The confusion of the apostles, necessitating Jesus' repetition of things previously taught, was due to their misunderstanding the true nature of Christ's kingdom, a misunderstanding that would not be cleared up until after Pentecost. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 If a dear friend is about to leave us, it would be some consolation to know that his leaving was not to be a permanent separation, and also that he was going away to arrange a special and better place than the one we now occupy. And what is especially cheering is the promise that he will find a place where we and our departing friend can again be together, never to be separated. Such a consolation Jesus offered to his apostles. The Father's house means Heaven, the personal dwelling place of God and the holy angels, and the place where Jesus lived before coming to the earth. Mansions is from MONE, and Thayer defines it, "A staying, abiding, dwelling, abode: John 14:2." There is only one place called Heaven as the dwelling of God, and it was in existence before Jesus came to the earth. He therefore was not going away to build or create such an institution. But he was going to make arrangements for the residence of his apostles in that celestial city. If a man writes ahead to a hotel for reservations, he does not expect the managers to build some more rooms, but to reserve those already there for the use of the expected guests. That is what Jesus meant he was going to do when he said, I go to prepare a place for you. He was going to Heaven to make "reservations" for his apostles (as well as for all others who faithfully serve Him). 3 This verse sets forth the following truths. Jesus was going away from the world to his Father's house to prepare a place for his apostles. After making that preparation he was coming to get his apostles. The purpose for coming after his apostles was that they might be with Him in the place prepared for them in his Father's house. All of this allows but one conclusion, namely, the mansions promised in verse 2 are in Heaven and not on the earth. 4 This short verse has two important parts, namely, the place to which Jesus was going (to his Father's house in Heaven), and the way to reach that place with reference to those who would go there after Him. The apostles should have known all this from the abundance of teaching Jesus had given them through the past three years. 5 In spite of all the teaching Jesus had given them, they seemed to be rather confused. Hence Thomas said they did not even know where he was going, much less know the way to it. His memory certainly was dull, for Jesus had just told him he was going to his Father's house. As to the way in which they (and others) could follow him, Jesus had not spoken as definitely on that point, at least not so lately. 6 In answering the last question of Thomas, Jesus made his speech more general in its application. That is, he laid down the principle on which all must act who would reach that blest abode in the Father's house. I am the way was the answer, and he asserted that no man would be able to reach the Father except by the Son. 8 These were not new subjects, for Jesus had spoken to them many times along that same line. The human mind is sometimes very frail, especially when it is agitated. The shadow of sorrow over the near departure of their Lord, seemed to dull the thoughts of the apostles. This is directly indicated by what Jesus said in chapter 16:6. That is why Philip requested to see the Father, although Jesus had previously taught the principle that seeing Him was equivalent to seeing the Father. 9 Been so long time with you. Jesus selected his apostles in the early part of his public ministry (Matthew 10:1-4), and hence Philip had enjoyed the advantage of that association all that time. It is significant that when Philip asked to be shown the Father, Jesus asked him if he did not know Him. Not that God and Christ are one in person, but they are one in purpose and spirit, and no man can treat or mistreat either one without doing the same thing to the other. 0 Since a father and his son are of kindred flesh, so the heavenly Father and his Son are thus closely related. In this sense they are in each other, though they are not the same person, even as an earthly father and son are not the same person. But if an earthly father and son were as united in character, purpose and spirit, as are God and Christ, than a man would need only to become acquainted with the son to learn the character of the father. 1 The strongest evidence of the divinity of Jesus was the work he was doing. He could not have accomplished his wonderful works without the aid of his Father. That is why he told the apostles they ought to believe him for the very works' sake. 2 The greater works the apostles were to perform were not what are commonly called miracles. Jesus had raised the dead, cast out devils and cured all manner of diseases. No greater miracles of that kind could be performed by anyone. The key to this statement of Jesus is in the words, because I go unto the Father. The absence of Jesus did not enable the apostles to do any miracle that was greater than the ones referred to above. But Jesus could not bring men and women into the church, because that institution was not in existence until He had gone unto the Father. After that, the apostles could and did bring people into the kingdom of Christ by the preaching of the Gospel. Those were the greater works that Jesus promised they would be able to do after he had gone to his Father. 4 To ask anything in the name of Jesus means to ask it by his authority. Jesus never asked anyone to do something that would have displeased his Father (John 8:29), therefore when he authorized his apostles to come for a favor or some assistance, the Father would see that it was granted. 5 This verse words the sentence in the form of a request or requirement. Verse 23 makes it more conclusive; places the keeping of the words of Jesus as proof that the apostles loved him. 6 This and the next verse contain a promise of the Holy Spirit to be sent to the apostles. This promise was made a number of times in the last hours that Jesus was with his apostles. It pertained to the same Spirit since there is but one (Ephe-sians 4:4), but its work through the apostles was so extensive, that Jesus referred to it in different forms of speech. I shall give the reader the several references on the subject which he may form into a chain if he wishes, as follows: John 14:16-17; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7-15. I now resume my comments on the present paragraph. It was appropriate to call the Spirit a Comforter, because Jesus was about to leave his apostles and the Spirit would furnish them consolation in the absence of their Lord. For ever means "age-lasting," hence the Spirit was promised to abide with the apostles as long as they lived, as a personal guide. It was also to abide in connection with their work to the end of the Christian Age (Matthew 28:20). 7 It was called the Spirit of truth because it was to guide the apostles into all truth (chapter 16:13). Whom the world cannot receive. None but the apostles were to receive the Holy Spirit in baptismal measure (except the special case of the household of Cornelius, which was temporary), and no one else was ever promised it in any measure until after he had come out of the world into the family of God (Galatians 4:6; Acts 5:32). Seeing him not. The world does not exercise its mental or spiritual eyes, by which only anyone could see the Holy Spirit. 8 The Greek word for comfortless is , which is so much like our English word that a lexicon definition is unnecessary. In its application here it means that Jesus would not desert his apostles whom he considered his "little children" (chapter 13:33). I will come to you. This was to be fulfilled figuratively or spiritually by sending to them His representative, the Holy Spirit. It will be fulfilled personally when He comes to take them with him to the home he has gone to prepare (verse 3). 9 See is used in two senses, literal and figurative or spiritual. Jesus was to be slain the next day, and in a few weeks was to leave the earth. After that the world would lose sight of Him literally. But the apostles were to continue seeing him spiritually through the association made possibly by the Spirit. Because I live. This was to be fulfilled for Christ both bodily and spiritually. He was to come forth from the dead to die no more, and also was to live continuously in the church for which he died and in which all of his faithful disciples would live spiritually. 0 At that day ye shall know. The apostles had professed faith in the promises of Jesus, but when the power of the Spirit was bestowed upon them, they would have personal evidence of the divine truth of them all. 1 This is virtually explained at verse 15. 2 Not Iscariot is inserted to distinguish the two men of the name of Judas. This one was the same whose shorter form was Jude. Judas did not observe the difference between the material and the spiritual manner of being manifested, hence he asked Jesus the question reported in this verse. 3 Come . . . make our abode is explained in the first part of the verse. The spiritual association of God and Christ with the disciples, was to be based on the condition that they keep the words of Jesus. 4 As the love for Christ is proved by obedience to his sayings, so the failure to keep them requires an opposite conclusion. God and Christ are one in Spirit and purpose, hence to reject the words of Christ is the same as rejecting God. 5 As long as Jesus was with his apostles, he could keep them informed on the necessary subjects by personal conversation. But they were human and their memory would be uncertain, therefore they would need some kind of helper that could renew it after Jesus was personally gone. That called for another statement of the promise that Jesus had already made in verses 16, 17. The said statement will be seen in the next verse. 6 Comforter is from PARA-KLETOS, and Thayer defines it, "A helper, succorer, alder, assistant." He then explains his definition, "So of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to the deeper knowledge of gospel truth, and to give them the divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom." In view of the meaning of the Greek word, we can understand why the King James translators gave us "Comforter" in these passages. The apostles had been used to leaning on the counsel of Jesus for guidance, and to have that taken from them would give them a feeling of helplessness as well as loneliness. The Spirit would thus overcome this state of mind and really give them comfort. The inaccuracy of unaided human memory would have made the historical reports of the apostles rather uncertain. But with the guidance of the Spirit, they could relate the various conversations of Jesus with infallible accuracy. 7. The Greek word for peace is ETRENE, and its proper or general meaning is a state of mind that is satisfied. It does not mean that no trials or hardships were to be expected, for Jesus had frequently told his apostles that such experiences were to be their lot. Notwithstanding such conditions, the assurance that Jesus would care for them was to give them a peace of mind that the world could not give. Hence Jesus again bade them not to be troubled or agitated. 8 They should not rejoice over the fact of His absence, but because of what it would mean for him to be again with his Father. In other words, as a feeling of unselfishness, or "rejoicing with them that do rejoice" (Romans 12:15), they should be glad for his sake. Father is greater than I. Jesus and his Father were perfectly united in spirit and purpose, but there are many respects in which a parent is greater than his child, and Jesus recognized that truth. 9 I have told you. This is a general reference to the instances in which Jesus told his disciples of his departure from them. By telling them beforehand, they would be prepared for the shock. Also, when the sad affair came to pass, it would have the virtue of evidence based on fulfilled predictions. 0 This was the Lord's way of repeating what he had said before, namely, that his conversations with them would soon be ended. According to Luke 4:6; John 12:31; John 16:11; Ephesians 2:2, the prince of this world is Satan. Bath nothing in me. 1 John 3:5 states that "in him [the Son of God] is no sin." There was nothing in the character of Jesus that was of interest to Satan, hence he determined to have Him removed from the world, and thus from the association with his apostles. 1 The wicked motive of Satan was to drive Jesus out of this world by a shameful and violent death. But the deed was to be turned into a demonstration of the love that Jesus had for the Father, in that he was willing to die to fulfill the will of his Father (Hebrews 10:7-9). Arise, let us go hence. This meant to arise from the table since the passover supper was over. But having given his apostles the consolation speech while still at the table, recorded in the preceding chapter, the Lord concluded to spend the few remaining hours he had left to be with them, by further instructions and admonitions. But while they left the table, there is no evidence that they left the room at once. That movement did not take place till chapter 18:1. David Lipscomb Commentary On Luke 15REMARKS OF JESUS BETWEEN THE SUPPER AND HIS ARREST John 15: 1 to 17 : 26 PARABLE OF THE VINE AND ITS Joh_15:1-8 1 I am the true vine,—Jesus often illustrated spiritual relations and things by natural ones. As they walked it is probable that they passed a vine with its spreading branches growing out of the vine. The intimate union existing between the vine and its branches suggested to his mind the intimate relations between himself and his disciples. Jesus with the twelve apostles as the teachers of the truths of the Bible constitute the vine. and my Father is the husbandman.—His Father as the hus-bandman dresses, trims, and keeps the vine and its branches. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away:—The language was spoken directly to the apostles and in a special manner illustrated his and their relationship to each other. The disciples grew out of him, are dependent upon him for life and strength, development and growth. He is the source of life and growth to them, and if they fail to receive life and growth from him and to bear worthy fruit, the Father as the vinedresser takes away the barren branch. [There is no such thing as “ turning one out of the church” nor “ joining the church” in the New Testament. We can neither vote him in nor out of the church. He obeys the gospel and the Lord adds him to the church (Acts 2:47), and if he fails to bear spiritual fruit the Lord will pluck him out. This he will do in the end of this world. (Matthew 13:40-47.) We may withdraw fellowship from one (2 Thessalonians 3:6), but this does not put him out of the church.] and every branch that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit.—The twelve apostles were the branches. Judas had ceased to bear fruit. He had him taken away. The other of the twelve were chastened and purified by the trials through which they passed at the time of the death of Jesus, and they were better fitted for the reception of the Holy Spirit, and so for bearing better and more fruit unto the Lord. [What we exist for as Christians is spiritual fruit; without it we are spiritual failures.] 3 Already ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you.—The disciples were cleansed and prepared through the word that Jesus had spoken to them. They were brought to believe and obey this word, and through obedience they were made clean and holy. [The teaching of Jesus and their associating with him had placed them as branches. They belonged to the fruit bearers, and they had been partially pruned. But Jesus well knew that they would need much additional pruning to load them with the glorious clusters of richest fruit which they were one day to bear. We should not overlook the fact that the fruit grows on the branches, not on the vine.] 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in me.—There was the same mutual dependence between Jesus and his apostles that exists between the vine and the branches. The branches can live only through the life they draw from the vine, so the disciples of Christ can live only through their union with him and the life they draw from him. So, too, the vine produces its fruit through the branches. Jesus would exert his influence to do good through the apostles. He teaches the world through them. A higher glory was to come to Jesus when he ascended to his Father and the apostles endued with the Spirit preached the gospel. [The prime necessity of the branch is to remain attached to the vine. But there can be no abiding in the spiritual vine except by a continued attention to the word of Christ. That which grafts us in continues us there. This being true of us, the abiding in him necessarily involves his abiding in us through his word. The moment a branch is cut or torn from the vine the conditions of life have ceased. There can be no more production of fruit. For a few hours there may be a semblance of life, but it is soon gone. The theme here formulated is not that of the moral powerlessness of the natural man for any good; it is that of the unfruitfulness of the believer left to his own strength, when the question is of producing or advancing the spiritual life, the life of God, in himself or others.] 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches:—[The only “ branches” recognized in the word of God are individual Christians. “ Branch churches are denominational organiza¬tions” presents a thought utterly foreign to the New Testament. Every Christian is a branch of the vine. His life is drawn from the vine. No denominationalism is warranted here.] He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit:—[It is absolutely impossible for the Christian who is in vital union with Christ to be fruitless. The life within him will force itself out in holy words and actions. There is no such thing as a do-nothing real Christian. Not only fruit, but much fruit and good fruit.] for apart from me ye can do nothing.—The disciples apart from Jesus were as lifeless and unable to bear fruit as the branches separated from the vine. [Here is the explanation of so much of the inefficiency of the church today. Men and women are not living in vital union with Christ. They go where Christ cannot go with them. They do what Christ cannot see with allowance, and say what he ought not to hear. They drive him away from them. Therefore there are no spiritual fruits.] 6 If a man abide not in me,— This expression—“ a man”— is a statement of a general truth. It applies to any and all men. A person must be in Christ before he can be or abide in him, [A Christian neglecting the means of grace.] he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered;—If he abides not in him he loses his life, withers, and dies, is unworthy of Christ, or of any good and is fit only for destruction. [This is true whether what is called “ church action” is taken or not. We can see such branches all around us. But well may we tremble as we read the next words. They are words of doom, but they cannot be set aside.] and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.—This indicates the manner of their destruction. [“ The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them in the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42.)] 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you,—To be in Christ, he must be in us. If he is in us, his words must abide in us. None can enter Christ save through his teachings, or receiving, believing and obeying his word. So if we abide in Christ, his word must be in and abide with us and mold our thoughts and feelings, and control our lives, and form our characters. ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall* be done unto you.—If his words abide in us, we will ask according to his will, and he will grant what we ask. [We do not understand this sentence to apply to prayer in general, as though anything we might ask for would be granted, but to pray for spiritual strength and blessing, pray with the view of bearing spiritual fruit. The next verse shows this. A prevailing prayer must be in the name of Christ (John 1:13) ; according to his will (1 John 5:14) ; in faith (James 1:6); followed by obedience to his commandments (1 John 3:22; James 4:3).] 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit;— God is glorified by his servants doing his will, keeping his words, and so bringing themselves fully under his guidance. [There are therefore the most cogent reasons why he should grant such a prayer. Temporal blessings given to us might not inure to his glory, but quite to the contrary, but spiritual strength must always promote the glory of God. Bearing much fruit is the test of true discipleship.] and so shall ye be my disciples.—In this course we bear much fruit unto him, and so become more and more the disciples of Jesus who came to do his Father’ s will. THE TO ABIDE IN THE LOVE OF CHRIST John 15:9-17 9 Even as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you:—The love that God bestowed on Jesus, Jesus bestowed upon his disciples. abide ye in my love.—They continued in his love by con¬tinuing to do his will. [By natural transition he now passes from the manifestations of spiritual life to the cardinal principle thereof, that is, love. If we may be allowed the expression, this is the divine sap which runs from the vine through the branches, and from the branches back through the vine, keeping up the divine circulation which is essential to divine life. But how shall we abide in his love?] 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love;—God is the Ruler of the universe. Everything in the universe continues in harmony with God by complying with the laws God gives to govern the universe. Everything in harmony with God and so with the laws of the universe will receive God through the workings of the laws of the universe. Everything not in harmony with the laws of the universe must be brought to ruin by the workings of the laws God has given to control the universe. [How different is Christ’ s teaching all through this evening from the vague rhapsodies of many so-called spiritual lights of today! How intensely practical! “ Keep my commandments” is the ever-recurring refrain of this divine music. It is the product, but it is also the condition of spiritual life.] even as I have kept my Father’ s commandments, and abide in his love.—Jesus was the most highly blessed and honored of all the spirits in the universe, because he more than any other being kept the laws of God. Jesus showed his love for the Father and remained in that love by keeping his commandments, so we can show our love to Jesus by keeping his commandments. This is the rule by which God tested his Son, and all his disciples are tested by the same rule. It is vain, a mockery of God, to claim to be his disciple, or to believe in him, while we refuse to keep his commandments. [Jesus has thus reached the climax of his exhortation, and now presents the blessed result of heeding it.] 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you,—Jesus spoke these things to them before he left them, that the joy that he possessed in keeping his Father’ s commandments might remain with them. Jesus possessed a joy and a peace that no sufferings or evil surroundings, not even the sufferings of the cross could disturb. Paul, in speak¬ing of the sufferings of Jesus, says: “ Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2.) [Thoughtfully he thinks back over the address and states why it was delivered. The exquisite joy that he feels in the consciousness of obedience to his Father, and the Father’ s approving love on account of that obedience produced that joy.] and that your joy may be made full.—Jesus wished that they might be filled with the same joy and comfort to bear them up in the distress that would come upon them in his death and the persecutions that would come upon them for his sake. [That a corresponding joy on their part may be made complete in their consciousness that they are sincerely and constantly endeavoring to do his will.] 12 This is my commandment, that ye love one another,—Jesus had so loved them that he gave up heaven for a time, took upon himself the nature and sufferings of the world, and the death of the cross for them. [Not my only commandment, but my great commandment. He had said to the lawyer in regard to the Mosaic law that its very essence was to love God and love your neighbor.] even as I have loved you.—While they would not equal him in the strength of his love, they must cultivate the same love one for another, and be willing to deny self and suffer one for another. [Not only as certainly as I have loved you, but as intensely as I have loved you.] 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.—The strongest love for one’ s friends is that he would lay down his life for them. Jesus was about to lay down his life for them. [This is the very acme of self-sacrificing love as between friends. Damon and Pythias have become immortal on its account. This was precisely what Jesus was about to do for his friends and which he did do the next day. But, more astounding still, for his enemies, though that is not introduced here. As the greater includes the less, this new exhortation of verse 12 includes all the offices that love can render and, we can readily understand, would transform the earth.] 14 Ye are my friends,—That they might know whether they came within the bounds of his love, he tells them who are his friends. if ye do the things which I command you.—Jesus loved the whole world and shed his blood for it, but only they who accepted the benefits of his death by doing his will appropriated that love and received the benefits from it. Those who obeyed were his friends and so only his friends received and appropriated the benefits of his love. While he loved his ene¬mies and provided for their happiness, they could enjoy it only by keeping his commandments. [Again he brings out the oft-repeated divinely appointed test of relationship to Christ— obedience to his command. We ought not to over¬look this constantly repeated lesson.] 15 No longer do I call you servants;—The people of God under the Jewish dispensation had been servants. Only Abraham through faith had become a friend of God. But Jesus came to lift them out of their state of servitude and make them, as later revealed, children of God. [Greek, slaves, as in chapters 12: 26; 13: 13. There is no disagreement here with verse 20, or with the apostles afterwards calling themselves servants. He does not say they are not servants under solemn obligations to serve, but he calls them friends. Just as a master having great confidence in, and intense love for, a slave, might call him friend and treat him as such without for a moment weakening his claim upon him as a slave.] for the servant—[Treated only as such.] knoweth not what his lord doeth:— The master does not make known to the servants his plans. He commands what the servant must do. but I have called you friends;—[I have treated you as friends— given you my confidence.] for all things that I heard from my Father I have made known unto you.—To a friend he makes known his purposes, plans, and will, and advises with him. Jesus had treated them as friends in making known to them all the will and purposes of his Father. [See Matthew 13:11. Not all absolutely, for there was still a great deal to be learned by them, but all that the most intimate friendship would demand up to that time; all that was proper to be communicated; for even to our friends we do not tell everything at once.] 16 Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you,—Jesus had chosen the apostles to be his witnesses, and to this end he had made known to them the will of God and commissioned them to teach all things he had taught them, (A wholesome memento after the lofty things he had just said about their mutual indwelling, and the unreservedness of the friendship to which they had been admitted. The initiative of their present relationship was with him. They were still under the highest obligations to him. He had set them apart to the apostolate.] that ye should go and bear fruit,— [The purpose for which they were set apart. The great object of the apostleship, as of all Christian activity, is to garner fruit for heaven.] and that your fruit should abide:—His choosing them brought them into a closer relationship to him; he taught them more fully and they were enabled to bear much more fruit as his friends, and in doing his will he again assures them that the Father will hear them. that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.—[That is, in all that appertains to the accomplishment of the work given into their hands.] 17 These things I command you, that ye may love one another.—The end of these teachings was that they must love one another, be ready to suffer for the good of each other, and work for each other’ s good as brethren. REMARKS ON THE WORLD’ S HATREDJoh_15:18-27 18 If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before it hated you.—The hatred of the world for Jesus was seen in the treatment the people gave him. They rejected his words, refused to obey him, and persecuted him. If they were true followers, they might expect the same treatment. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: —To be of the world was to reject Jesus and his teaching and to cling to the ways of the world. Jesus chose them, not to take them out of the material world, but that, while in the world, they might not follow the ways of the world, but his teachings, which are out of harmony with the world. The world seeks happiness and good in the world by gratifying the desires, lusts, and ambitions of the flesh. Jesus so directs his disciples that they find good and happiness in denying self and seeking the good of others. Find good in doing good to others and find happiness in making others happy is the essence of the teaching of Jesus. but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.—This principle condemns the world and the world opposes those who practice this divine principle. The end of God’ s training of man is to make man like God— like him in thought, purpose, and char¬acter. Man needs to be assimilated to God in character that he may be fitted to live with him and find pleasure with God and in his companionship. Man cannot enjoy the presence of God and his angel host unless he is educated and trained in character to dwell with them. The wicked, transported to heaven in their wickedness, with their wicked spirit, would be out of harmony and sympathy with God, Christ, and all the associations of heaven, and would find no joy or peace in heaven. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord.—The servant need not expect better treatment than the Master received. Those who persecuted him will persecute his disciples. Those who kept the word of Jesus will keep the words of his apostles. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.—[Those who would persecute the Lord will persecute his followers also. Those who would receive the Lord’ s words will also receive and keep their words. Some will persecute; others will accept the gospel. Christians must expect both results, persecution and glad reception, and be not disappointed in the persecution. This has been true since apostolic days. (Acts 13:42-45.) ] 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’ s sake,—All the opposition of the world and the persecution of the servants will be done because of their fidelity to the teach¬ings of Jesus. because they know not him that sent me.—The rejection of Jesus arose from their not knowing God who sent him. These Jews now trying to destroy Jesus claimed to know and wor¬ship God, but Jesus says they did it because they really did not know God who sent Jesus. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin:—[Here are three principles involved: (1) The degree of sin is determined by the measure of our opportunities. They who are in darkness cannot be blamed for not seeing unless they are responsible for being in the darkness. Those who have had no light from heaven will be lightly judged for breaking laws for which they could have no knowledge. (2) Increased opportunities bring the consciousness of sin. A ray from the noonday sun in the parlor reveals, but does not create, the cobweb. It was there before. So, too, the motions of sin in the soul are imperfectly recognized until the spiritual light shines in, but in that light sin is seen to be sin, and the conscience is alive to it. “ Apart from the law sin is dead. And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” (Romans 7:8-9.) So the knowledge of Christ, filling the soul with light, brings sin into full view and takes away all excuse for continuance therein. (3) The sin of all sins is the rejection of Christ. He who refuses him deliberately chooses sin. He not only willfully retains all past sins, but he adds to them the sin of re¬jecting Christ’ s offer of mercy as embodied in the gospel. but now they have no excuse for their sin.—[There is no excuse for it, no shelter, no covering, nothing that can exten¬uate sin. Ignorance might be an excuse, but when the offer of pardon is made and refused, ignorance cannot be pleaded. Christ’ s offer takes away every excuse and leaves the sinner at the judgment day to the sentence of condemnation. ] It is fre¬quently said that all were sinners and Jesus came to redeem them from sin. The language here must mean: If Jesus had not come as a messenger from God and spoken the words to them, they would not have been guilty of the sin of rejecting the one sent of God. But since he came ahd did these works of God, there is no cloak with which to hide themselves. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.—Love and hate in the Bible are practical words, and mean to do good or evil. To hate means to reject or oppose. And he who rejects or opposes Jesus does the same to his Father. They are one. Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus. The only way of approach to the Father is through the Son. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin:—Jesus had done among them works of a character impossible to be done by man. These works showed that God was with him. If he had not done these works they would not have been guilty of the sin of rejecting Christ— the greatest sin of all sins. but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.—These works which showed God’ s presence having been performed before their eyes, there was no excuse for their sins. They were the greater sinners for rejecting these works. Their rejecting him while the Father was working through him manifested their hatred of both him and his Father. To reject Jesus as the Christ is the greatest hatred of sin. 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.—This is quoted from Psalms 35:19. This condition of things showed that the scripture was true which foretold that “ they hated me without a cause.” (Psalms 35:19.) 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father,—Jesus had said, “ If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever.” (John 14:15-16.) “ Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.” (John 16:7.) The meaning of all the teachings of the fourteenth to the sixteenth chapters is that Jesus was about to leave his disciples here in this world. It distressed their hearts and this promise of another heavenly Guest, another divine Person, another representative of the Godhead to dwell with, instruct, go with, and comfort them in their sorrow over the departure of Christ is promised them. He gives the qualities of the Spirit. He will comfort for the absence of the Son; he is a Spirit that brings truth, lives truth, and dwells in truth, never in a falsehood. even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me:—He comes from God. Has re¬ceived the truth from God in heaven, brings that truth to earth, makes it known to man, and will testify of the truth concerning Jesus, and his mission and his home with his Father. 27 and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.—These disciples that now were so disheartened and disconsolate over his leaving them, in the days when the Holy Spirit should come to bear witness of him, would with gladness and joy join with the Spirit in bearing witness to the world of him and his works. Here the specific work of the Holy Spirit is said to bear witness of Jesus, and this witness of the Spirit is in and through the witness of the apostles themselves. Verse 1 This chapter is a continuation of the farewell discourses. True, the Lord gave the signal to conclude the meal and depart; but see the final paragraph in the preceding chapter. As Dodds said: He saw their reluctance to move, and the alarmed and bewildered expression that hung upon their faces; and he could not but renew his efforts to banish their forebodings and impart to them intelligent courage to face separation from him.[1]First, in this chapter, is Jesus' metaphor of himself as the true vine and the admonition to fruit bearing; then follows a restatement of teachings and exhortations previously given, including another reference to the Holy Spirit. ENDNOTE: [1] Marcus Dodds, The Gospel of St. John (Cincinnati, Ohio: Jennings and Graham), Vol. II, p. 175. I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. (John 15:1) This is parallel to John 15:5 and the seventh of the great "I am's" of this Gospel. For a list of these, see under John 8:12. Jesus' choice of this metaphor has been attributed to: (1) a fruitful vine growing over the window of the upper room where the discourses were spoken, (2) to the great ornamental vine decorating the door of the temple, (3) to the vineyards through which the Lord and the disciples passed when they left the upper room, (4) to Jeremiah's words, through which God said of Israel, "I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?" (Jeremiah 2:21), or (5) to the institution of the Lord's Supper which occurred during the last supper just concluded. Either (4) or (5) of the above, and perhaps both of them, explain the choice of metaphor here. I am the true vine ... The stress of "true" focuses attention on Jeremiah 2:21, in which passage the degeneracy of Israel was in view. Christ meant by this that he himself is the true Israel of God, the seed of Abraham through whom all the prophecies were to be fulfilled. The degenerate Israel's hatred of him which was reaching its climax at that very time was a most impelling reason why Christ should have stressed his status as God's true vine. The mention of "husbandman" in this context is most significant. The husbandman: God, will reject and destroy the degenerate vine, and the spiritual seed will be continued in the true vine, that is, "in Christ." But, as Robertson observed, "It is almost certain that there was an additional reason for the use of this allegory."[2] Also, as Hendriksen noted, "During the institution of the Lord's Supper. Jesus had spoken dramatically of the `fruit of the vine' (Luke 22:18), and scholars have great difficulty explaining this metaphor without reference to the Lord's Supper just instituted."[3]The supplementary nature of John is apparent in this inclusion of the allegory of the vine which was omitted by the synoptics. [2] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York and London, 1932), Vol. V, p. 257. [3] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 296. Verse 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit.Not only will the husbandman (God) reject the degenerate vine, he will also give the strictest attention to the true vine, extended here to mean not merely Christ but all the church "in him." Every branch in me ... See under John 14:20 for elaboration of the significance of being "in Christ." One not in Christ has the same status as a severed branch. Note that the responsibility of Christians is retained, the fruitless members being taken away. Even those who bear fruit are pruned to make them more fruitful. That very evening had revealed Judas as a branch which the Father took away and Peter as a branch that would be pruned. Of course, the primary application to the analogy here is to the apostles; but there is a sense in which, by extension, the teachings apply to all who are in the Lord. He cleanseth it ... The RSV has "prunes it" here which more exactly fits the metaphor. All Christians need pruning! As Henry said: The best have something in them which is peccant, something which should be taken away; some notions, passions, or humours, that want to be purged away; which Christ has promised to do by his word, Spirit, and providence.[4]ENDNOTE: [4] Matthew Henry, Commentary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), p. 1123. Verse 3 Already ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you.Christ here intimates that the apostles do not at the moment need "pruning," having already been pruned enough by the devastating teachings and revelations of that entire evening. Their pride, secularism, trust of themselves, and their vain ambitions had all been swept away in the knowledge of Judas' treachery, Peter's forthcoming denial, and the Lord's impending death, the latter being a fact that their minds could no longer avoid. However, the idea persists that these words were spoken prophetically, the present tense being used for the future; because, actually, much pruning remained for the beloved Twelve. Because of the word ... The instrument of cleansing from sin is the word of God. Some have supposed the Holy Spirit to be the cleansing agent in redemption; but this is not true, if by "agent" is meant the means of cleansing. The Spirit is sent into men's hearts not to make them sons of God, or to cleanse them, but because they are already so (Galatians 4:6). "The sword of the Spirit ... is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17); therefore, the word of God is the means and the Holy Spirit is the applicator or wielder of the means of cleansing from sin. What was true of the Twelve is true of all who are ever saved. It is "because of the word" of God. Verse 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in me.Abide in me ... standing at both ends of this verse is, in short, the plan of human redemption. All depends upon one's being "in Christ," and abiding "in him" until probation has ended. Jesus did not here elaborate the means by which one is brought into such a sacred relationship with himself; but the New Testament leaves no doubt of how this comes about. Men are baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27), nor is any other means of entry into Christ disclosed in the sacred Scriptures. See under John 14:20. Verse 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing.See under John 15:1 and John 15:4, and under John 14:20. Apart from me ye can do nothing ... As regards procurement of righteousness in the sight of God, no human being can ever achieve any semblance of it. Christ Jesus wrought the only righteousness (in the ultimate sense) ever known on earth. No man could ever achieve the tiniest fraction of such a righteousness as that of Christ; and therefore, no man can be saved as HIMSELF. The only way he can be saved is to be saved as CHRIST. God makes sinners righteous, not by imputing to them "a righteousness" of some kind, but by transferring the sinner himself "into Christ," thus identifying him as Christ and thus enabling the sinner to be presented "perfect in Christ" (Colossians 1:28). The analogy in the metaphor is that the branch is in fact the vine, being in it, and part of it; but when that union is destroyed by the branch's being cut off, it dies. Verse 6 If a man abides not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.Here is the answer to the old question of whether or not a Christian can so sin as to be lost. Both the precept and the example are here. Judas, at first a true apostle, did not abide in Christ and was cast forth as a branch. Salvation for every man ever born turns upon just two questions: (1) is he "in Christ"? and (2) does he remain "in Christ"? Given an affirmative answer to those two key questions, a man's salvation is absolutely secure. There is no way to be lost if one, "being in Christ." remains "in him" until probation is ended. "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord" (Revelation 14:13). This verse is not a lesson in horticulture. The casting into the fire and burning are references to the final fate of the wicked who know not God and obey not the gospel of Christ. And they gather them and cast them into the fire ... Men are not charged with such responsibility as this, the gatherers here being the angels of God (Matthew 13:41; Matthew 13:49). This metaphor breaks down at one point, because branches of a vine have no choice of remaining or not remaining in the vine; but individuals in Christ do have such a choice. This concept is inherent in Jesus' command to "abide in me," the power to do so being implied by the command itself. Verse 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto you.And my words abide in you ... This is here made the equivalent of Christ abiding in his disciples and of their abiding in him. See under John 14:20. Whatsoever ye will ... is not a promise that anything that might be asked of God by any person will be done, but means that a person truly "in Christ," and asking in harmony with the Father's will, will have his prayers answered. This is one of the great promises. Verse 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; and so shall ye be my disciples.That ye bear much fruit ... The worldwide thrust of Christianity is in this. The great purpose of the Lord's coming into our world was to save the entire human race if possible. "Whosoever will" is invited. The great commission was to the "whole creation." In the very shadow of the cross, Jesus' passionate desire was "much fruit"; and Jesus' stressing this here emphasizes the truth that the evangelization of the whole world is the first, last, and great duty of the church. Fruit ... may not be understood here as meaning exclusively the manifestation of the graces and virtues of holy living, although the fruit of the Spirit is definitely said to be such things (Galatians 5:22). A larger and more comprehensive meaning is included here, namely, that of producing more Christians. Conversions are the fruit Christ had in view here; and no Christian, and no church, can be considered truly "in Christ" unless passionately engaged in soul-winning. At this point, the farewell discourse of Jesus turned to his love and the necessity of his followers abiding in his love, thus concluding the analogy of the vine. CHRIST; THE TRUE VINEChrist is the true Israel of God, the seed of Abraham through whom all the prophecies were fulfilled; and union with Christ is the way to salvation and eternal life. Whether apostles or just Christians, all who hope for redemption must be "in Christ," abide in him, and be found in him at last. Failure to abide in the Lord, that is, failure to abide in his teachings: or failure to remain in his spiritual body, shall ever result in forfeiture of all spiritual blessings. The great purpose of unity with Christ is the salvation of the world, to the extent it may be possible. Men shall recognize Christ's disciples by their constant efforts to enlist others in the service of Christ. "And so shall ye be my disciples." The writer is indebted to the father of James H. Childress for the following thoughts on Christ as the true vine. He said: On the true vine, the grapes always grow in clusters, that is, in congregations; but, on wild grapes, like the Muscadine, the grapes grow in one's and two's all over it. Therefore Christians must: belong to congregations, and not float around like the grapes on the wild vine. Also, every cluster of grapes has a few "no good" grapes on it; and there are no congregations which do not manifest the same characteristic. It is not affirmed here that such thoughts were in the mind of the Lord when he gave the analogy; but none can deny the truth of Brother Childress' deductions from it. Verse 9 Even as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my love.Regarding the strange use of the perfect tense here, Westcott noted that: It is simpler to regard the tense as chosen with regard to a work now looked upon as completed, according to the usage which is not infrequent in these discourses. The love of Christ, as it were, is looked upon as the atmosphere in which the disciple lives.[5]Abide ye in my love ... again presupposes the ability of the believer either to abide, or not abide, depending upon his own will, and not upon any capricious election from all eternity. Westcott stressed that "This enjoyment depends upon the human side upon the will of man, for it can be made the subject of a command."[6][5] B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 219. [6] Ibid. Verse 10 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.The love of Christ by his disciples and his reciprocal love for them do not indicate a subjective emotional condition but a course of obedient action. This verse is almost the converse of Joh 14:15 (which see); and, taken together, they strongly teach that the love of Christ on the part of men means keeping Christ's commandments. This is reinforced by the truth, also stated in this verse, that even the love of the Father by the Son meant keeping God's commandments. Once more in John, it is revealed that the relationship between Christians and Christ is the same as that between Christ and the Father. Verse 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.Jesus had spoken of the Holy Spirit repeatedly during that evening; and since the fruit of the Holy Spirit is "love, joy, peace ... etc." (Galatians 5:22), it is rather significant that this triad of love, joy, and peace finds such tremendous emphasis throughout this discourse. (See also John 14:27.) This rather extended discussion of the FRUITS of the Holy Spirit must therefore be viewed as preparatory to Jesus' return to the subject of the Holy Spirit later in the discourse. These sacred references to the fruits of the Spirit throughout the farewell discourse disprove the allegations of Windisch and others who claim that the Spirit passages do not fit. Joy ... Like the love mentioned in John 15:10, the joy here is not so much a subjective state of ecstasy as it is a state of spiritual serenity, much higher and more satisfying than a mere emotional state of euphoria. All such things as fun, pleasure, delight, happiness, gladness, etc., are on a lower level than the joy promised by the Lord. Verse 12 This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you.This is identical with John 13:34, which see. Although not so designated here, it is the "new commandment." Verse 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.These words evidently inspired the reference of the apostle Paul to the incredible fact that Christ died for men while they were yet sinners (see my Commentary on Romans, pp. 183-185). The love of Jesus for men is here contrasted with the highest conceivable example of man's love for men, the love of Christ far exceeding any love that men might have for one another. Verse 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you. No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father I have made known unto you.The utmost desire on the part of God that people should obey him and receive his blessing is seen in the teaching here. God manifested itself in the person of his Son; and, having every right to command, he nevertheless stooped to plead with men and to solicit them as friends to do his will. No longer ... servants ... is not an excuse for Christians to abandon the concept of themselves as bondslaves of Christ (Romans 1:1); but the teaching is that the Lord treats his followers far better than any servant deserves to be treated. My Father ... Christ often used the first person possessive in speaking of the Father, a use not allowed to disciples who were instructed to pray, "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9). A clear implication of Jesus' Godhead is in this distinction. All things that I heard from my Father ... Jesus' revelation was complete; and, in its completeness, it was delivered to the apostles, who were enabled to remember it completely by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). This means that subsequent revelations of God's will are not. If Jesus did not teach it, his followers should not be duped into believing it, no matter what it is. In the light of this, where do such works as Science and Health, The Book of Mormon, and the encyclicals of popes appear? Verse 16 Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should abide; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.The supernatural nature of the call of the apostles to their God-appointed task is in view here. Their commission to teach all nations did not derive from some voluntary assumption of such an office on their part but was imposed upon them from above by Christ's choice of them for that work. But I chose you ... Concerning this, Westcott said: Here (and in John 6:70 and John 13:18) the eleven are regarded as representatives of the Lord in relation to his church, favoring the interpretation (that this is reference to a call of the apostleship). The power of the office of the apostles lay for them in the fact that it was not self chosen.[7]This passage strongly suggests the great commission (Matthew 28:18-20) in the mention of Jesus' being perpetually with them to provide whatever might be asked of the Father. ENDNOTE: [7] Ibid., p. 221. Verse 17 These things I command you, that ye may love one another.This oft-repeated commandment is here reinforced by the fact of their being co-holders of the sacred commission to all nations. Each of them had been empowered by God's specific act of choosing them to their sacred task; and, in such a dignity, they were even further entitled and admonished to love each other. Verse 18 If the world hateth you, ye know it hath hated me before it hated you.The bitter hatred of an unregenerated world was inevitable for the people singled out and chosen by Almighty God as his plenipotentiaries in the solemn business of extending eternal life to mankind and proclaiming the conditions under which it would be granted. There was no way the world COULD love such people, whose very lives and commission would ever be anathema to sinful man. The Lord, in this scene, was acutely conscious that the evil hatreds and maledictions which had marked the attitude of man toward himself would inevitably be directed in full fury against the holy apostles. Verse 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.Inherent in the world's hatred of Christ was also the undying hatred of the apostles and the divine message they delivered to men. In this lies the reason why unregenerated men have authored whole libraries of rejection and hatred against the Gospel of John. Given the two facts, (1) of what unregenerates are in themselves, and (2) of what the glorious Gospel of John is, and the hatred of this Gospel becomes absolutely inevitable. Can anyone believe for a minute that the word of Christ through the apostles is treated with any less bias and hatred than that which marked the world's treatment of Christ and the apostles themselves? See under John 15:24. Verse 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.This is the same as John 13:16, which see. The thrust of these words is as follows: as the world treated Jesus, so will it treat the apostles, and so it will treat the word of the apostles, that is, the New Testament. From this, as a matter of sacred principle, slanders of this Gospel (as well as of any part of God's word) may be instantly related to the hatred of Christ. Verse 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.All these things ... are the hatred, disobedience, mockery, persecution, lying trials, scourging, and death itself, etc., which marked the treatment of Christ by the world; and Jesus' promise here is that nothing will be left out in the world's similar treatment of the apostles. The holy Saviour was the object of Satan's unrelenting scorn, hatred, and opposition; and the apostles who would bear his name before kings, Gentiles, and the children of Israel would incur the full measure of satanic opposition. That Satan is actually the author of all such opposition is implicit in the fact that long after that generation had descended into the grave, the same bitterness and hatred continued against the truth, only with a new set of human opponents in each succeeding generation. Only Satan could continue unabated the organization, marshaling, and deployment of his devices in one unending campaign throughout all history, with a hundred generations in turn playing out the same role of hating the Saviour of the world, telling the same lies, sneering the same sneers, sinning the same sins, repeating the same mockeries, and shutting their eyes to the same truths - just like always! In nearly two millennia NOT ONE NEW THING has been alleged by the devil and his servants against the Christ of glory. The war has already been won, but so many do not know it. Verse 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin.This explains the implacable hatred of evil men for the truth. The wicked soul desires nothing so much as to be left alone; there is something terribly upsetting about an aroused conscience; and unregenerates will avoid disturbing a conscience with the intensity of a burglar tiptoeing past the guard dog. "Let us alone" (Mark 1:24 KJV) has been the cry of the depraved and corrupted of all ages. If Jesus had not confronted men with the fact of their wickedness, they would have had an excuse to continue in it. Verse 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.Jesus said: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). He that believeth on me, believeth ... on him that sent me (John 12:44). He that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me (John 12:45). If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also (John 14:7). He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father (John 5:23). He that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me (John 13:20). God will send the Comforter (John 14:16); Christ will send the Comforter (John 15:26). Thus this verse is another variation upon the dominant theme of John: hating Jesus is one and the same thing as hating God. Verse 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.Beginning at John 15:18 and through John 15:25, Jesus warned the little band of the attitude of the "world" toward them and their holy mission. It would be one of unyielding hostility and animosity, for there could never be any way by which the carnal mind would love and accept the teachings of Jesus. As Hunter noted: The WORLD bears its characteristically Johannine meaning - "human society as it organizes itself apart from God." The world's attitude to his disciples, he forecasts, will be a continuation of its attitude to himself - hatred, not love .... True then, it is true still, and always will be.[8]ENDNOTE: [8] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge: University Press, 1965), p. 151. Verse 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.Their law ... stresses the inordinate regard the priests had for the external features of Moses' law; and it was "theirs" in the sense of the affectionate regard they professed for it, while actually denying it by their sinful conduct. Note that the quotation ascribed to "the law" was not from the Pentateuch, thus revealing that the term "law" was a reference to the entire Old Testament. Passages referred to are: Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me; Neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause (Psalms 35:19). They trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity (Isaiah 59:4). Hated me without a cause ... means "without a just cause." That there was indeed a reason why they hated Christ is plain in John 3:19. Evil is its own sufficient reason for hating truth and righteousness. John never forgot this teaching and made it the basis of his comment on Cain: Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's righteous (1 John 3:12). That the word may be fulfilled ... Even in the dark hours that lay ahead, with all their sorrow, and even in the contemplation of the flood of evil that would engulf him and his followers, the Lord calmly pointed out that nothing strange was happening; all was going according to God's plan; the Scriptures had foretold all that would happen in the dark hours ahead. Verse 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me: and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.This is the third of the five so-called Paraclete passages in John, so named because the Greek word [@parakletos]; translated "Comforter," is found in the first four of these passages. See under John 14:16-17. There is no contradiction in the fact of Jesus' sending the Comforter and the Father's sending him (see under John 15:23). Critics who see a contradiction in these passages have simply missed the main point of this Gospel, namely, that Christ and the Father are one. Spirit of truth ... is another designation of the Comforter and stresses the function of completing the apostles' memory of all that Jesus had told them, the same being, in turn, all that God had told Jesus (John 15:15). There is an intimate connection here with John 15:15, making it impossible to think of this reference to the Comforter as an interpolation. This reference is absolutely necessary to understanding (1) how it will be possible for the apostles to deliver the total message of Christ to the world (John 15:15), and (2) how they are to realize such fruits of the Spirit as "peace" (John 14:27), "love" (John 15:10), "joy" (John 15:11), etc. This repeated mention of certain fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) in the verses leading up to this passage makes it certain that further reference to the blessed Comforter had been in Jesus' mind throughout the chapter. Because ye have been with me from the beginning ... This has reference to a primary requirement for the office of an apostle (Acts 1:21-22); and the introduction of this clause by the word "because" shows that these teachings about the Holy Spirit have reference to apostles, and not to all Christians. It is true, of course, that Christians receive an earnest of the Holy Spirit; but it is simply not true, nor do the Scriptures teach it, that the Holy Spirit will guide Christians into all truth. The proof of this is apparent in the fact that "all truth" is something that cannot be accurately associated with ANY Christian! Note also the fact that the guidance into all truth (in the apostles) by the Spirit was to be accomplished by bringing to their remembrance whatsoever Jesus had said unto them (John 14:26). How could the Holy Spirit help just any Christian to "remember what Jesus had said unto him," when, as a matter of fact, the Christian has never heard Jesus say anything at all? Thus, this final clause becomes a key to understanding the Paraclete passages. Questions by E.M. Zerr For John 151. Who is the vine? 2. In what relation is the father? 3. What is done with fruitless branches? 4. How does he treat the others? 5. By what means is the cleansing done? 6. In what was it given? 7. What mutual abiding is taught? 8. When can a branch not bear fruit? 9. To whom is this likened? 10. To whom is Jesus speaking? 11. What does he call them? 12. Tell what every branch is required to do. 13. Is every disciple required to do this? 14. When can they do nothing? 15. What man is cast forth as a branch? 16. Tell how he becomes then? 17. What is done with him then? 18. What must abide in the branches? 19. If so what may they expect? 20. Who is glorified by the fruit bearing? 21. What relation to Christ does this cause ? 22. In what were they to continue ? 23. Tell what example is mentioned. 24. How may this abiding be done? 25. Tell who had already done so. 26. For what purpose had Jesus spoken these thin 27. What was his commandment? 28. State the greatest proof of love- 29. Who are the friends of Jesus? 30. How were they above the servants ? 31. Who did the choosing? 32. For what were they ordained ? 33. With what assurance? 34. Repeat the command then given them. 35. Why might the world hate the disciples? 36. Tell whom the world loves. 37. From where had the disciples been chosen ? 38. Of what did Jesus remind his disciples ? 39. Who were destined to be persecuted? 40. What respect would be had for the word ? 41. For whose sake will this all be done? 42. What ignorance was responsible for this? 43. Why does this ignorance not excuse them ? 44. What hates cannot be separated? 45. State what works made them responsible. 46. Thy then saw and hated whom ? 47. From what document does Jesus quote? 48. Tell what he quoted. 49. Who was now promised to come? 50. From where does it proceed ? 51. What will he do? 1 One of the leading industries in Palestine was the production of grapes, which called for the cultivation of the vine. It was fitting that Jesus should use it as the subject of his parable at this time. Only a few minutes before he had partaken of the fruit of the vine while in the passover supper, at which time he said he would not drink of it again until he did so in the kingdom. That product having been before their eyes so recently, the apostles could appreciate a parable along the line of its production. True vine means that it is not counterfeit. The word is from ALE-THINOS which Thayer defines, "In every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name, real and true, genuine." The nation of Israel was compared to a vineyard (Isaiah 5:1-6), but the vine turned out to be a false one, while Jesus asserted that He was the true vine. The husbandman was the' person who planted and cared for the vine, and the Father is the one in the parable who has that part. 2 Purge is from , and Thayer's definition is as follows: "To prune." A vinedresser will observe the branches that are inclined to be productive, and will prune off all unnecessary growths that would sap the life from the vine without producing any fruit. If he discovers a branch that has not produced any fruit, he will remove it entirely from the vine as being detrimental to the growth and productivity of the whole plant. This pruning will be given fuller attention further on in the chapter. 3 Clean is from the same word as "purge" in the preceding verse. Jesus teaches that the pruning is done by his word, and hence that the process is a spiritual one. Even a branch ( a human being) that is alive and inclined to bear fruit, may have some useless traits developing that would finally damage the general life of the whole plant. It is the divine Hus-bandman's purpose to cleanse (prune) away those traits, so that it can bear more and better fruit. 4 Everyone understands the law of nature that requires continuous connection between a vine and its branches in order to bear fruit. The spiritual law is no less established concerning the relation between Jesus and his disciples. There is no salvation apart , from Christ, as taught in too many passages to cite now. 5 Ye are the branches. Much speculation has been done over this statement. It is true that Jesus was talking to his apostles only at this time, but that was because no other disciples were present. It is also true that the apostles were the first branches because of their official place in the great "plant of renown" (Ezekiel 34:29), but all vines have branches besides the first ones. Most of the things Jesus said about the branches and the necessity of their connection with the vine (Himself), are true of all disciples. Without me ye can do nothing. The first word is from CHOWS, which Thayer defines, "Separately, apart," and he explains his definition at this passage, "without connection and fellowship with one." It is the same truth stated in the preceding verse, of the necessity of being connected with Christ in order to bear fruit. To be connected with Christ today means to be in his body (the church), because if one is excluded from that body he is out in Satan's territory (1 Corinthians 5:5), where he cannot bear any spiritual fruit. 6 Observe the phrase, if a man, which is too general to be restricted to the apostles. Everything that is said here is true of all disciples of Christ, therefore all of them are branches of one vine. Cast forth as a branch means he is rejected because of being separted from the vine and has become withered. As all such dead branches are burned by the men caring for the vineyard, so all disciples who are severed from Christ will be cast into the fire at the judgment day. (See Matthew 25:41.) 7 Ask what ye will seems unlimited if considered alone. The proviso is in the words about abiding in Jesus, and letting them abide in the apostles. As long as a person's requests are according to the words of Jesus, they will be lawful and will have the assurance of being granted. The line of comparison is still drawn from the vine and its branches. A. branch obtains the sap and germinating principles from the vine. Everything that the branch is expected to produce, will be fully supplied for it by the vine. Should the branch call upon the vine to furnish it with the materials necessary to produce apples, the vine would ignore such a request because the branch is not supposed to produce such fruit. Likewise, if a branch of this spiritual vine should ask the vine (Christ) for ability to start a wild plant, that request would be denied because the branches (disciples) are not supposed to produce any such fruit. 8 Disciples is a more general term than apostles, although Jesus was talking to the latter. The idea is that what Jesus was teaching was true of all disciples of Jesus. If a person should see grapes growing on a branch, he might not be able to see anything but the branch due to its being uncovered only, while the vine was hidden from view. But later he might be permitted to see a vine only of a tame variety. From this combined circumstance he would be able to conclude that the branch on which he saw the tame grapes was connected with that tame vine, because no other kind of plant could produce such fruit. Also, when people see certain kinds of spiritual fruit being produced by men and women, they will know them to be disciples of Jesus, seeing that no other ielationship can produce that kind of life. That is why Jesus said, so shall ye be my disciples in the eyes of the world. 9 A husbandman supplies his vine with soil and other necessary material for producing fruit so that it can pass on the material to the branches that are still connected. Likewise, the Father has bestowed infinite love on his vine (the Son), so that he can pass that love on to the branches (the disciples), that are still connected with the vine. Hence Jesus here exhorts them to continue ye in my love. 0 The figurative form of speech is discarded now, and Jesus expresses the same thoughts in direct language, and exhorts his disciples to keep the commandments in order to abide in His love. (See chapter 14:23). 1 Jesus was about to be crucified, yet he speaks of his joy; Paul refers to this joy in Hebrews 12:2. Jesus would never pretend having a joy that he could not or did not have, and the joy attributed to him was not the literal experience of the scenes at the cross, for the very anticipation of that ordeal caused his sweat to coagulate while in the garden (Luke 22:44). The joy was over what He knew would result from the great sacrifice. He wished this joy to be shared by his apostles, and that was why he had taken so much care about giving them an abundance of information. 2 This is virtually the same as verse 11. 3 True friendship and love are best manifested by what a man is willing to do on behalf of the ones whom he professes to love. He will be willing even to give up his life for their sake if the necessity arises. Jesus was soon to do that very thing, and hence he wished his disciples to be prepared in mind for the separation. 4 Jesus did not ask his disciples to give up their lives in the physical sense as he was required to do. Of course, if the enemy should bring bodily persecution upon them, they should be willing to die rather than betray their devotion to Him. But that would be a result of their services, and not a deliberate part of it according to their own arrangement. What Jesus meant was that the true followers of Him would devote their lives to his service. That is why he said what he did in this verse about showing their friendship for Him. They were to be regarded as his friends IF they did whatever he commanded of them. Hence if a man specializes on being a "Friend" of Jesus religiously, yet at the same time refuse to obey the commands of the Lord (one of which is to be baptized), such a man is making a false claim and is not a true friend of Jesus. 5 There were different kinds of servants in Bible times, and the distinction should be considered to avoid confusion. In the present passage the word is from DOULOS, and Thayer's definition is, "A slave, bondman, man of servile condition." Robinson comments on the word as follows: "In a family the DOULOS was one bound to serve, a slave, and was the property of his master, 'a living possession' as Aristotle calls him. . . . According to the same writer a complete household consisted of slaves and freemen. . . . The DOULOS therefore was never a hired servant." It was in that view of the word that Jesus said he would not call his disciples his servants. The distinction is set forth by the confidential relation between Jesus and his religious household which was composed of his faithful disciples. A hired servant was not informed about the intimate affairs of his master, while Jesus wishes his disciples to know all about the things that pertain thereto. Of course this was especially true of the apostles, since the Master depended upon them to pass the information on to the unofficial household members. 6 See the comments on the preceding verse as to the special need for information to be given the apostles. The English word ordain occurs a number of times in the New Testament, and does not always have the same meaning. Much confusion has existed in the religious world over this word, and most of it is due to the erroneous principles taught by Rome, and brought over into the so-called Protestant groups by their teachers. It will be helpful to give the reader a complete view of this word as it comes from the various Greek originals. It will not be quoted in full again, hence he should make note of its location for ready reference. The following table gives all the words in the Greek New Testament that are rendered "ordain" in Authorized Version, together with the references where they are found, followed by the definitions according to Thayer. . 1 Corinthians 7:17; 1 Corinthians 9:14; Galatians 3:19. "To arrange, appoint, ordain, prescribe, give order." KATHIS-TEMI. Titus 1:5; Hebrews 5:1; Hebrews 8:3. "To set, place, put; to appoint one to administer an office; to set down as, constitute, to declare, show to be." . Hebrews 9:6. "To furnish, equip, prepare, make ready; to construct, erect; adorning and equipping with all things necessary." KRINO. Acts 16:4. "To determine, resolve, decree." HORIZO. Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31. "To ordain, determine, appoint." POIEO. Mark 3:14. "To (make i. e.) constitute or appoint one anything." PRO-ORIZO. 1 Corinthians 2:7. "To predetermine, decide beforehand." TASSO, Acts 13:48; Romans 13:1. "To place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint." TITHEMI. John 15:16; 1 Timothy 2:7. "To set, put, place." . Acts 14:23. "To vote by stretching out the hand; to elect, appoint, create." . Jude 1:4. "To write before." PROETOI-MAZO. Ephesians 2:10. "To prepare before, to make ready beforehand." GINOMAI. Acts 1:22. "To become, i. e., to come into existence." The reader should note that most of these Greek words have been translated also by other words in the New Testament, but I have given only the places where they have been rendered "ordain." The latter part of the verse is explained at verse 7. 7 This verse is a repetition of verse 12. 8 It should have beer regarded as an honor for a disciple of Christ to be hated by the world. Such hatred began when He attacked the wickedness of the world, and it would be logical for the followers of such a teacher to be accorded the same sentiments. The truth is that one of the evidences of a man's relation to Christ morally is the persecution that is heaped upon him (2 Timothy 3:12). 9 The clannish characteristics of the people of the world will lead them to love their own. See Matthew 5:43-47.) By the same token, when they see hat a man's manner of life is the opposite of theirs they will naturally hate him. Such a sentiment is a form of envy or a feeling of (moral) inferiority complex. It is similar to the motive of a spoiled boy who tries to puncture the balloon of his playmate, because he does not have one himself. 0 The thoughts of this verse are the same that have been mentioned in preceding ones under different terms of relationship. In this passage the relation of ruler and servant is considered. 1 Know not him is said in two senses. The people of the world did not have an understanding of the goodness and greatness of God. Also, they were unwilling to recognize Him for his greatness and hence would not respect his Son's disciples. 2 The subject of responsibility is what Jesus is teaching in this verse, especially that which is dependent upon instruction. The Lord will not hold men responsible for not accepting any truth that was never offered to them. Jesus had come personally among mankind and been teaching by word of mouth. It is true that most of them stopped their ears so they would not hear, yet the opportunity for receiving the gracious truths made them fully responsible for all the teaching offered to them. 3 This is taught in John 14:23-24 and other places. 4 This verse teaches the same principle of responsibility as verse 22, but from a different standpoint. No intelligent man should fail to grasp the evidence of his own eyes. The people had seen the miraculous works of Jesus through a period of more than three years, and they should have known that no one like them could perform such deeds. The conclusion which they could not avoid was that Jesus was doing the things by the help of God. That is why Jesus accused them of both seeing and hating him and his Father. 5 Their law. The pronoun refers to the Jews who had rejected the teachings of John and Christ. The Sabbattarians teach that the law of Moses was intended to be perpetual and hence to be in force over all mankind. Had that been true, then the Old Testament would not have been "their" law any more than it was that, of Christ and his apostles. The writing cited is in Psalms 35:19, and according to chapter 10:34, the Psalms were a part of the law. 6 This verse is a link in the chain of passages about the Holy Spirit, that was suggested at chapter 14:16. Jesus was to send this Spirit as a Comforter, and it was to be obtained of the Father. Everything that. the Spirit would say would be according to what Jesus had said, and in that sense he was to testify of Him. 7 The apostles had been personally with Jesus from the beginning of his personal work (Mark 3:14; Acts 1:21-22). That would qualify them to speak as eye and ear witnesses, and the Spirit of truth would see that their memory was accurate. David Lipscomb Commentary On John 16 AND OTHER WORKS OF THE SPIRIT STATEDJoh_16:1-15 1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be caused to stumble.—Jesus foretold that these things would come to pass so that when they did happen his disciples might not be discouraged and caused to fall by appalling things com¬ing upon them. To tell them beforehand would assure them that he was divine and would insure confidence in him. To stumble in the Bible generally means to fall into sin. 2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God.—He told them these things to prepare them for the trials, persecutions, and afflictions to which they would be subjected. [Not merely a physical driving forth, but excommunication and deprival of all synagogue privileges. All this was to be the bitter ingredient in the cup. It is one thing to be persecuted by those whom we not only know to be wicked, but who know themselves to be wicked. But to be persecuted by those who, like Saul of Tarsus, means to do right, and think they are serving God in making us suffer is quite another thing. It is calculated to make the sufferer wonder whether he is doing right himself.] 3 And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father, nor me.—All these persecutions and afflictions they would bring upon the disciples because they neither knew the Father nor Christ. Their failure to know God and his Christ causes men to hate those who obey the laws of God. [This was to prepare them against the persecutions they would be called upon to endure. He assures them that though the zeal of their persecutors might be a “ zeal of God,” yet it would not be according to knowledge. Their religious education and training gave them no real knowledge of the Father or himself. Consequently the disciples need not waver or be uncertain about their own religious status on account of persecution.] “ These things” are the persecutions even unto death which Jesus had just told his disciples they would suffer. This was evidently spoken by way of explaining why the world would so severely persecute them. It is but another way of saying there is eternal and uncompromising enmity on the part of those who know not God and his Son Jesus Christ against those who walk with God and believe on the Lord. 4 But these things have I spoken unto you, that when their hour is come,—[The hour of their fulfillment.] ye may remember them, how that I told you.—[Remember¬ing thus that he had predicted the sorrows, they would also remember the joys beyond and be comforted and upheld.] And these things I said not unto you from the beginning, because I was with you.—These afflictions that would come upon them, he did not tell them in the beginning of his minis¬try because he was abiding with them. But now he is about to leave them, he forewarns them that when the trials come upon them they will remember them and not be driven from faith in God and in him. [He advanced in his instruction just as they were prepared to receive it. By degrees had he re¬vealed to the disciples the dark, rugged, and bloody pathway that they should be called upon to travel. In the beginning of his ministry he did not teach of these things for the reason they were not prepared to receive it. In the second year of his ministry he began to gradually unfold them, but only in the hour of his departure does he reveal to them the trials that are to come upon them. The greatest of all their trials, unless the promised comforter came, would be the departure of the Lord. While he was with them the bolts of hatred and malice would be thrust at him, but when he was gone and they repre¬sented him on the earth these bolts would hit them. As long as Jesus was with them these personal trials of the apostles would not begin, and therefore he saw no necessity of burden¬ing their hearts prematurely with their anticipation. But now he was to be taken from them, so he unfolds it.] 5 But now I go unto him that sent me;—[Jesus shows himself conscious of preexistence, of having come from another world to which he was to return by the way of the cross.(17:5.)] and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?—The Father had sent Jesus into the world to perform a work; when he has reached the time to finish that work he will return to his Father. [They had asked this question (John 15: 36, 14:5), but they had become so preoccupied with themselves and the desolate condition in which his going would leave them that they had ceased to. ask him. His human yearning for sympathy shows itself in this tender reproach.] 6 because I have spoken these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.—Peter (13: 36) and Thomas (14: 5) had both asked this question, but now when his going away is at hand, none ask “ whither goest thou?” but sorrow fills their hearts. [They were entirely given up to their gloomy fore¬bodings.] 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth:—The Father provides for all things; the Son creates or embodies the purposes and provisions of the Father; and the Spirit then gives life and order to this creation, gives law to guide and promote and perfect and multiply the order created by the Father. [This is not an assertion of his veracity, as though they had doubted it, but an intimation of the necessity of its communication, and of the necessity of his departure. And now he proceeds to give grounds for the latter point.] It is expedient for you that I go away;—[With their false ideas of an earthly political kingdom with Jesus their king, nothing could have seemed harder to receive than this. They might submit to the inevitable, but that the departure of Jesus should be expedient— desirable— this was too hard to receive.] for if I go not away, the Comforter— [The Holy Spirit, called in the footnote “ Advocate or Helper.” ] will not come unto you;— [Jesus evidently holds this up as a supereminent gift to obtain which might well justify any sacrifice on their part, even giving up the precious companion¬ship with him which had been the joy of their hearts.] but if I go, I will send him unto you.—[The death of Christ was necessary to his glorification. For some reason not revealed even Jesus, here upon earth in his natural human con¬dition, could not, or at least did not, confer upon them super¬eminent gifts of the Holy Spirit. While he was with them the Holy Spirit reached them through him. In the future the Holy Spirit is to reach the world through them.] The work that Jesus had begun in the disciples could not be completed and perfected unless the Spirit came and completed his work. The work of the Spirit was needed to complete and perfect them to dwell with God and to do the work he had chosen them to do and to fit them to enjoy the home and blessings of God forever. If they had understood these things they would have rejoiced at Jesus leaving them since he left to send the Spirit that they might receive the greater blessings. 8 And he, when he is come,—[It is strange in the light of these words, and, indeed, this whole conversation, that any can be found to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, and to speak of him as a mere abstract influence. Here, as in re¬gard to Satan, Jesus made a very uncertain use of words, if he did not know, and mean to assert, the personality of the Holy Spirit.] will convict the world—[Not by direct work upon their hearts, but as the event shows (Acts 2:37), through the life of the apostles, declaring the wonderful works of God. He came not to the world, but “ unto you,” the disciples. The world could not receive him directly (14: 17), and never can, as the world. But the apostles received him, and through their testimony he reaches the world.] in respect of sin,—[This convicting and convincing work of the Holy Spirit is entirely in relation to Jesus Christ. The world had no consciousness of sin in regard to him, believing him either fanatic or impostor in the claims which he made. The Holy Spirit is to show them that they are sinners against Christ.] When the Spirit came on the day of Pentecost, his first work was to bear witness that Jesus was from God, that the world had rejected and crucified him; but that God had raised him from the dead and had made him both Lord and Christ. The Spirit did this work of bearing witness of Christ through the apostles, who, under the guidance of the Spirit, bore witness themselves of the works he had done, of his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to his Father, and the descent of the Holy Spirit who was directing the works they saw. and of righteousness,—He not only convicted the world of sin in crucifying the Lord, but they presented him as the Holy One, through whose mission the sinner could be made righ¬teous. and of judgment:—Judgment in which the wrath of God against sin and the reward of righteousness would be exe¬cuted. [The power with which Jesus is to be clothed to judge the world.] 9 of sin, because they believe not on me;—The greatest, be¬cause the sin of all sins, without which no sin could be blotted out, is the sin of unbelief in the Son of God. [He proceeds to describe the method of the Holy Spirit’ s mission to the world. It is logical in character. The sin, the supreme sin, the acme of the world’ s sin, is to be shown in the rejection of Jesus Christ. If the world had no other sin to answer for, this will be enough to destroy it if it shall persist in it after the Spirit has done his work.] 10 of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more;—His righteousness in himself doing the full righteous will of God, and through his death making others righteous he went to his Father where they would no more see him on earth. [The death of Jesus, had it been perpetual, would have been a tremendous argument against his claims. But when the Holy Spirit demonstrated his resurrection and ascension to the Father, and his power in the invisible world for good, it establishes the truth of those claims, and his consequent righteousness, beyond a peradventure.] 11 of judgment,—[That is, of impending judgment of the world by Christ.] because the prince of this world hath been judged.—The evil one is the prince of this world. He became so when man, the ruler in Eden, chose to follow Satan rather than obey God. All in this world had been intrusted to man, and he transferred his allegiance of the world to him instead of God. Jesus came into the world to rescue man and the world from the rule of the devil. The final conflict was now at hand. He would surrender himself to the power of the devil, go down into the grave, and there in the devil’ s own prison house overcome him, burst the bonds of death, and condemn him as a usurper of the prerogatives of God. The prince of this world used the rulers of the kingdoms of the world to bring Jesus to the grave. [Satan’ s great power was death. The world had ever been in bondage to him through death. (Hebrews 2:14-15.) This power he had exercised even over Jesus; but this only temporarily and by permission. The resurrection of Jesus broke his sceptre and announced his judgment. He was a criminal at the bar instead of a mighty lord. But he who had power to judge the universal conqueror of humanity would certainly have power to judge the world. Thus complete and logical is the argument of the divine advocate of Jesus as predicted by Jesus. For its fulfillment read Acts 2 and indeed the whole line of the apostolic ministry, which was and is the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the world.) 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.—Jesus could teach only as they were able to understand and appreciate. Their dullness precluded his teaching them now. He could transfer it to the coming of the Spirit who would qualify them for, and guide them into, all truth. [The death of Christ would have a wonderful clarifying effect upon their spiritual vision, and also to give a great uplift to their moral strength, and an indescribable intensification to their faith. Under these changed conditions revela¬tions, which now would be beyond their comprehension, would be clear to them, and doubtless the “ forty days” (Acts 1:3) were full of these sayings.) 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth:—The mission of the Spirit to them was to complete the revelation of God’ s will to them. Notwithstanding their inability to receive all the truth then, the Holy Spirit would complete the revelation to them, would guide them into all the truth. [The “ you” here is specific to the apostles. “ All the truth” comprehends redemption through the death of Christ, the relation of grace to the law, the conversion of the Gentiles without any Mosaic legal condition. In a word, the contents of the epistles and the apocalypse so far as they pass beyond those of the teaching of Jesus.) for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak:—The Spirit, like Jesus himself, would not originate what he spoke, but would speak what he heard from the Father. The Spirit would become the representative of the Godhead on earth. and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. —[All the things that are revealed. This is confined to the apostles. It opens up no place for modern visionaries with their claims of new and advanced revelations. He was to de¬clare to them not only what might be necessary for their guid¬ance (Acts 20:22-23), but for the benefit of the church.] 14 He shall glorify me:—[His mission is to exalt or glorify Christ. It pertains entirely to him. It is to advance his glory that he comes.] for he shall take of mine,—[He has nothing to communi¬cate of his own. He takes up the work where Christ stops and carries it to completion.] and shall declare it unto you.—He will from the Father re¬ceive the full and perfect knowledge of the Son of God, and make it known to the disciples. This was done on Pentecost when the Spirit revealed the full mission and character of Christ to the apostles, and through them to the world. [This verse is decisive against all additions and pretended revelations subsequent to and besides Christ, it being the work of the Spirit to testify and declare the things of Christ, not any¬thing new and beyond him.] 15 All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he taketh of mine, and shall declare it unto you.—Jesus and his Father are one in their character and pos¬sessions. As the Son of God, he was heir to all things, there¬fore in revealing the things of God, they made known those of Christ the Lord. [We are here shut up to two alternatives, either that Jesus of Nazareth is not only the Christ, but the Son of the living God, in all that those words can imply of deific attributes and essence, or that he was the most arrogant pretender that the world has ever seen.] HIS AND RETURN John 16:16-24 16 A little while, and ye behold me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see me.—In a little while he would be taken from them and go into the grave where they could not see him and, in a little while he would appear again and they could see him. These things would be brought about as pre¬paratory to his return to his Father. 17 Some of his disciples therefore said one to another, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye behold me not; and again a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Be¬cause I go to the Father?—The apostles were still ignorant of his coming death, burial, and resurrection. He had told them, but it differed so far from their ideas of what his cause would be that they could not perceive by dying and rising again. 18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? We know not what he saith.—They say among them¬selves that they cannot understand the meaning and desired to ask him to explain it. 19 Jesus perceived that they were desirous to ask him, and he said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves concern¬ing this, that I said, A little while, and ye behold me not, and again a little while, and ye shall see me?—Jesus, without being told, knew their thoughts and their desire to ask him and himself asked if they wished him to explain his meaning. [This power to read their thoughts proves he was more than human.] 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and la¬ment, but the world shall rejoice: ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.—The results of their grief and sorrow would be followed by joy and gladness. [This was in a few hours fulfilled. His disciples were broken¬hearted and wept at the grave. “ We trusted that he would restore the kingdom of Israel” was the wail of buried hopes. At the same time his enemies were rejoicing over what they thought was a glorious victory. But soon all was changed. The glad news came, “ The Lord is risen.” They heard him exclaim “ all authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth,” then they saw him ascend into heaven, then they “ returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” Their sorrow, in¬deed, was turned into joy.] 21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but when she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for the joy that a man is bom into the world.—He illustrates by the pain and anguish of a woman in travail chased away by the joy that a man is born into the world. [The figure of a woman in travail was used to illustrate sudden sorrow and anguish. (Isaiah 21:3; Hosea 13:13; Micah 4:9.) But here Jesus gives it a new application by asserting that joy comes out of the pains of travail.] 22 And ye therefore now have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice,—So now in his going away sorrow will fill their hearts to be succeeded by joy when they see him again. and your joy no one taketh away from you.—Their joy shall be permanent; none shall deprive them of it. The resurrec¬tion of Christ foretokens the resurrection to eternal life of all who believe in him. [Jesus refers to his own appearance to the disciples after his sufferings and resurrection, which would turn their sorrow into joy. That joy would be perma¬nent. All enemies on earth combined with those of the under¬world might assail them, but “ no man could take it” away.] 23 And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name.—Then they shall be brought into immediate union with God the Father and in that state they could approach him directly without the intervention of a mediator. He will gladly answer them himself. 24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name:—As yet they had not regarded Jesus as the mediator through whom they must approach God. He had not entered upon his me¬diatorial work, and so they had asked nothing in his name. ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be made full.— When he had suffered and died as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and ascended to his Father as the Great High Priest and Advocate with the Father, then they must ask in his name, as his servants and representatives, purchased by him, and the fulness of the blessings would make their joy full. AN END OF IN Joh_16:25-33 25 These things have I spoken unto you in dark sayings: the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly of the Father.—These things he teaches now in parables or illustrations, but when his death and resurrection were accomplished, he would speak plainly and they would then have learned enough to understand. 26, 27 In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have be¬lieved that I came forth from the Father.—After his resurrec¬tion and ascension they were to ask in his name. Then he does not say he will ask the Father for them because by their faith in him as sent of God and their love and obedience to him God would of his own love bless them. 28 I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go unto the Father.—He had been with God, had been sent forth by God into this world. Soon he would leave the world and return to God. 29 His disciples say, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no dark saying.—They thought they comprehended his plain statement and so claimed; but it is very doubtful if they grasped its meaning, or if they did, it slipped from them, for after his crucifixion they still did not understand that he was to die, be buried, and rise again. 30 Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou earnest forth from God.—By virtue of his knowing their thoughts and answering their difficulties they claim to know that he is from God and knows all things. These impressions seemingly clear at times would often vanish and their hearts would be beclouded with doubts and uncertainty. 31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?—This was asked in view of their lack of steadfastness in their faith. 32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone:—He here presents the trials that they would be called upon to undergo by which their faith would be tested. They would forsake him— all of them leave him alone. The feeling of loneliness seems to creep over him. and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.—He was not alone, for God never forsakes his children that are faithful to him in the darkest hour. 33 These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.—He transfers his own source of joy to them. In the world tribulation, persecution, and sorrow would come; but he had overcome the world. He had done it for them, and the Father would be with them as he had been with Jesus. They could overcome the world, too. Verse 1 This chapter concludes the discourse leading up to the great intercessory prayer. It has the whole world in view (John 16:1-11) with its relation to the Holy Spirit, emphasis upon the Spirit's relation to the apostles (John 16:12-15), and final remarks before the great prayer (John 16:25-33). These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be caused to stumble. (John 16:1) These things ... indicates no break between these two chapters. Gaebelein noted that: The thought might have arisen in their minds that the coming of the Spirit would change things as far as the world is concerned; but he guards them against such a false hope and gives them a prophetic warning so that they might not be offended.[1]The particular things referred to were Judas' treachery, Peter's denial, the fact of his approaching death, and the continuing hatred of the world. Not be caused to stumble ... This rendition is preferable to that of the KJV; because, as Hovey wrote: In the New Testament, (this word) never denotes causing one to stumble physically, but always morally, in other words, meaning ... "to cause one to fall into sin or apostasy."[2][1] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1965), p. 302. [2] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 310. Verse 2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God.The apostles might have anticipated their expulsion from synagogues, for they had witnessed what was done to the blind man (John 9:34); but, at this stage of their development, they could not have been aware of the frenzied hatred that would fall upon them when they began their worldwide proclamation of the gospel. Out of the synagogues ... This was a penalty dreaded by every Hebrew, meaning loss of social acceptability, employment, and all access to the religious life of the community. Excommunicated persons were held to be worse than pagans and were the object of total rejection and hatred. Killeth you ... The world's hatred of the apostles would never be abated by the mere penalty of excommunication; they would be murdered. Christ also revealed here that their murder would be motivated by religious considerations. As Barnes put it: The people of God have suffered most from people who were conscientious persecutors; and some of the most malignant foes Christians ever had have been in the church, professed ministers of the gospel, persecuting them under pretense of zeal for the cause of purity in religion.[3]Dummelow tells us that "There is a Jewish saying, `Every one that sheddeth the blood of the wicked, is as he that offereth a sacrifice.'"[4] Paul himself, before his conversion, was a conspicuous example of this very type of persecutor. [3] Alfred Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 344. [4] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 801. Verse 3 And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father, nor me.The world's hatred of truth derives primarily from ignorance; but it is not an excusable ignorance. (The world's ignorance) is rather a part of their sin, but a part which accounts for the rest. That when light came into the world, they loved darkness rather than light (John 3:19), was in a high degree sinful.[5]Lipscomb said of this: It is but another way of saying that there is an eternal and uncompromising enmity on the part of those who know not God and his Son Jesus Christ against those who walk with God and believe on the Lord.[6][5] Alvah Hovey, op. cit., p. 311. [6] David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 250. Verse 4 But these things have I spoken unto you, that when the hour is come, ye may remember them, how that I told you. And these things I said not unto you from the beginning, because I was with you.This does not mean that Christ had not previously taught them of the persecutions coming upon them; because there had been many strong words to the effect that they would have to "deny" themselves, take up the cross, and suffer will and hatred. All such previous words, however, were understood by the apostles in a frame of reference to themselves as part of a company led by Jesus. Here Christ revealed that they would be without his physical presence during the trials, sufferings, and death they would endure. From the beginning ... This repeated (John 15:27) phrase is of the utmost consequence, limiting the application of this discourse to the apostles, and making it inapplicable to Christians of all ages, except in a secondary and limited sense. Many serious and devout students of God's word have missed this extremely important fact. See under John 16:13. Verse 5 But now I go unto him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?The apostles, overwhelmed with the sorrowful implications of the Lord's departure for themselves, were not considering the implications of that departure for the Lord himself. Instead of rejoicing that Jesus would shortly resume his eternal glory with the Father, they thought only of their own loneliness and suffering. Understandable as their attitude was, the Saviour was sensitive to this preoccupation on their part with the implications for themselves alone. Verse 6 But because I have spoken these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.These words seem to have been spoken more in wonderment and tenderness, rather than in censure. The Lord knew how difficult it was for them to grasp the full meaning and significance of the crisis events then unfolding. Verse 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.Nevertheless ... shows that this reference to the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-15) follows naturally the situation of sorrow and depression of the apostles. The departure of the Lord would not be the total disaster they were thinking of, but was a necessary prelude to the sending of the Spirit. Allegations like that of Windisch that these references to the Spirit do not "fit" are erroneous and contrived, much like saying that the hump on a camel does not fit! It is expedient for you ... These words suggest those of Caiaphas (John 11:50). "The high lines of politics, said Caiaphas, is that we get rid of him. The high line of God's policy, said Jesus, is that I go. Thus all the folly and wickedness of man is at last resolved into harmony with the divine government. "It is expedient," said the politician; "It is expedient," said the King and Redeemer."[7]I will send him unto you ... See under John 15:23; John 15:27. Jesus' sending of the Spirit was the same as the Father's sending him. Note on the expedience of Jesus' departure out of this world: The establishment of a worldwide religion with benefits of salvation from sin and eternal life for all humanity would have been impossible if the head of it had remained on earth, limited by earthly conditions, physically present at only one place at a time, inaccessible unless approached through other men (as did the Greeks, John 12:21-22), dependent upon human systems of communication, and his every contact with humanity subjected to monitoring and interpretation by human aides with their inevitable taint of fallibility and bias. An earthly head of such a thing as the true church of Jesus Christ is an impossibility revealed by this verse. If the holy Head of our blessed faith had himself remained on earth, there would have been no Holy Spirit to guide and comfort. Jesus Christ is the one true head of the true church in heaven "and upon earth" (Matthew 28:18-20). Whatever any man, therefore, may be "head of," it is not the holy church of Christ. ENDNOTE: [7] G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel according to John (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co.), p. 260. Verse 8 And he, when he is come, will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.Convict the world ... The means of the Spirit's convicting the world was explained thus by Lipscomb: He will convict the world, not by direct work upon their hearts, but as the event shows (Acts 2:37), through the life of the apostles, declaring the wonderful works of God. The Holy Spirit came not "unto the world" but "unto the apostles." The world could not receive the Spirit directly (John 14:17), and never can, AS THE WORLD. The apostles received him, and through their testimony he reaches the world.[8]And he ... Personal pronouns referring to the Holy Spirit throughout these pages emphasize the personal nature of the Spirit. The Trinitarian concept of three persons in the Godhead is in these verses. See under John 16:14-15. Convict ... Regarding this word, Westcott noted that: It involves the conceptions of authoritative examination, of unquestionable proof, of decisive judgment, and of punitive power. He who "convicts" another places the truth in a clear light before him, so that it must be seen and acknowledged as truth ... He who then rejects ... rejects it with his eyes open and at his peril.[9]The issue of whether the world will or will not receive the truth is not treated here. The Spirit will "convict" the whole world by witnessing the truth to the whole creation; but every man, through the exercise of his own free will, will determine his own destiny by his reaction to the truth, either receiving it or rejecting it. Sin ... righteousness ... judgment ... The comprehensiveness of these terms is boundless. Here are the two fundamentals of man's spiritual condition and the two options, or alternatives, open to him. The Spirit convicts of sin, revealing man's fallen estate and bondage to Satan, and showing his total helplessness to achieve through his own efforts any healing of his condition. The Spirit also convicts of righteousness by revealing the mystery of how a man may acquire a righteousness not his own, that being the righteousness of Christ, available to all who receive and obey the gospel, thus being inducted "into Christ," and identified with Christ as Christ. "Sin ... righteousness ... judgment ..." Over against these three words stand three proper names: Adam, Christ, and Satan. Through Adam came sin; through Christ came righteousness; and upon Satan the penalty of ultimate judgment shall fall (John 16:11). As Westcott observed: The "world" acting through its representatives, had charged Christ as a sinner (John 9:24). Its leaders trusted that they were "righteous" (Luke 18:9), and they were at the point of giving sentence against the "prince of Life" (Acts 3:15) as a malefactor (John 18:30). At this point the threefold error (Acts 3:17), which the Spirit was to reveal and reprove, had brought at last its fatal fruit.[10]Any human intelligence capable of understanding the phenomenal connections of these three words (sin, righteousness, and judgment) with all that was previously written in John, and so dramatically presented in Westcott's words above, and as encompassing in their total significance the entire history of Adam's race from Eden to the Great White Throne - any mind which sees all that can only marvel at a critic's conclusion that such words "do not fit." The sun, moon, and stars do not fit any better than these words fit the context. [8] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 253. [9] B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 228. [10] Ibid., p. 229. Verse 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world hath been judged.Of sin ... See under John 16:8. The soul that does not believe in Jesus Christ is convicted of sin. Of righteousness ... The world is convicted of this by: (1) Christ's return to God, and (2) the absolute finality of Christ's work - "ye behold me no more." Jesus' resurrection and ascension to God were irrefutable proof that his total message was from God; and his remaining thus at God's right hand signaled the total completion of the righteousness which he wrought. As Westcott said: This revelation once given was final, because nothing could be added to it (I go to the Father); because after Christ was withdrawn from human eyes (Ye see me no more), there was fixed for all time that by which men's estimate of righteousness might be tried.[11]Of judgment, because the prince of this world ... Calvary was intended by Christ's enemies as their judgment of him; but God made it the judgment of his enemies, particularly of Satan, the prince of this world. The cross indeed bruised the heel of the seed of woman, but it bruised the head of Satan. Christ's death, burial, and resurrection condemned the value-judgments of men. Wicked men, living lives of conformity to the will of their prince (Satan) behold in Christ the rejection by Almighty God of their principles of judgment. The way of Christ was declared by his resurrection to be the right way. The Spirit of God would never cease from Pentecost and ever afterward to convict the world of what righteousness really is. The world's traditional values were set aside by God's judgment of the cross; and the prince of this world has been summarily judged and condemned, and all who follow him shall partake of his judgment and destiny. Turning, now, from the work of the Spirit as it concerned the world, Christ spoke of the work of the Spirit within the apostles. ENDNOTE: [11] Ibid. Verse 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.This verse is not a separation between the fourth and fifth Paraclete sayings, but a connective making them, in fact, one saying, the first part dealing with the Spirit's relation to the world, the latter with the Spirit's work in the apostles. The need of the apostles that something should be done for them is what this verse states. There were many things the apostles could not understand until afterward. As Barnes said: There were many things which might be said. Jesus had given them the outline, but he had not gone into details. These were things which they could not then bear.[12]The apostles were still full of Jewish traditions; and such ideas as the total replacement of Judaism by Christianity, the cessation of the sacrifices, and the elimination of circumcision and the office of the high priest these were some of the things they could not have understood at the moment, although Jesus had indeed told them all things. Their true enlightenment would come under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. ENDNOTE: [12] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 347. Verse 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.This is a verse of nearly incredible importance in the proper understanding of Christianity. Here is the cornerstone of faith. The errors grounded here are colossal, and the general misunderstanding of it has perverted millions of disciples. He, the Spirit of truth ... See under John 16:8. Shall guide you into all truth ... The most poisonous errors have been widely held and devoutly believed by Christians of all generations, thus leaving an intolerable burden upon any view that would make these precious words a promise to all believers. Jesus was here speaking to "apostles only." (See under John 15:27 and John 16:4.) Again, the very manner of the Spirit's guidance of the apostles into all truth by bringing to their "remembrance" what Jesus had said (John 14:26) denies the application of this promise to Christians who have never "heard" the Lord say anything. Again, there is the limitation that the Spirit shall not speak "from himself," thus prohibiting the notion that the Holy Spirit would initiate new doctrine, formulate new truth, or announce new teachings in any manner beyond or in addition to the "all truth" Jesus had already delivered to the apostles (John 13:3; John 16:15). The Father delivered all truth to Jesus (John 13:3); and Jesus delivered all truth to the apostles, promising that the Spirit would enable them to remember "all truth" (John 14:26); and, therefore, only the apostles of Jesus could have been guided into all truth. In the writings of the apostles of Jesus is found "all the truth" as far as Christians are concerned. He shall guide ... indicates a progressive revelation from one level to higher levels; and thus Revelation with its prophecies of the future exceeds what the apostles at first knew. In fact, this Gospel, written so long after the synoptics, has deeper insight into the mysteries of the kingdom of God than appears in them; but even here, the Holy Spirit did not go beyond what Jesus said, the greater insight resulting from more extended study of Jesus' words. Only in the matter of prophesying future events would it appear that the Holy Spirit empowered the apostles apart from the exact words of Jesus, and even this may not have been done except in the same manner as that of Old Testament prophets. If this word "guide" indicates (from its suggestion of a journey) a progression, in some degree, beyond the actual words of Christ, it was strictly limited to the apostles. Such a proposition as the following is absolutely untenable: A guide always means a pilgrimage, and a guide always means a process. The whole church of God today has a fuller apprehension of the truth than had those twelve men. The Spirit has been guiding us into all truth![13]The Lord did not promise that the Spirit would guide "us" into all truth, but "them," the blessed apostles; and, as for the notion that arrogant, selfish, secular, materialistic Christendom, as now almost universally constituted, has a "fuller apprehension" of truth than the apostles of Jesus Christ that notion has all but destroyed Christianity from the earth. For he shall not speak from himself ... indicates that the Spirit is not the originator, or primary source, of truth, but a "remembrancer" of the truth conveyed by the Lord to the apostles. Gaebelein's explicit words on this are helpful. He said: He does not speak from himself, that is, independently of the Father and the Son ... Furthermore, he will show things to come. This was fulfilled in the inspired witness of the apostles ... Let no one therefore think that the Holy Spirit continues now to give prophecies through individuals. He has shown the things to come in the completed word of God, and we must turn there to know these future events.[14]A little reflection will show that the Holy Spirit could never be the independent kind of "wind in the mulberry bush" guide of human conduct that some seem to believe. If any spirit, even the Holy Spirit, could have so dominated man's mind as to have guided him into all truth, apart from the objective demonstration of truth in the life and person of Jesus Christ, it would not have been necessary for the Lord to come in the flesh. The subjective "feelings" of spirituals in all ages have been erroneously received as gospel truth, and the ravages of this error have been phenomenal. Gibbon recorded a remarkable incident from one of the crusades in which: Two hundred thousand people (had as their) genuine leaders a goose and a goat, carried at the front, and to whom these worthy Christians ascribed an infusion of the divine spirit.[15]Pitiful? Certainly, but not any more pitiful than millions today who are following some goose who is allegedly endowed with the Holy Spirit. And he shall declare unto you the things that are to come ... This also positively proves the limitation of this whole passage in its application to the apostles only. Can anyone believe that Spirit-filled Christians of the present age have the gift of prophecy? That the apostles had such a gift is devoutly believed, but it is here emphatically denied that any Christians now have such prophetic gifts. The glorious promises of this verse are the grounds of our hope in the sacred message of the apostolic company and our reason for receiving their word as true and infallible. [13] G. Campbell Morgan, op. cit., p. 263, [14] Arno C. Gaebelein, op. cit., p. 305. [15] Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Philadelphia: Henry T. Coates and Company, 1845), Vol. 5, p. 27. Verse 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he taketh of mine, and shall declare it unto you.Regarding the Trinitarian nature of this passage, Dummelow said: This is one of the leading Trinitarian passages in the New Testament. In it (1) the three persons are clearly distinguished; (2) their relative subordination is clearly taught, the Father giving his all to the Son, and the Son communicating his all to the Spirit; and (3) their equality of nature is distinctly affirmed, for the Son receives from the Father "all things whatsoever the Father hath," his whole nature and attributes, and communicates them to the Spirit.[16]Tenney also saw in this verse the concept of the Trinity, writing: Each of the three persons is separate in personality and is distinguishable from the others ... The three interact and also act separately; they are three individuals, yet but one God ... Jesus offered no philosophical statement of the Trinity. His language was extremely simple, though the profundities of his words are still unplumbed.[17][16] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 802. [17] Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), p. 239. Verse 16 A little while, and ye behold me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see me.A little while ... The difference in the verbs "behold" and "see" as associated with the two "little while's" here has occasioned all kinds of exegesis as to what is meant by the second "see." Does it refer to his appearances after the resurrection, or to their "seeing" him in a spiritual sense at Pentecost and afterward, or is the Lord's coming in the second advent indicated? Gaebelein strongly argued for a reference to Pentecost.[18] Barnes declared flatly that "After three days, he would rise again and appear to their view."[19] Perhaps Westcott's device of making the meaning include all three is the best way to understand it. He said: The fulfillment of this promise must not be limited to one event, as the Resurrection, Pentecost, or the Return. The beginning of the new vision was at the Resurrection; the potential fulfillment of it was at Pentecost, when the spiritual presence of the Lord was completed by the gift of the Holy Spirit. This Presence, slowly realized, will be crowned by the Return.[20][18] Arno C. Gaebelein, op. cit., p. 306. [19] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 349. [20] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 232. Verse 17 Some of his disciples said therefore one to another, What is this that he saith unto 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 Farther?In view of the various opinions men still have of the meaning, it is not surprising that the apostles wondered at it. The repetition of the same thought in John 16:18 indicates that they spent some considerable time and discussion on the problem of what the words meant. Verse 18 They said, therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? We know not what he saith.Of deep significance is the fact of the apostles' timidity and trepidation as they hesitated to ask a question of the Saviour with whom they had been intimate companions such a long time. This deep reverence and reluctance on their part contrasts with the free and easy familiarity of some whose very prayers seem to be saying, "Look, Old Buddy, Buddy, we want you to bless us." The question troubling the apostles was the apparently contradictory statements (1) that Jesus would go to the Father, and (2) the declaration that "in a little while" they should see him. It should be observed that the statement of Jesus, "Because I go to the Father," in the previous verse was actually quoted from his words in John 16:10. The proximity of those two seemingly irreconcilable statements added to their doubt as to what Jesus meant. Verse 19 And Jesus perceived that they were desirous to ask him, and he said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves concerning this, that I said, A little while, and ye behold me not, and again a little while, and ye shall see me?Of great significance is the revelation here that Jesus knew exactly what was in the minds and conversations of the apostles, whether or not they were physically in his presence. His repeating their exact words, not having heard them, was a marvelous demonstration of his divine power; and it made a profound impression on the apostles who responded by declaring, "Now we know that thou knowest all things" (John 16:30). Verse 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.Jesus had often predicted his Passion, as recorded three times in Matthew; and here is another plain reference to the impending death and the rejoicing with which it would be hailed by his enemies. The apostles fully understood what Jesus meant here. Verse 21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but when she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for the joy that a man is born into the world.The analogy here strongly resembles some of the parables found in the synoptics. Fittingly, Jesus the Seed of Woman here referred to himself as a woman in the pangs of childbirth, his apostles also being identified with him as sharing in his sufferings. Her hour is come ... strongly reminds the student of Jesus' frequent references to his own "hour." The child is the church or kingdom of God, which was in fact delivered by the agonies of death through which the Lord passed. The woman's remembering no more the anguish and rejoicing over the child correspond to the rejoicing that followed the Lord's resurrection. Most remarkably, Jesus never lost sight of the joy of saving sinners, the same being the motivation that sustained him upon the cross itself (Hebrews 12:2). These applications of the metaphor appear in the Lord's own explanation in the next verse. Verse 22 And ye therefore now have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one taketh away from you.This is a plain reference to the resurrection and the rejoicing with which the apostles would hail the victory over death. Your joy no one taketh away from you ... is a prophecy of the unflagging enthusiasm with which the apostles would joyfully proclaim the good news of redemption for all men throughout their lives. They were hated, persecuted, scourged, and murdered; but the last one of them went down to death shouting the joyful message, "He is risen!" Satan exhausted the total resources of hell in a vain effort to counteract the testimony of that little band of men to whom Jesus gave these words, but their joy was never taken away from them; and Satan's purpose was totally frustrated. Verse 23 And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name.This means that in the totally changed situation after the resurrection, the apostles would not need the Lord's physical presence as an ever-available teacher to answer their questions and allay their doubts and fears. All that would be changed. They would ask Jesus nothing, that is, in the ordinary sense of inquiring of a human teacher. On the other hand, they would pray to the Father in Jesus' name. This also indicates that the apostles would soon understand the great spiritual verities and would not need to ask, "Where art thou going?" (John 13:36), or "How can we know the way?" (John 14:5), or "Show us the Father" (John 14:8), or "Lord, what has happened that thou art about to manifest thyself to us and not to the world?" (John 14:22), or "What is this that he saith, A little while?" (John 16:18). All such uncertainties would disappear in the light of the events which would, in a matter of hours, be unfolded. He will give it you in my name ... These words show that Jesus intended that his followers should pray, not to himself, but to the Father IN JESUS' NAME. It surfaces here also that the giving, as well as the asking, shall be in Jesus' name. In all petitions to the Father, the name of Jesus Christ should be mentioned as the ground of the petitioner's right to be heard. High-sounding prayers offered in no other name, and upon no other grounds, than those of the petitioner, or even ambiguously, "in thy name," can be nothing other than an affront to Almighty God. Ignoring or bypassing the name of the One Mediator between God and man is presumptuously sinful. Particularly reprehensible is the custom of closing prayers with a mere "Amen," for fear that some unbeliever might be offended by the name of Christ. Loving the praise of men more than the praise of God was fatal to believers in Jesus' day (John 12:42); and it is beyond question fatal to fall into the same error today. Verse 24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be made full.There are two ways of understanding this: (1) as a reprimand of the apostles because of their prior failure to pray in Jesus' name, or (2) a mere statement of their habit up to that time, and mentioned only with a view to changing it. Surely the latter is correct, because when Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he did not at that time command them to pray in Jesus' name (Matthew 6:9-13). There is also here the mention of their joy being made full, and that hardly fits in with the idea of a reprimand. Hendriksen observed that: When a believer concludes his prayer by saying, "All this we ask in Jesus' name," he is not using a magic formula. What he means is, "We ask all this on the basis of Christ's merit and in harmony with his redemptive revelation."[21]Now, of course, it is true that "in the name of Christ" is not a magic formula, but a prayer thus concluded is properly concluded. It might be stated in other ways, to be sure; but, however it might be stated, the point here is that there can never be any substitute for stating it. The sinful and fatal shortcoming of many prayers is that they are offered in no name at all, pleading no connection whatever with Christ who died for us, and having the effect of: "God, we want all this. Amen!" The holy Scriptures deny the efficacy of all such prayers. The great fact underlying the absolute necessity of praying in Jesus' name is that, apart from the soul's connection with Christ, no man has any right whatever to ask forgiveness of sins or any other blessing. No man has access except "in the beloved" (Ephesians 1:6). ENDNOTE: [21] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 335. Verse 25 These things have I spoken unto you in dark sayings: the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak to you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly, of the Father.In dark sayings ... These would appear plain enough after Pentecost; but, meanwhile, the heart of all of Jesus' teachings might have been called "dark sayings." The reason for this was complex: (1) It was a fulfillment of prophecy. (2) It was necessary to use a medium that could not be distorted by the Pharisees. (3) Finally, the dark sayings proved in the long run to be more memorable and effective than any other method could have been. Here are some of the subjects of Jesus' dark sayings: After the temple was destroyed, he would raise it in three days. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God. He would give living water ... if a man drink he shall never thirst. Rivers of living water would spring up within the believer. Except one eat the flesh and drink the blood, etc. He that believeth shall never die. Before Abraham was Jesus is. Ye are clean, but not all. A little while, and ye shall see me no more; again a little while, and ye shall see me. Etc., etc. These "dark sayings" should not be alleged as an excuse for unbelief, because there was far more than enough to make the true meaning clear for all who would apply themselves to find it. Speak no more in dark sayings ... This would be fulfilled before the night was over. For practically all of his ministry, Jesus had presented himself as God come in the flesh, but he had categorically avoided (except in specific instances) saying plainly that he was the Christ, preferring to speak of the "True Vine," "the Good Shepherd," "The Son of man," etc.; but, before the night was over, Jesus would declare flatly that he was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, and that his enemies would behold him sitting on the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mark 14:62). Verse 26 In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father.This is a further exhortation for the apostles to pray directly to God in Jesus' name, on the grounds that the love of God for Christ is extended to Jesus' disciples. This love of God was the result not merely of their belief in Christ (last clause) but was also based upon their love of Christ; the importance of this requirement being seen in the order of its statement here (being first), and also because, as used elsewhere in John, such love means keeping Jesus' words and obeying his commands (John 14:15). Verse 28 I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world and go unto the Father.These words, as Jesus promised, are not dark sayings at all but the plainest possible statements of the profoundest facts in Christianity. The incarnation, the Godhead of Jesus, the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension are all included in this. I leave the world ... The prophetic use of the present tense for the future here refers to his death, resurrection, and ascension. And I go to the Father ... This also prophetically referred to the ascension and resumption by Christ of that glory he had with the Father before the world was. I came forth from the Father ... This first clause marks Jesus' entry into our earth life as an act of his own volition. He decided to come, chose the time and place of entry, elected the particular race that would provide him a mortal body, and timed the entire sequence of events to fulfill the 333 prophecies of the Old Testament bearing upon the first advent of the Messiah. Likewise, his departure to be with the Father was revealed here as an act of his own volition. Verse 29 His disciples say, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no dark saying. Now we know that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.Strangely, the supernatural understanding of what was in the apostles' hearts seems from these words to have been more convincing to them than even the raising of Lazarus. Needest not that any man should ask thee ... refers to the omniscience of Christ. This vision of his Godhead was clear to the apostles at this point. They had seen his deity shining through the veil of his humanity and cried out, "Now we know ... by this we believe." However, as Hendriksen noted, there were still some dark waters to be crossed. He said: The light is shining brightly now, more brightly than ever before; but within a few hours it will be obscured once more. Yet, the confession made here will linger on in their subconscious minds, until, by and by, when the Lord rises from the dead and (a little later) pours out his Spirit, it will bear the fruit of calm and steadfast assurance, and this fruit will abide for ever.[22]Jesus was not deceived by the apostles' glowing words. He knew their weakness and promptly moved to strengthen them and warn them against the awesome events that were rushing upon them. ENDNOTE: [22] Ibid., II, p. 340. Verse 31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? Behold the hour cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.Do ye now believe? ... is not a questioning of their faith, which was genuine enough; but it was a warning against overconfidence. The Old Testament prophet had written, "Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered" (Zechariah 13:7), and Mark (Mark 14:27) identified the scattering of the apostles during the Passion as the fulfillment of that prophecy. There is infinite pathos in these words. The scattering of the apostles, the smiting of the Shepherd, the Saviour's being left alone, and his comment that he would not be really alone, for God was with him - the thoughts that tug at the heart as one contemplates such events on the night of our Saviour's Gethsemane with the cross looming on the morrow are wholly tragic. Utterly no human consolation would be available for the Son of God when he would "tread the winepress alone" (Isaiah 63:3) to redeem men from sin. Verse 33 These things have I spoken unto you, that in me, ye may have peace. In the world ye have tribulation; but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.Jesus had unfolded for his apostles a full account of all that was about to happen. The betrayal by Judas, the denial by Peter, the scattering of all of them to their own homes, the hatred and rejoicing of the world at his death; and the exact fulfillment of all those prophecies would strengthen their faith AFTER IT WAS ALL OVER. That ye may have peace ... Hendriksen is right in seeing this peace as a dual blessing: "It is both objective (reconciliation with God) and subjective (the quiet, and comforting assurance of justification and adoption)."[23]In the world ... in me ... Not even the apostles could receive the peace of God apart from being "in Christ." In him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. All spiritual blessings in the heavenly places are in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). "In the world ..." is the opposite state of being unsaved, without hope and without God in the world. Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world ... The serene confidence and assurance of the Lord as he calmly awaited his agony and death are reflected in these words. How could he speak of "good cheer" in the face of all that he knew was about to happen? Only God could have exhibited such behavior upon such an occasion and in such a circumstance. I have overcome the world ... How? He had overcome the world by overcoming the world's prince, Satan; he had overcome by rejecting the world's value-judgments; he had overcome by a perfect willingness to endure the worst the world could bring upon him without retreating from one word of his holy teachings; he had overcome by steadfast refusal to yield to the world's temptations of lust and pride; he had overcome the world by living a life of total innocence and perfection and, at the same time, a life of total power, authority, and effectiveness. He had indeed overcome the world! According to Dummelow, "overcome" actually means "conquered." He said: See the sublime vision in the Revelation, where Christ goes forth conquering and to conquer (Revelation 6:2). The victory of Christ over the world, and the victory of believers through that victory, are favorite themes of the Fourth Evangelist.[24]The marvelous words of this extensive discourse of Jesus are matched by the marvelous recall of the words, at such a long time afterward, by the apostle John.[25] The Holy Spirit did indeed, as Jesus promised, bring to his remembrance "all" that Jesus said unto them. What a wealth of spiritual truth is found in these precious words of the Lord. [23] Ibid., II, p. 343. [24] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 803. [25] Many years of further study have convinced this author that John wrote these words soon after they were spoken, perhaps as early as 30 A.D. See the introduction to Revelation. - James Burton Coffman This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 They refers to the people, especially the leaders of the Jews, of whom Jesus had been saying much in the preceding chapter. Being put out at the synagogue is explained at chapter 9: 22, 23. Paul was a prominent case of this form of persecution as is revealed in Acts 26:9-11. Verse 3. Jesus always emphasized the close relationship between his F atber and Himself. He maintained that aU treatment that was accorded eith er of the two, was to be considered as being done to the other. Not knowing the Father mearit not to acknowl· elge him and not to accept bis truth. The Jews had rejected the teaching of Jesus, and he used tha t tact as evidence that they did not know his Father. 4 That ... ye ma.y remember. A prediction becomes evidence atter It haa been fulfilled. (See Exodus 3:12 and Luke 21:13.) Said not . .. waa with you. Being with the dIsciples In person, Jesus did not consider it necessary to go into 8.8 much detail with his teaching as he did when he was about to leave them. 5 Jesus knew about the question asked in John 13:36 and John 14:5, but he meant they were not re¬peating it; the explanation is in the next verse. 6 Their great sorrow so over-whelmed the apostles that they did not “ have the heart" to inquire into the subject of their lord's departure. 7 This verse through 15 forms the Anal link in the chain that was suggested at chapter 14; 16, 17. This passage gives a more itemised statement of what was to be accom-plished by the Spirit through the apos-tles. I shall comment on the present verse, also the others in their order. Expedient means "to help or be profit-able," according to Thayer. As long as Jesus was with the apostles in per¬son, the Comforter or Holy Spirit would not come to them, for it was not the Father's will that two persons of the Deity should be working per¬sonally on the earth at the same time. That being true, It was necessary for Jesus to "retire” from the scene and give way to the other. The Spirit would come to stay with the apostles through¬out their work, which would give Him the opportunity to accomplish certain ends that it was not intended for Christ to da 8 This verse is a general statement of the work of the Spirit after it has come upon the apostles. Reprove is from euegoho and has vari¬ous shades of meaning, including the conviction of those who are guilty of wrongdoing, and bringing to light what constitutes a life of righteousness. The work of the Spirit (through the mouths and pens of the apostles) that is stated in general terms in this verse, will be considered in its several parts in some verses to follow. 9 Of sin. The Holy Spirit was to convict the world of the sin of unbelief. John 3; John 18 teaches that un-belief In Christ constitutes sin, and the apostles were to bring that truth before the attention of the world, in¬spired by the Comforter which Is the Holy Spirit. 0 We have seen at verse 8 that a part of the definition of reprove is to bring to light what constitutes a life of righteousness. While Jesus was in the world personally, he taught such principles orally. But after going back to his Father, that teaching would have to be done otherwise, and He purposed to do it through the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the apostles. 1 The prince of this world is Satan (chapter 12: 31; 14: 30; Duke 4:6; Ephesians 2; 2) who is to be Judged. But Matthew 25:41 states that unsaved men and women will be cast Into the same place as the devil and his angels. That denotes the unsaved will be Judged likewise, hence the Comforter was to teach and warn mankind of the judgment day and the only way to prepare for it. 2 Bear is from BASTAZO, which Thayer defines at this place, "To take up In order to carry or bear ; to put upon one’ s self something to be carried.” Things which would be spoken are not literal or material such as would be taken by one upon his body. The meaning of the state¬ment, then, is that their understand¬ing and memory would not be able to embrace all of the things that Jesus wished his apostles to hear. This thought will be verified by the follow¬ing verse. 3 With the Spirit to guide them into all truth, the apostles would not need to he overburdened with the load, but could always have the assur-ance that no truth would be omitted that was necessary for their work. The Holy Spirit is the third being in the Godhead, and is wholly subject to the authority of God and Christ who are the two other members thereof. That is why Jesus said that he would not speak of himself. Will show you things to come. Romans 8:27 and 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 teaches ub that the Holy Spirit is fully aware of the purposes and desires of God. That Is why he was able to tell the apostles things to come; he would learn it from God. 4 The Holy Spirit would glorify Jesus by receiving the truth, then passing it on to the apostles. Jesus called this truth his (jiine), and by giving it over to the ones whom He had chosen, it would redound to the glory of the Son. 5 This verse is Christ’ s ex-planation of the statement he made in the preceding verse. The Father and Son were so united In the great scheme of human redemption, that what pertained to one was a concern of the other. 6 A little while Is uttered twice; the first means the time until Jesus was to be crucified and buried; the second is the time of three days he would be in the grave. After Jesus went to his Father the disciples could not see him, it is true, but in order for him to go to the Father, it was neces¬sary for him to come forth from the grave, and then would come the period that would make the second absence a little while also to which Jesus re¬ferred in this important conversation. 8 These remarks were made among the apostles, unknown to Jesus (as they thought), but he al¬ways knew what men were thinking about. 9 Knowing the tension in the minds of the apostles over his re¬marks, Jesus relieved it by taking up the subject without waiting for them to ask him. 0 This verse was said in view of the same periods of time that were meant in verse 16. When Jesus was dead, his disciples wept and la¬mented (Mark 16:10). At that time the enemies of the Lord were In rejoic¬ing because they thought they had conquered the man who exposed their wickedness. But after the resurrec¬tion, and the disciples came to realize that their Lord had risen again, their sorrow was turned into joy. (See Mat¬thew 28: 8; Luke 24:41; John 20:20.) 1 The original word for sorrow also means "pain,” so that it applies to the bodily feeling In tills case, as well as the state of nervous anxiety of a woman at such a time. That condition would make the con¬trast all the more apparent when the joy of the happy termination was ex¬perienced, Likewise, the sorrow of the disciples at the death of their Master was more than overbalanced by the rejoicing that came upon his resur¬rection and reappearance among them. 2 Joy no man taketfh from you. The enemies could plunge the disciples into sadness by slaying their Lord, but the joy that would follow could not be taken from them. That was because He would be the final victor over the grave, and ascend to the Father after having filled them with joy over the resurrection. 3 The ascension of Jesus was soon followed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. That was to guide them in all truth, so that they would not need to ask Jesu3 personally for information, as they did when he was with them. That was the time meant by that day. When that time arrived, instead of asking Jesus for favors and Informa¬tion directly, they were to ask the Father, but were to do It in the name of Jesus or by bis authority, 4 Hitherto they had not asked anything in His name which would mean by his authority. The time finally was to come when he would have “ all power” (Matthew 28:18), to which he refers here by words ask, a-itd ye shall receive. 5 Proverbs means a figure of speech, and Jesus evidently refers to his comparison of the expectant mother. The time cometh meant the occasion when the apostles were to receive the Holy Spirit In baptismal measure. As that would guide them "into all truth," they would not re¬quire any explanatory passages. 6 At that day still has refer-ence to the complete inspiration of the apostles, at which time they would make their requests in the name or by the authority of Jesus. Say not . . . will pray the father, yet chapter 14; 16 expressly says that he would pray the Father. We are sure that Jesus never contradicted himself, but the next verse will show he meant that the favor of God Upon the apostles did not depend solely on the prayer of his Son. 7 The love of the Father for the apostles of his Son, would be a sufficient motive for sending the Spirit upon them for their guidance. 8 The former intimate as-sociation of Jesus with his Father, agrees with the idea that God would be inclined to honor his Son's apostles by sending them the Spirit. It also would make it appropriate for the Son to return to his Father, after his work on earth was finished. 9 The apostles grasped the meaning of the words of Jesus, and they admitted that he had already ful-filled the prediction made in verse 25, to speak to them in direct language, and not depend upon figures of speech. 0 The apostles did not mean to express any previous doubt. The passage denotes that the conversation of Jesus had strengthened their faith and understanding. 1 Jesus knew the weakness of the human being. He did not questlon the sincerity of their faith when he tiBked them do ye now believet But he was using that as an intro¬duction for the ead prediction about to be made when their human weakness would prevail over their faith far a time. 2 Every man to his own. The margin adds the word "home" to the pronoun, and Moffatt’ s translation does the same. Jesus predicted that the apostles would desert him In his hour of trial, and Mark 14:50 states the fulfillment of the prediction. Leave me alone meant as far as the apostles were concerned Jesus would be alone, but he would still have the comfort of his Father. 3 All of the foregoing conversation of Jesus was for the purpose of preparing the minds of his apostles for the great crisis that was near. He knew it would be a severe trial of their courage, and he wished to leave them all the consoling assurances they were able to comprehend. David Lipscomb Commentary On John 17 JESUS PRAYS FOR HIMSELF AND HIS Joh_17:1-26 1 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said,—When Jesus had concluded the discourse contained in chapters 14 to 16, at the close of the passover supper at which he had instituted the Lord’ s Supper, he offered the prayer recorded in this chapter. He was then expecting the return of Judas with his band to arrest and deliver him into the hands of the chief priests and scribes. Father, the hour is come;—[The hour for which all the other hours had existed, the hour for the consummation of the great work of redemption. All of the coming day is comprehended in this “ hour.” ] glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee:—This petition was made in view of the trials through which he was to pass. He asked the Father to give him strength to be able to bear it all. In this way God would glorify him, that in his faithfulness he might glorify God before the world. [The hour of suffering and death has come, but Jesus looks through this to what is beyond. He has not come to this hour for the mere purpose of suffering, but that the suffering may bring glory to himself and his Father. The resurrection, the ascension, the coronation— these are what he prays for because through these the glorification of him and the Father, together with eternal life to the race, comes.] 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh,—God had given into his hands the rule and destiny of all flesh. He came to redeem all by his death. “ But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man.” (Hebrews 2:9.) [All human beings is meant. The authority came by the appointment of the Father because of his purpose to redeem man by sacrifice. As he knew that the purpose held, and that he would carry it out, he speaks as though it were already accomplished, though the authority was not fully asserted till after the resurrection. (Matthew 28:18-20.)] that to all whom thou hast given him,—[The significance of this phrase, and the number it embraces, can only be settled by ascertaining the full number of believers in Christ, using “ believers” in the correct sense as meaning those who have definitely committed themselves to him. A select number is not here meant by this.] he should give eternal life.—[The design of the creation of the world is the glorification of God and Christ in the blessedness of men— such, likewise, is the design of the redemption. The Father is to be glorified by the diffusion of salvation in Christ, the dissemination of eternal life.] God had given him all who would believe in him and be led by him. So he gives eternal life to all who obey him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.—To know God as the ruler and maker of the universe and his Son Jesus Christ as the Redeemer and Savior of the world is to obtain eternal life. To know them in the sense of obeying him. 4 I glorified thee on the earth,—In doing the work of his Father he had glorified him. [Jesus stands upon an elevation from which he looks back over his whole earth life as well as that of the few hours remaining. He sees in it only the glori¬fication of the Father. He does not see in his life at this supreme moment either any evil committed or any good omitted. The duty of every hour had been fulfilled.] having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.—God had sent Jesus into the world to manifest God's love, and this work he had finished. [He has laid down the principles of his church. He is about to shed the blood which shall cement together, and upon these principles the living stones of that institution.] 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.— Jesus was in heaven with God before the world was. To show the way for man’ s return to God he gave up that glory, came to earth, took upon himself the nature of man, became subject to mortality and death to save man. The end of this work on earth now approaches and he prays that he might be delivered from these earthly trials and be restored to his original position of honor in heaven. [Jesus here goes back of his¬tory, back of creation itself, and speaks of the glory which he then had with the Father. This can be understood only in the light of the opening verses of the first chapter of John, where not only pre-existence, but deific and eternal preexistence is predicated of him.] 6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world:—Among those who were given to him by the Father were the twelve apostles or chosen witnesses. [It is by revealing himself as Son that Jesus has revealed God to them as the Father.] thine they were, and thou gavest them to me;—[Probably this refers to a spiritual relationship to and knowledge of God on the part of these men, brought about by the preaching of John the Baptist, which marked them out as belonging to God. (John 1:35-39.) They were true “ Israel” in whom was “ no guile.” ] and they have kept thy word.—Jesus had given to them the word of God, and they had kept it. Judas is excepted as failing to keep the word of God. (Verse 12.) [Notwithstanding all the temptations to unfaithfulness which have assailed them during these years (Luke 22:28) and before which others have fallen, they have kept in their heart the teaching of Jesus.] 7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee:—These, through the teachings of Jesus, had come to know that what Jesus taught was from God the Father. Jesus taught only as God gave him to teach. 8 for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received them, and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me.—Jesus gave the words of God to the disciples and through these they came to know that Jesus came from God and that God sent him. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world,— [At this time, Jesus does not mean to say that the world is excluded from his sympathy, for the reason he was dying was to save the world.] but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine:— Jesus first prays for those who had believed on him and so were given to him of God. [Jesus intimates that they occupy a relationship to God, also, which he will doubtless recognize as giving them special claims to his blessings. They have not ceased to be thine by becoming mine.] 10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine:—The oneness of Jesus and the Father is again empha¬sized and the truth Jesus had taught these disciples had kept them. and I am glorified in them.—He was glorified in their holy lives and in the work they would do in his name. 11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee.—Jesus would leave the world and go to God, but he would leave these chosen witnesses in the world. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me,—He had kept them while he was with them in the world; but as he leaves them he prays God to keep them in his own name, that they may be one as God and Jesus are one. To keep them in the name of God was to keep them as his servants doing his work and looking to God for help and strength. [The disciples would not have his visible presence to encourage, strengthen, and bless and he intercedes for them. We cannot overestimate the sympathy that breathes in every word of this prayer. His heart’ s desire was that the apostles be kept in the spiritual sphere into which they had entered by accepting him as their Teacher and believing the truths he had presented.] that they may be one, even as we are.— [The only security for the unity of the disciples of Christ is in unswerving fidelity to his word. Abiding thus in his word, in his name which is the symbol of his truth, they will be as closely united in sympathy and work as the Father and the Son. All departures from unity have been departures from the word.] 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.—When he was in the world he acted in the name of the Father. By the power and for the service of God he kept his disciples, and only the son of perdition was lost, as the scriptures foretold. [Judas had the same care bestowed on him that was bestowed on the others, and was lost because he would not be saved. What scripture is referred to here is somewhat doubtful. Some say Psalms 109 Psalms 8; others Psalms 41:9. 13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves.—Before leaving the world to go to God he spoke these things to his disciples yet in the world, that they might possess the joy in this world that filled Jesus, “ who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2.) The sufferings and shame of the cross could not dispossess him of his joy. [Jesus was leaving these words in the world as a legacy to the apostles that they might have the same certainty of the protection and love of the Father that he had.] 14 I have given them thy word;—[Looking back over, and summing up, the teaching of the past years, which was the word of God.] and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.—The words of God received into the heart, cherished and obeyed, would separate them from the world as he was separated from the world, and would cause the world to hate them as it hated Christ; but it would secure to them the joy that he possessed, of which nothing could deprive them. [The world as opposed to God, or caring nothing for him, are trampling his divine will under foot, or making his word of no effect by their traditions. Necessarily, those whose thoughts were centered upon God would be the antipodes of these and would excite their antipathy.] 15 I pray not that thou shouldst take them from the world,—[For the reason that then one of the great objects of his would be defeated. They have a mission to be fulfilled; they are to be the salt of the earth, and the light of the world. The world is to be blessed through them, but not by their departure.] but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one.—To keep them from being led into the sins of the world and so from its sorrows. 16 They are not of the world,—His disciples, guided by his words, were not of this world, but by this were made partakers of his nature and sharers of his spiritual kingdom. [Not of the world because they have different hopes and aims from the world. They are living in a sphere of holiness into which Christ through his teaching has brought them with himself.] even as I am not of the world.—[Like their Master, they are to be separate from sinners, and undefiled, but to remain in the world that they may carry forward the saving work established by Jesus.] 17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.—To sanctify to a sacred and holy use or purpose. The prayer was to separate them and set them apart (from the world) to God through the truth. Lest men should misapprehend what he regards as truth, he adds, “ Thy word is truth.” No one can be separated from the world, or sanctified to God by the truth, save as he makes that truth the rule of his life and is led away from all other paths into the path marked out by this. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world.—The disciples taught and sent by Jesus stood related to him as he stood related to the Father who sent him. [Jesus has raised them up into his own sphere of divine thought and feeling, and from this sent them forth as messengers to the world, even as he himself had been sent from a higher sphere to the low-lying grounds of the world. They are to take up and carry on his mission. They have, therefore, the highest claims upon our reverence.] 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself,—For the sake of them he sanctified himself to death and shed his blood to seal the truth. [This covers the entire consecration of Jesus to his mission, including all he was to do and suffer on the next day. He sacrificed everything, even his own life, to the fulfillment of his mission.] that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.—That these disciples might be led by that truth, devoted to it, and sanctified by it. The only way of sanctification is through the truth of God. The only union possible is in the truth as God has delivered it. He who turns from the truth of God— sets aside any of that truth— for the sake of union with others— not only sets at naught the authority of God, but he places himself upon ground upon which union is impossible. Union is not only undesirable, but impossible, save as men are sanctified by the word of God. A union in any other way save as we are sanctified by and in the truth would be a union out of and against God. If this were possible, it would only be the presage of swift and widespread destruction from God. 20 Neither for these only do I pray,—The apostles were the chosen witnesses to testify the things done and taught by Christ. They were guided by the Holy Spirit in this work. Their testimonies or words were the foundation of faith in Christ. but for them also that believe on me through their word;—When he had prayed for the witnesses, he extends the prayer in behalf of those who would believe on him through their words. All faith in Jesus in the years since his death came through the words of the apostles. 21 that they may all be one;—The oneness of the children of God as God and Jesus are one was a question near the heart of the Son of God. even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.—One reason of this earnest desire for this oneness was that through this oneness the world might be brought to believe in Jesus as the Son of God and be saved. The belief and salvation of the world depends upon the children of God being one. They can be one only by adhering faithfully to the word of God. Through all the ages to come man can believe in God through Christ in the words of the apostles. [The Father and Son have no separate will, kingdom or interest. Such a union is here demanded of the disciples of Christ. It is impossible to convert and save the world to Christ as long as they who claim to be his followers are divided into various denominations, each having a different doctrine, property and interest, separate churches, colleges, papers, and missions. Denominationalism is utterly opposed to this prayer, and every apologist for it is disloyal to the spirit of the prayer and working against the salvation of the world. Nor is it fulfilled in any church where there are factions, where all are not “ perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” If Christ abides in the heart, the one life will draw all who have Christ formed within them into one family. This union is needful and the world will never believe in the Christ until it is accomplished. Sectarian divisions is the most fruitful source of skepticism that can be found. The union of Christendom would soon convert the world; but this union must be on the word of God.] 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them;—The power and wisdom God had given the Son when he sent him into the world, he thus gives to his apostles that through this power they might show that God was with them as he had been with Jesus. that they may be one, even as we are one;—God’ s Spirit in Christ makes them one. This same Spirit ruling in the disciples will make them one with God and one with each other. All persons guided by the one Spirit will be one with each other. 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.—Jesus loved those he died to redeem. He loved them while they were yet sin¬ners and rebels against God. That love was intensified and strengthened by their response to his love and sacrifice. 24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.—When they became the children of God, this love was intensified and he desired that they should be with him, see his glory in the world of glory bestowed upon him by his Father, and share that glory with him. The Father loved him before the world was, and gave him the glory that he now desired them to behold and share. 25 O righteous Father, the world knew thee not,—The world had been created by God; but it lost sight of him and turned from him. “ And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.” (1:5.) but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me;—While the world did not know him, Jesus who had been with him did know him, and the disciples through his works and teaching had come to know that God had sent him and was with him. 26 and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known;—By the name of God is meant more than by the simple term by which he is known; but person, character, and mission of God in his dealings with man. “ And Jehovah descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of Jehovah. And Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth; keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’ s children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:5-7.) [I have made known unto them thy nature, attributes, counsels, will, and commandments, and I will continue the manifestation of the same unto the end. The saving knowledge of God was not attainable by natural abilities, but cometh to us by the special revelation of Christ.] that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them.—Jesus had declared the work, mission, character, and office of the Creator and Ruler of the world; he would still do it in person till his final ascension; then he would do it through the Spirit that the Father would send in his name, that the apostle acting as he acted, living as he lived, might be the object of God’ s love as he (Jesus) was loved by his Father. [It is not enough for the people of God that they are beloved of him, and that his love is towards them; but they must endeavor to have it in them.] Verse 1 This whole chapter records the prayer that Jesus offered on the betrayal night in contemplation of the cross. There is the prayer for himself (John 17:1-5), for the apostles (John 17:6-19), and for those of all generations who would believe on him through the apostles' word (John 17:20-26). Hester said: John 17 is the real Lord's prayer. In this deeply moving experience he prays: first for himself, for his disciples, and for the whole world - all believers in all ages.[1]Dummelow called it "Christ's high priestly prayer, because in it he solemnly consecrates himself to be priest and victim in the approaching sacrifice."[2] Barnes commented that "It is the longest prayer recorded in the New Testament."[3] Westcott called it "The Prayer of Consecration."[4] Robertson called it "Christ's Intercessory Prayer."[5] Some have called it "The Prayer for Unity." As Morgan said: I would ever be careful lest I should appear to differentiate between the value of one part of the Holy Scripture and another, but no one will deny that when we come to this chapter we are at the center of all the sanctities.[6]The hypothesis that John merely imagined this prayer and put the words in Jesus' mouth retrospectively fails to take into account the prayer itself which is utterly beyond the power of any man to have conceived it. Here, "Jesus seemed to sweep away the last physical barrier that separated him from the world above ... He was as one in intimate conversation with God."[7]Our exegesis on this chapter does not pretend to be exhaustive, the chapter being, in fact, inexhaustible. As Gaebelein said: No complete exposition can be given. Three of the Puritan preachers expounded this chapter: Manton's sermons on it make a volume of 400 pages; Newton's exposition nearly 600 pages; and Burgess' sermons comprise 700 large pages![8]We shall content ourselves with picking up a truth here and there! [1] H. L. Hester, The Heart of the New Testament (Liberty, Missouri: Quality Press, 1963), p. 199. [2] J. R. Dummelow. Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 803. [3] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 352. [4] B .F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 336. [5] A. T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 151. [6] G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel according to John (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), p. 266. [7] Daniel A. Poling, The Romance of Jesus (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1939), p. 180. [8] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1965), p. 311. These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee. (John 17:1) These things ... refers to the discourse just finished. Glorify thy Son ... The word John used to express Jesus' desire in this prayer does not actually mean "pray" in the usual sense. Jesus' petitions should therefore be understood as the expressed desire of a soul in complete harmony with God. Lifting up his eyes to heaven ... This has led some to suppose the prayer was offered outdoors after they had left the upper room, but this is not certain. The hour is come ... What hour? It was the hour for which Jesus had come into the world, the hour of fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies, the hour when the true passover would be sacrificed, the hour when the Son of God would bruise the head of Satan and accomplish God's purpose of achieving salvation for mankind. If this prayer is searched for implications bearing upon the prayers offered by Christians, the thing that stands out is the priority of God's glory. Before any earthly desire, the desire for the glory of God comes first. In this, it corresponds with Matthew 6:9. Verse 2 Even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life.Authority over all flesh ... Jesus' use of the third person accounts for some strange expressions in the prayer (John 17:3), the reason for this being found in the Lord's mental and spiritual condition during the prayer. Here the God-man was caught up into a union with the Father so complete and intimate that, for the moment, his whole human nature was thought of by Christ as if it were apart from himself. Also, the third person was a vehicle of further instructing the apostles. Over all flesh ... To Jesus alone, God committed the judgment of humanity. That to all whom thou hast given him ... All men belong to God, but not all are given to Christ. This clause shows that God gave Christ a special kind of authority over those given to him, the authority to give them eternal life. Thus, the gift of eternal life is conditional and available to them alone who are Christ's. Shank said: All mankind rightfully belongs to God, as sovereign Creator; but those who seek to know and do his will are his in a special sense, and in them will be fulfilled God's real purpose in creation.[9]ENDNOTE: [9] Robert Shank, Jesus, His Story (Springfield, Massachusetts: Westcott Publishers, 1962), p. 206. Verse 3 And this is life eternal, that they know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.Here is stated the fundamental condition of receiving eternal life. Men must know God and Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Jesus Christ ... Jesus' third person reference to himself in this compound title is the basis of all kinds of wild speculations to the effect that these are John's words, not those of our Lord; but without doubt these are the true words of Jesus (see under John 17:2). From what other source could the almost universal use of "Jesus Christ" have derived? Christ would declare himself "Christ" that very night (Mark 14:62), a title purposely avoided until then. What better way was there of instructing the apostles than in this prayer uttered in the third person (partially), and in which the expression "Jesus Christ" was used for the first time on earth? Westcott paid respect to this alleged difficulty by making this verse a parenthesis, saying, "St. John has given parenthetically ... the substance of what the Lord said."[10]Saunders thought this prayer includes "Both the direct words of the Saviour ... (and) the writer's own reflections."[11] We feel, however, that all such interpretations should be rejected, not merely because of the good sense in receiving them as Jesus' actual words, but also because many great scholars regard the grounds for taking them thus as totally adequate. To quote only one of them, Hovey said: He was referring to himself in the third person, as being, along with the Father, the object of that knowledge which is eternal life. In this solemn hour, it is by no means inconceivable that he should have applied to himself, once for all, the great compound name, which the apostles were to use so often ... We adhere, therefore, to the view that this is the language of Christ himself.[12]That they know thee, the only true God ... The saving knowledge of God includes also the knowledge of Jesus Christ as God's revelation to men and is a far different thing from merely believing that there is a creator. This knowing God and Christ is not a casual thing, but something extensive and profound. Hallock said: I sometimes wince at the careless way the question is asked, "Do you know Jesus?" ... Let us use a great word greatly and settle with ourselves that this word "know" is marvelously deep, and no man has ever touched bottom.[13]WHAT IT MEANS TO KNOW GODI. "He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4). Thus, without obedience, one may have a few ideas about God; but he does not know God. II. "He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love" (1 John 4:8). Without love one cannot know either the Father or the Son. It would be as reasonable to suppose that a mole can see the stars as to think that one who does not love knows God. III. To know God is to be "in Christ." "God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 John 5:12). No one can know God except by knowing him "in Christ." This means to be united with Christ, to bear his name, to confess him as Lord, and to accept all the obligations entailed by being baptized "into Christ." IV. Knowing God means receiving God's Spirit. Until that Spirit is known and received as an earnest of the soul's inheritance, there can be no saving knowledge of God and Christ (Romans 8:9). "Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us because he hath given us his Spirit" (1 John 4:13). To know God ... is therefore a concise reference to believing and obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ. [10] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 240. [11] Ernest W. Saunders, John Celebrates the Gospel (New York: Abingdon, 1965), p. 136. [12] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 337. [13] G. B. F. Hallock, Minister's Manual (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1938), p. 117. Verse 4 I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.I glorified thee ... refers to Jesus' life of perfect trust and obedience, including his sufferings and death, here prophetically regarded as already accomplished. Glorify thou me ... refers to the receiving of Jesus back into the bosom of the Father where he had resided eternally. This necessarily included Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension. Before the world was ... In such a statement as this, Jesus affirmed his eternal existence, his oneness with the Father, and his equality with God (see John 1:1-11). In the beautiful words of Lipscomb: Jesus here goes back of history, back of creation itself, and speaks of the glory which he then had with the Father. This can be understood only in the light of the opening verses of the first chapter. [14]The implications of this passage are profound. Christ was here praying for the Father to glorify him with the glory that he had possessed from before all time; but it was as a HUMAN BEING that Christ would ascend to the Father and be endowed with everlasting glory; thus, man himself, in the person of Christ, is now seated on the Throne! It is OUR NATURE that has been glorified in Christ. ENDNOTE: [14] David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 263. Verse 6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.I manifested thy name ... Jesus did this by referring all honor and glory to God throughout his entire ministry. He was ever careful to explain that the words he spoke, the miracles he wrought, and the teachings he gave were the Father's. And they kept thy word ... Keeping the word of God, in the sense of believing it and obeying it, was the means by which Jesus' disciples had become his and were continued in that blessed relationship; and it is impossible that any other means exists which could enable men to be Christ's disciples (see under John 17:14). Verse 7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou has given me are from thee.This is a summation of the preceding thought and shows that Christ came to reveal God, his work, his love, his power, and his teaching. It is this identification of Christ with God himself that is all-important. Verse 8 For the words which thou gavest me I have given them; and they received them, and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me.The words that thou gavest me ... The revelation brought to men by Christ was a revelation of "words," not of thoughts or ideas. This consideration is of the most extensive importance in understanding the inspiration of the Scriptures. Everything in the Bible points to the verbal nature of holy revelation. Jesus made an argument for immortality to rest on a single two-letter word, the verb "AM" in Exodus 3:14, and the mere tense of a verb at that! (Matthew 23:32). Paul likewise trusted the number of the noun "seed" (Galatians 3:16), as the definitive argument for the calling of all the saved in Christ. Jesus brought God's words to men. Therefore, let men heed the words, for they shall judge all creation at the last day (John 12:48-50). I have given unto them ... This made the apostles custodians of the sacred revelation from God, thus endowing the New Testament with plenary authority for determining God's will for mankind. This is true because only in the New Testament does one have the actual teachings of the apostles of Christ. Men need to learn how "not to go beyond the things which are written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). And they believed that thou didst send me ... The use of the past tense here is prophetic and refers to the ultimate fidelity of the apostles to their divine commission, passing over the little season that very night when the Shepherd would be smitten and the sheep scattered. Verse 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine.I pray not for the world ... This shift back to the present tense denotes that at that time Christ was not praying for the world but for his disciples. That Christ could not pray for his enemies in the same terms as for his own is natural; and, as Hovey said, "The blessings which he would ask for his enemies must be different in some respects from those which he would ask for his friends."[15] Lipscomb concurred, saying, "Jesus does not mean to say that the world is excluded from his sympathy; he was dying to save the world."[16] Later, Jesus prayed that the "world might believe" (John 17:20-21). For they are thine ... The apostles were not merely Christ's any longer but were God's chosen representatives to deliver the saving gospel to humanity. It was that new status with which they were shortly to be endowed that required this special prayer to be uttered in their hearing. It has all the effect of the great commission. In this part of his prayer, Jesus prayed not for the world but for those men upon whom the salvation of the world depended. [15] Alvah Hovey, op. cit., p. 340. [16] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 264. Verse 10 And all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them.God in Christ, Christ in Christians, Christians in Christ, and Christ in God this (mutual unity and identification) is another summary of how men are saved. Verse 11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.No more in the world ... refers to the physical absence of Jesus after the resurrection and ascension. Spiritually, the Lord continues to be with his disciples (Matthew 18:20). And these are in the world ... refers to the mortal state of the apostles who would continue to be the object of Satan's bitterest hatred and opposition. Jesus' physical departure would make them even more the object of Satan's attack and their status even more precarious. These considerations prompted the fervent prayer on their behalf. Holy Father ... is one of three terms of address directed to God in this prayer, the others being "Father" (John 17:1; John 17:4, and John 17:11), and "O Righteous Father" (John 17:25). Keep them in thy name ... There is no way to avoid respect of the importance attached to the sacred name of "Jesus Christ," and it is likely that here is a reference to that compound title introduced in John 17:3. Let men face it, salvation is accomplished in an all-powerful name, a fact which the apostles strongly emphasized. "Neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Immediately after that statement, Peter pronounced that sacred name, and, significantly, it was the compound title found in this prayer, "Jesus Christ." That they may be one ... was a plea for unity, primarily of the apostles, but, by extension, applicable to all Christians. See under John 17:22 where this admonition is repeated. Verse 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.Thy name which thou hast given me ... Again, the compound title of Joh 17:3 is suggested. I guarded them ... Jesus Christ successfully accomplished the work God gave him to do, choosing, instructing, guarding, correcting, and encouraging the Twelve; and he was then praying for them with all of his heart, adding prophetically that not one of them would be lost except Judas. But the son of perdition ... This reference to Judas sheds light on the identity of "the man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3), indicating that he will be another pretender ascribing to himself apostolic authority and power. Any self-styled "apostle" today must be judged in the light of these Scriptures. That the Scriptures might be fulfilled ... refers to Psalms 41:9. See under John 13:2 and John 13:18. Verse 13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves.But now I come to thee ... This clause (repeated from John 17:11) contrasts sharply with Jesus' being "in the world" only a few more hours. Consciousness of the dramatic change about to occur added drama and tension to this remarkable prayer. That they may have my joy, etc. ... Two factors involved in the projected joy of the apostles were: (1) Christ's necessary departure to be with the Father, and (2) this prayer upon their behalf. My joy ... Barnes referred this to "The joy of the apostles respecting the Saviour which would result from his resurrection."[17]ENDNOTE: [17] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 356. Verse 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.Thy word ... The frequent use of the singular noun where the divine word is concerned is significant. Though consisting of many words (John 17:8), the word of God is nevertheless one. It is one in that it is a single composite corpus of teaching. It is one in authority, trustworthiness, and saving efficacy, it is the one word delivered by God to Christ, by Christ to the apostles, and by the apostles to all mankind by means of their book, the New Testament. It is one word in the sense that no human teaching may be mixed with it or added to it. It is one word in the sense that "every word" of it is a necessary part of the whole, making it imperative that nothing be added to or taken from the teaching of God (Revelation 22:18-19). The world hated them ... Jesus' heart is moved by the bitter trials he foresees falling upon the beloved apostles. Their task will not be easy. "The world hated them" is prophetic. Jesus had already warned them; but it was still a matter of acute concern to Jesus who poured out his heart for them in this prayer. Because they are not of the world ... Jesus added the words "even as" he was not of the world; but, of course, there was a difference. Jesus was not of the world in the sense of his having been before the world was. The disciples were not of the world in the sense of their having accepted Christ's teachings which required the rejection of the world's value-judgments, the repudiation of its standards, and the denial of lordship to the world's prince, Satan. This was more than enough to justify Jesus' statement that the apostles were not of this world. Verse 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but thou shouldest keep them from the evil one.From ... is from the Greek term meaning "out of," and the obvious reason Jesus did not wish the disciples to be taken out of the world was that such a thing would have made impossible the conversion of the world. That the disciples should be kept "out of" the devil was the important thing. The whole concept underlying asceticism which arose in post-apostolic times was based on a failure to appreciate the meaning of these words. It was Christ's desire that the apostles should remain in the world, in contact with its populations, exposed to its culture, and in direct confrontation with its evil. Only this could enable them to convert the world. In this verse also appears the Saviour's concern for the whole of humanity, the only hope of which was dependent on the apostles' proclamation of the truth. Verse 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.See under John 17:14, above. Verse 17 Sanctify them in thy truth; thy word is truth.As Reynolds noted: 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.[18]Reynolds disagreed that such a "limitation" exists, but he was correct in his mention of "numerous assurances" of the New Testament which prove that it does exist. The proximity of this teaching of Jesus to his promise of the Holy Spirit who would guide them into all truth, together with the specific mention here of the truth as the instrument, or means, of their sanctification positively shows that whatever the Spirit accomplishes the means of it is sacred truth itself. Regarding alien sinners, it is certain that the only power capable of producing faith in them is the word of God. As J. D. Thomas said: We insist that the only power used to produce faith in the alien sinner is the word of God. Although denominationalists are slow to see this (perhaps due to inherited Calvinism), the teaching of the New Testament is very clear about the place of the gospel in producing faith. "The gospel is the power unto salvation" (Romans 1:16), and "faith comes by hearing the word" (Romans 10:17).[19]Regarding the work of the Spirit in the hearts of Christians, however, the above limitation does not seem to be so complete. Again from Thomas: The Spirit is not the word and is not limited to the use of the written word in all that he does (for instance, help our weakness, or intercede). "The Spirit also helps our weaknesses; for we know not how to pray as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words" (Romans 8:26).[20]Despite the exceptions cited by Thomas, Jesus here clearly indicated that the divine truth would sanctify the apostles themselves, and this is grounds enough for denying that the Holy Spirit sanctifies Christians in some manner different from that. Perhaps a part of the difficulty lies in the failure to recognize the word itself as a living and abiding entity in the soul of the believer. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" (Colossians 3:16) is exactly the equivalent of the Holy Spirit's indwelling; and many of the things said to be done by the Spirit are also said to be done by the word of God. It is not the purpose here to thresh all of the old arguments pro and con on this question; but we shall venture one dogmatic conclusion, namely, that the Holy Spirit never performs any kind of work in the human soul that is contrary to, or out of harmony with, the Scriptures. The notion, and it is merely that, of the Spirit's entering the soul and making it independent of the word of God, is not found in the Scriptures. There are no instances, not even in the case of the apostles, of persons going on unto a more perfect state of sanctification without the constant necessity of their remaining under the tutelage of the revealed will of God; and that seems to be the very point of this verse. Thy word is truth ... is but another way of saying the Bible is truth. It is uniquely the word of God. [18] H. R. Reynolds. The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), II, p. 349. [19] J. D. Thomas, The Spirit and Spirituality (Abilene, Texas: Biblical Research Press, 1966), p. 10. [20] Ibid., p. 15. Verse 18 As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world.Just as Christ delivered God's word, the apostles were instructed to deliver, not their word, but Christ's. This respect to the pattern of teaching illuminates the promise of Jesus that whatever the apostles bound on earth would be bound in heaven, etc. (Matthew 18:18). Not even the apostles had authority to set up an organization and teach whatever they might have conceived to be expedient or appropriate. They were to use the same fidelity in teaching what Christ commanded that Christ had used in declaring what God had said. Even so sent I them ... This is prophetic tense, viewing the future sending of the apostles as already accomplished. Verse 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.Sanctify ... here does not refer to being made more holy, because such a meaning could not have pertained to Jesus. Thus, another meaning of "sanctify," which is "to consecrate," is intended (English Revised Version margin). Jesus was in the act of consecrating himself as the one great sacrifice for sin. "The truth," the evident means of Jesus' consecration, was the word of God, which was the source of motivation and power for Jesus as he moved toward the cross. By opening up, through his death, the way of salvation for all, Jesus made it possible for the apostles also to be sanctified in truth, that is, by the same word of God. Verse 20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word.Here the prayer reached out toward the saved of all generations. Significantly, all who would believe on Jesus would do so "through their word," that is, through the word of the apostles, there being no other way that faith can be produced. Such being the case for conversion, why should it be thought strange that the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, after they are converted, should follow exactly the same pattern? Through their word ... is not a merely incidental thought. Peter wrote: "Remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles" (2 Peter 3:2). These words are equivalent to saying that there is no other way of bringing men to God except through the word of the apostles. Verse 21 That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou didst send me.That they may all be one ... is a prayer for Christian unity, the great reason for Christ's desire for such unity being immediately stated, "that the world may believe that thou didst send me." In answering the question of how the believers' unity could effect the conversion of the world, Milligan said, "This would be to all thoughtful persons a moral demonstration that the Christian religion is not of men, but of God."[21]It is in disunity that God's church is most helpless in the present times. Nothing is more productive of infidelity and unrighteousness than the conflicting doctrines of professed followers of Christ. By multiplying divisions, Satan has hindered numberless millions from obeying the gospel. No greater need could be imagined than that of the unity of the church of the living God; but alas, only a certain kind of unity will avail anything; and that is the kind of unity Jesus identified in this prayer, a unity like that between the Father and the Son. Satan has ever been busy advocating his own kind of unity, such as: (1) the unity of authoritarianism, in which all blindly obey the ecclesiastics elevated above them; (2) the kind of unity proposed by the snake to the frog, in which one entity is swallowed up in another; (3) the unity in which each group of believers accepts his status under some system of allocation, and in which, like in the cemetery, everyone lies as complacently as possible and does not infringe on his neighbors; (4) the unity in which many groups are submerged in a super-organization, thus containing every degree of contradiction and aberration under one pretentious banner, such unity being very similar to that exhibited by a barrel of scorpions. Therefore, Believers should always yearn for peace, but never for peace at the expense of truth; for "unity" which has been gained by means of such a sacrifice is not worthy of the name.[22]Thou Father art in me, and I in thee ... and they in us ... This threefold unity is the only kind of unity that can avail. For notes on the profound implications of being "in Christ," see under John 14:20. To be "in Christ" is also to be "in God." [21] Robert Milligan, Analysis of the New Testament (Cincinnati, Ohio: Bosworth, Chase, and Hall, 1874), p. 268. [22] William Hendriksen, op. cit., II, p. 365. Verse 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are.Not the apostles only, but all Christians, partake of the glory of God from Christ. They are partakers of his holiness (Hebrews 12:10), "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), and have received the reconciliation (Romans 5:11). Verse 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.I in them, and thou in me ... See under preceding verse (John 17:22) and under John 14:20. The perfect unity flows out of perfect submission to the total will of God in Christ, resulting in "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc." (Ephesians 4:4 f). God's love of Christ means God's love of Christ's body, which is his church. Verse 24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.Where I am ... Prophetically, Jesus was already at home with the Father when this prayer was uttered. See under John 14:1-3 where the same thought prevails. "Before the foundation of the world ..." See under John 17:5 and John 1:1-11. The eternal existence of Christ, his deity, incarnation, and visit to humanity as "the Dayspring from on high" (Luke 1:78) - these are all in view here. The ministry of Christ was but an interlude in the eternal life of that great " I AM" who was before Abraham was born and before all creation. Verse 25 O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me.This is reminiscent of Joh 1:10 and the whole prologue. Jesus' identification of the apostles before the throne of God as persons who "knew that thou didst send me" is proof of the importance of such knowledge. Really to know the origin of Christ in God is to find salvation possible. This is not, actually, such a knowledge as can be objectively proved and demonstrated; but it is the kind of knowledge that follows obedient faith in Christ, as when Peter said, "We believe and know" (John 6:69). Verse 26 And I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them.Made known unto them thy name ... The threefold employment of this clause, here and in John 17:11-12, raises the question of what, exactly, is that name. "Jesus Christ" is the great compound name of the Lord, used here for the first time on earth; and it is impossible to separate repeated references to "the name which thou hast given me" from that very compound title of the world's only Saviour. (See under John 17:3 and John 17:11.) This alone can adequately explain the apostolic preference for "Jesus Christ," as used so many times in the New Testament. It is simply unbelievable that the apostles themselves contrived this name, made it their favorite designation of the Lord, and that one of them (John) erroneously ascribed it to Jesus near the end of the first century. No. Christ spoke in John 17:3, as John quoted him. Love ... in them, and I in them ... There persists to the very end of this sacred prayer the concept of all spiritual blessings being "in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3). Thus John joins the apostle Paul in the superlative importance attributed to being "in Christ." Paul used the expression "in Christ," or its equivalent (in him, in whom, etc.) no less than 169 times in his epistles.[23] To be "in Christ" is everything with regard to salvation. Thus it is clear that the revelation of the plan of salvation formed a part of Christ's purpose in this prayer. Anderson said: This great prayer of Christ is similar to a final report of work accomplished, the most important of which was to reveal the Father's love and his plan of salvation for all men. That Christ's work was successful is indicated in John 17:8.[24]It was the accurate memory of the apostle John, aided by the Holy Spirit, that produced the record of this amazing prayer, and not his philosophical imagination that did it. It is a passage which "surpasses all literature in its setting forth the identity of being, power, and love, in the twofold personality of the God-Man."[25]As Reynolds said: The supposition that some unknown writer of the second century excogitated such a prayer out of the synoptic narratives, the Pauline epistles, and the Alexandrian philosophy, refutes itself.[26]The conviction of every devoted Christian who studies this prayer resolves into this: that none but Jesus Christ our Lord could have prayed it, and even he, only in the torture of those pressure-events leading up to the cross. That a person who lived long afterward, and did not even know the Lord, could have composed such a prayer and then have ascribed it to Jesus is only a ridiculous imagination. Having followed our Lord's thoughts through this sublime prayer, we may exclaim with Peter who, upon another occasion, said, "Lord ... we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God." [23] John Mackay, God's Order (New York: Macmillan Company, 1953), p. 67. [24] Stanley F. Anderson, Our Dependable Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 157. [25] H. R. Reynolds, op. cit., II, p. 340. [26] Ibid., p. 353. Questions by E.M. Zerr For John 171. After these words to where did Jesus look? 2. To whom did he address his prayer? 3. What did he say had come? 4. Tell what he asked the Father to do. 5. Why had power been given Christ? 6. What brings life eternal ? 7. What had Jesus done on the parth ? 8. Stafe what glory he now prayed for. 9. What had he manifested to men? 10. Tell who are the men referred to. 11. What had they kept? 12. State what these men were led to know. 13. What words had Jesus given them? 14. This produced what belief? 15. What was Jesus now doing for them? 16. For whom did he not pray? 17. To whom did the disciples belong? 18. In what did Jesus fake glory? 19. What separation did he now refer to? 20. Tell what keeping he asked of God. 21. This was to what purpose? 22. How had they been kept up to now? 23. Which one had not been kept? 24. This fulfilled what ? 25. Why called “ son of perdition” ? 26. To whom does Jesus now come? 27. Why come at this time and place? 28. What had Jesus given the apostles ? 29. Tell what the world had done. 30. State the reason. 31. For what did Jesus not pray? 32. From what would he have them kept? 33. To what did they not now belong? 34. In this respect whom are they like? 35. What special favor did he ask for them? 36. Through what was this to be accomplished? 37. Who had been sent and where? 38. What had Jesus done for their sakes? 39. This was to accomplish what? 40. Who are “ these” in 20th verse ? 41. Who are “ them” in same verse? 42. By what would they be made believers? 43. State the subject of this prayer. 44. What example is referred to? 45. Tell the result to be obtained. 46. In whom may unity be had ? 47. What had been given to aid them to unity? 48. What three should be perfect in one ? 49. This would make the world know what? 50. What was Christ’ s will concerning his followers? 51. For what reason did he wish this? 52. How long had God loved Christ? 53. Who had and who had not known the Father? 54. Why had Christ declared God’ s name? 1 The passage in Matthew 6:9-13 is popularly referred to as "The Lord's Prayer." That is not accurate, but in refuting it we may hear another statement that is likewise not accurate. After criticizing the aforesaid phrase, a speaker may ask, "where do we find the Lord's Prayer," and with an air of finality another person will say, "John 17 is the Lord's Prayer." One would get the impression from the above conversation that Jesus uttered Just one prayer while on earth. It is true that this chapter is the longest prayer of .Jesus that is recorded, but prayers of Jesus are recorded in Matthew 11:25-26; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; John 11:41-42 and Luke 23:34. Besides these recorded prayers, Luke 6:12 tells of one instance when he prayed all night. Hour is from HORA, and Thayer defines it at this place, "The fatal hour, the hour of death." Jesus knew that ere the setting of another sun, he would lie in death at the hands of his enemies. But that very tragedy was to bring glory on both the Father and the Son. Lifted up his eyes to heaven means he looked up toward the sky, that being one of the definitions of the Greek word translated "heaven." Heaven as the place where God dwells, is neither up or down, since those words are relative only, and would not mean anything as to direction were it not for the existence of the earth. 2 Power is from EXOUSIA, and its first definition is "authority," and it is the same word that is rendered "power" in Matthew 28:18. Over all flea means Jesus was to have dominion over the Gentile as well as the Jew, and that he would exercise that dominion for their salvation. 3 This is life eternal denotes that the fruit of knowing (recognizing and obeying) God and Christ is eternal life. There is no way of obtaining such a reward except through a life on earth that is patterned faithfully according to divine law. 4 The verb glorify is from DOXAZO, and Thayer's definitions of it include, "1. To think, suppose, be of opinion. 2. To praise, extol, magnify, celebrate. 3. To honor, do honor to, hold in honor. 4. To make glorious, adorn with lustre, clothe with splendor. To cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged. To exalt to a glorious rank or condition." The word has such a wide range of meanings, that we need to consider who is being glorified and who is doing it, before we can know which part of the definition should be applied. By finishing 4e work on earth that God gave him to do, Jesus did honor to the name of God. 5 Glory is the noun form of the same word for glorify. Before Jesus came to the earth he was wholly divine. In order to fulfill the work his Father had for him to do, it was necessary for him to take upon him the nature of man in the flesh. That required him to "lay aside his robes of glory" and humble himself to the rank of a servant (Philippians 2:7). Now that his mission was performed, and he was about ready to leave the earth, he prayed his Father to restore him to his former place in the glory world. The passage in 1 John 3:2 indicates that his prayer was answered, since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 15:50). 6 This refers to the apostles who had been chosen from among the men whom John baptized. Thine they were. John did not baptize any of the Jews into the name of Christ; he only baptized them for the remission of sins, and they belonged to God in a special sense as those who had been reformed according to Malachi 4:5-6. The pronoun "I" in that passage refers to Gad personally, who was to send John into the world. After that great era came, the Jews who came under the influence of John's work were prepared for the service of Christ when he came upon the scene. When he did so and received the men to be his apostles, baptized and prepared for his service, Jesus regarded them as having been given him of God. Manifested thy name unto the men. Throughout his association with the apostles, Jesus kept his Father's name and honor before their attention, impressing them with his dependence upon God in all that he did upon the earth. 7 The apostles were made to know this by the fact that Jesus constantly kept his Father's name before them. By such a procedure, they accounted for the forcefulness of the work of their Master by considering the might of God. 8 This verse has virtually the same thoughts as the preceding one, but with the application being made specifically to the teaching of Jesus. The perfect agreement between the words of Jesus and those of his Father (as far as they had heard them), was evidence that God sent Jesus into the world. He would not have corroborated the sayings of Jesus had his coming been without the authority of his Father. 9 I pray not for the world. That is, he was not praying for the world in that part of his prayer; that will come later in his petition. They are thine is explained by the comments on verse 6. 0 This beautiful verse shows the complete and affectionate unity that existed between Jesus and God, in all of the affairs concerning the plan of salvation. 1 Am no more in the world is accommodative language. It means that the life work of Jesus was so near the end that his departure from the world was virtually at hand. These (apostles) are in the world. They were to live on in the work for which Jesus had chosen them. I come to thee. This was true spiritually at that very instant, in that Jesus was coming to God in prayer on behalf of his apostles. It was true personally in that the time was near when He would leave his chosen ones on earth and go to his Father. Hence Jesus saw the need for the grace of his Father to keep the apostles in the bonds of love that their work required. One is from HEIS, and Thayer's definition consists solely of the one word in the passage as we have it, which is "one." But he uses one whole page in his lexicon in discussing and commenting on the many phases of the word as it is used in the Greek Testament, and then indicates that he has not exhausted the subject. That is because the word may be used with regard to its numerical value, or in cases where various persons or things are being distinguished, or in compositions where unity of principle is the subject. Under the numerical phase of the word, it would be considering whether the things being spoken of were one in principle only, or one thing literally and bodily. We know that God and Christ were not one in person, hence the oneness of the apostles which was to be as we are could not mean they could be one personally. The only conclusion possible is that Christ wished his apostles to be one in purpose and activities in the Master's service. 2 While I was with them refers to the personal association of Jesus with his apostles. Such direct contact would be a strong preventive against being corrupted by the evils of the world. Jesus offered his good influence to all of his apostles alike, and it was not his fault that one man among them failed to profit by it. But such an event was to be expected because it had been predicted that one of the chosen apostles would betray his Lord. Son of perdition means that Judas went to perdition because of his deed of suicide. The first word is from Hums and is used figuratively. Thayer's explanation of this Greek word for son when used figuratively is, "One who is worthy of a thing." By destroying himself, Judas put it out of his reach to be saved, for there is no provision made for salvation that can be embraced after one has passed from this life. That the scripture might be fulfilled means as if it said, "and in so doing, the scripture was fulfilled." 3 These things I speak in the world. While Jesus was still with his apostles in person, he spoke the gracious words of instruction and consolation, so that He could thus leave with them the benediction of his hallowed memory. 4 I have given them thy word. This is the oft-repeated truth that is so important that it cannot be spoken too often. Everything Jesus said to his apostles he received from his Father, because he was always in communion with Him. Such instructions could be delivered to them orally while he was with them, but he was soon to depart from them, hence they would need more direct instruction from God. 5 The work of God and Christ for the salvation of the world, required the personal presence and services of the apostles. That is why Jesus did not ask his Father to take them out of the world, but to protect them from the evils of the world, while they were fulfilling their task for the kingdom that was so great. 6 While the apostles were human beings and hence were creatures of earthly birth, yet their conversion to the cause of Christ had lifted them to a "higher plane" of living, even as He had shown them the better way of life. 7 Sanctify is explained in a full quotation from the lexicon, in the comments at chapter 10:36. If the reader will consult that place, he will see why Jesus asked his Father to sanctify the apostles by His truth which is the word of God. 8 God sent his Son from Heaven into the world in the form of a human being. He accomplished his mission within that part of the world that was in Palestine. The apostles were to accomplish theirs by going into "all the world" (Mark 16:15). The part Jesus was to perform in the scheme of human redemption, did not require his bodily presence anywhere except the country that had been the headquarters of God's nation of Israel. That which the apostles were expected to accomplish required them to contact all peoples and languages in every land. 9 Sanctify myself. Jesus never had any impurities from which to be cleansed, hence the definitions 1 and 2 (at chapter 10:36) should apply to him. For their sakes denotes that Jesus consecrated himself to the great work for the sake of the apostles. One result of the consecration of Jesus was the bestowal of divine truth, and that was to be the means by which the apostles were to be sanctified. (See verse 17.) 0 Up to this point the prayer of Jesus has been on behalf of his apostles. Of course he was desirous that they should be saved, and also he wished their work for him to be effective. They were to take the words of truth concerning Christ to the people of the earth, and hence he now includes them in his prayer along with the apostles. 1 See the comments at verse 11 on the meaning of "one." The believers were to be one as God and Christ were, which would rule out the idea of their being only one person. It has to mean oneness of purpose and work. Not only must the believers be united in their work, but Christ prayed that they should be one in us. If the whole religious world should become a perfect unit in its practices, it would not avail anything unless its people were in Christ and God. The great object of that unity for which Christ prayed was that the world may believe that thou has sent me. No doubt many thousands of infidels are made by the divided condition of those who profess to be followers of Christ. It is not enough for the professed disciples of the Lord to insist that "at heart we are united and believe the same things." The world cannot see that, but the outward or bodily activities of the religious groups can be seen, and that is what Jesus was counting on as evidence of the truthfulness of the claims of the Gospel. 2 One of the commonest words in the definition of glory is "honor." It certainly is among the highest of honors to be in the service of Christ. That honor is emphasized by the fact that Jesus bestowed it upon his servants, having received it himself from the Father. Best of all considerations, is the object of the bestowing such honor, namely, that the whole group of interested persons, God, Christ and his disciples, should form a unit in the great cause of human salvation. 3 This is an emphatic repetition of verse 21. 4 This part of the prayer was looking forward to the time after the judgment. It is the same thing that Jesus promised them in chapter 14:3. Again he refers to the glory he had with the Father when he was wholly divine. In order for that to be possible with the disciples, so that they could also have at least some measure of the same personal glory, they would have to be faithful servants of their Master to the end of life. After the resurrection they will be in the glorified state and fit for the association with Jesus in glory. World is from KOSMOS which means the inhabitants of the earth. Jesus existed before all other beings except his Father, and enjoyed His love such as a fond parent bestows on his child. 5 The world in general did not know God in the sense of recognizing and obeying the divine law. These means the apostles, who had learned of the Father through their association with the Son and the teaching that he gave unto them. 6. The general unity of purpose and spirit between God and Christ, including the faithful apostles, makes up this closing verse of Christ's memorable prayer. David Lipscomb Commentary On John 18 THE ARREST AND OF JESUSJoh_18:1-40 and John 19:1-16 AND TAKEN BEFORE ANNASJoh_18:1-14 1 When Jesus had spoken these words,—The preceding speech, embracing chapters 14 to 16, with prayer and conclu¬sion in chapter 17, occurred after the eating of the passover supper before the crossing over of the brook Kidron in going out toward Bethany, the place where Jesus spent the nights during his last week before his crucifixion. he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kidron,— This brook is a rivulet, dry in the later centuries except dur¬ing the rainy season. It is noted on account of its relations to the city of Jerusalem, the capital city of the Jewish people, and the transactions associated with it. It had to be crossed in going to Mount Olivet, Bethany, and Bethphage. where was a garden, into which he entered, himself and his disciples.—The garden was Gethsemane, a garden of olive trees. Matthew (Matthew 26:36-46) gives the account of his entrance into this garden, his leaving his disciples, save Peter, James, and John, near the entrance; he went with these three further into the garden and went through the agonies and the three prayers that the cup might pass from him, if in accordance with the Father’ s will. John passes over this without men¬tion, probably because of the fullness with which the record is made by the other biographies of Jesus. 2 Now Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with his disciples.—This garden of Gethsemane was a retired, quiet spot which Jesus and his disciples in passing from the city to Mount Olivet seem often to have entered and enjoyed a season of instruction and prayer. So Judas knew his custom and seems to have selected his visit to this place as the time in which he would betray Jesus into the hands of the priests and scribes away from the multitude as they had stipulated should be done. 3 Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees,—Judas had gone from the passover supper, the washing of the feet, before the institution of the Lord’ s Supper, at the suggestion of Jesus to do “ What thou doest, do quickly” (13: 27), when he disclosed to Judas that he knew of the contracted treason to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who had agreed to furnish him a band of soldiers to arrest Jesus and bring him to them. The number constituting the band has been a matter of much and diverse conjecture. Some think there was an army of Roman soldiers. Others, that it was an irregular mob of loose men gathered and paid by the Jews to make the arrest. They wished to make the arrest, bring him before the Jewish rulers, and get the trial and condemnation well under way before the masses generally should know of it. So as few as could be en¬trusted to accomplish the work without tumult or confusion among the people was desired. So the band was an irregular mob gathered to do this work. [“ Band” in Greek is cohort, which was the garrison of the fort, Antonia, distinguished from the officers of justice appointed by the Sanhedrin. It does not follow that the whole cohort (600 men) was present, but a number representative of them. The “ officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” were a part of the temple guard (Luke 22:52), “ Jewish policemen.” ] cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.— It was after night, probably after nine o’ clock. It was the fourteenth of the month. The moon was at its full. But the garden was on the west side of the Mount of Olives that cut off the light of the moon, and especially the deep shades of the garden of olive trees would make it so dark that without lights it would be impossible to identify Jesus. So they brought the lanterns and torches and the swords and clubs to enforce their authority. [These elaborate preparations are a clear indica¬tion of the estimate of the power and popularity which his en¬emies held.] 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon him,—Jesus had gone through the fearful struggle of the agonies as the hour approached, the angel had appeared strengthening him, and a composure of mind and determination to drink the cup followed. So as the band approached, he went forth to meet them. [Jesus had just aroused the sleeping disciples for the last time. (Mark 14:42.) Note the full¬ness and freeness of his sacrifice.] went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye?—With this determination, too, he knew the sufferings through which he would pass and went forth composedly to meet the coming sufferings. [Probably he stepped in front of the mob to protect the disciples. His face may have been still shining from the spiritual victory which ended the passion and therefore may have been inexpressibly majestic.] 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them.—The other writers tell us that he kissed Jesus as the sign by which he would designate him. John does not mention this. It must have occurred at this time. Jesus made no effort to conceal himself, but stepped forward to let them know that he was the person whom they sought. [This is the only mention of Judas’ presence during the scene made by John.] 6 When therefore he said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.—This going backward and falling to the ground, though singular, is not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Its cause and meaning are difficult to see. Commentators usually attribute it to the exercise of divine power by Jesus, executed to show them his power to protect himself and destroy them, that all might understand that he surrendered his life himself and none could take it from him. While this was true of Jesus, this reads as though the act was voluntary on the part of those doing it. If it had been done through the exercise of the power of Jesus, it must have created a feeling of consternation and terror among the soldiers that would have been manifested and it would have been difficult to have induced them to proceed in arresting him. There was already a degree of apprehension on the part of the leaders in this work. But if it was voluntary, I know nothing to indicate what prompted it or what it signified. [I take it that being overwhelmed by the sudden appearance and boldness in identifying himself, coupled with the majesty of his presence, was such a shock to their cowardly spirits that they could not, for the moment, do otherwise than fall to the earth. Jesus could easily, while they were prostrate, have walked from their midst unharmed, as he had done more than once before (8: 59; footnote; Luke 4:30 Luke 7:44-46 Luke 10:39), but he had purposed to make a complete self-sacrifice.] 7 Again therefore he asked them, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.—Whatever may have been the cause and meaning of the performance, it seems to have created a hesitation on their part that caused Jesus to repeat his question to them. 8 Jesus answered, I told you that I am he;—He seems to be impatient at delay, and as the time had come, and he had been strengthened by the appearance of the angel to drink the cup, all signs of dread or trepidation had vanished, and, as he had told Judas while at the passover supper, “ What thou doest, do quickly,” he now urges them forward in their work. if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:—The words and manner of Jesus were not those of a person in dread; but while respectful and courteous, he spoke as though conscious of*his authority and power. [If they had not made motions looking to the seizure of the disciples, Jesus had probably, by his divine insight, perceived their purpose, and designed by his repeated question to remind them of the limits of their commission, and by this, secure the escape of the disciples.] 9 that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given me I lost not one.—This refers to what is said in chapter 17: 12. [We have here an illustration of the freeness of scriptural methods of quotation, a very striking one as being a quotation by the writer from his own work but a paragraph before.] 10 Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest’ s servant, and cut off his right ear.—The presence of the sword and Peter’ s use of it has been sin¬gular in the life of Jesus. The whole teaching and practice of Christ is against violence, offensive or defensive. Luke (Luke 22:36) says that Jesus told his disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword. Two were bought and he said they were enough. Peter on this occasion used one of them in cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest. This was done in the defense of Jesus, but was an act of rashness. [During the evening Peter had boasted that he would die for his Master, but now remembering his boast and the reply of Jesus he proceeds to show that his words were not mere boasts. Probably he intended to cleave his head from his body.] Now the servant's name was Malchus.—[From verse 15 we learn that John (who doubtless speaks of himself) knew the high priest, and would therefore probably know the name of the servant.] 11 Jesus therefore said unto Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath:— Jesus reproves him and asks: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?—Matthew (Matthew 26:52) says: “ Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” His condemnation of its use in his defense is strong and clear. Some have thought that Jesus desired the presence of the sword that he might have the occasion to strongly condemn its use among his fol¬lowers, or in defense of himself and his teachings. [At this point Luke mentions the complete healing of Malchus’ ear, not recorded by any other writer, the last miracle of Jesus, and wrought upon an enemy. We can imagine, however, a motive additional to compassion in removing every trace that carnal weapons had been used, both for Peter's sake, and to leave him free to say to Pilate, “ If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” How utterly have pro¬fessed Christians, in numberless instances, departed from this implied principle of Christ, that his cause is not to be sus-tained, defended or advanced by physical force nor at the mouth of the cannon.] 12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus—The captain here was the chiliarch or cap¬tain of a thousand men, corresponding to colonel in the army order in this country. It is not probable that all his command were present. How many is a matter of conjecture. Jesus desired to complete his work on earth and submitted to them. and bound him,—How they bound him, we are not told. An ordinary method among the Romans was to bind the pris¬oner with a chain on one arm and to pass the other end of the chain around the body of a soldier. While they were binding him, the disciples “ all left him, and fled.” (Mark 14:50.) [They all had a hand in it, as though some mighty desperado were being captured, instead of a meek, unresisting sufferer.] 13 and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.—Annas had been high priest and still acted sometimes in that capacity, although Caiaphas, his son-in-law at the time, was acting high priest. It is said that Annas had five sons, who in succession filled the high priest’ s place in addition to his son-in-law. He was of great influence. It is likely that Jesus was first brought before him to inquire into the matter as a court of inquiry to see what charges should be formulated against him. [Annas was about sixty years old. While the synoptics all speak of the leading away of Jesus, only John mentions Annas, and he alone gives an account of the examination before Annas (verses 19-23), which preceded his appearance before Caiaphas. Annas was a smooth, cunning intriguer, and ruled at this time through his son-in-law; and such was his overpowering influence as head of the Sadducean party that it was deemed an act of policy to take Jesus first to him before presenting him to Caiaphas.] 14 Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.—Caiaphas had first suggested to the Jews the death of Jesus as the end of the contention concerning him. (11: 48-50.) There seems to have been something of prophecy connected with the office of the high priest. Now Jesus is sent to him to be put on trial for his life. The Jewish Sanhedrin had the power to sit in judgment on Jesus and to sentence him to death. This sentence could not be executed without the ap¬proval of the Roman governor. Caiaphas sits to judge him. PETER’ S FIRST DENIAL John 18:15-1815 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.—“ Another disciple” here is generally understood to be John. It seems that Peter and John recovering from their fright at his first arrest, now returned, and followed the band having him in charge to the courtroom of the high priest. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest;—John was known to the high priest and went in with Jesus as his friend to be present at his trial. The rashness of Peter in striking off the ear of the servant likely made him the more fearful now. 16 but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.—“ The other disciple” obtained permission likely from the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who seemed to guard the door, and brought Peter in. It seems that women were frequently employed in such positions as janitress to a building. Others speak of Peter following afar off. (Matthew 26:58.) [The damsel who guarded the door suffered John, who was an acquaintance, to pass in; but probably seeing Peter was a stranger refused to admit him. John went in, evidently expecting Peter to follow, but when he did not he returned and requested the maid to allow him to enter and she did so.] 17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man’ s disciples? He saith, I am not.—This woman, damsel, had doubtless seen Peter at some time and now as he came in she asked him if he was not one of the company that followed Jesus. Peter, completely demoralized and disheartened in the presence of John, said, “ I am not.” [He is not so keen now to use his sword since his Master is arrested and now before the court. Many, like Peter now, weaken and fail to declare the truth when it is not popular to do so.] 18 Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.—It was now about midnight, growing cold, and the servants of the priests and those who waited in the court had built a fire to warm and Peter stood with them warming himself. JESUS IS AND SMITTENJoh_18:19-2419 The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.—It is not customary in our courts to re¬quire a man to testify concerning himself or to convict himself of any wrong. This custom did not obtain in the courts gen¬erally of that day. So they question him. 20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.—[Jesus replies to their question as relating to himself, but ignores that pertaining to the disciples, doubtless for the reason that he, not they, is on trial. He had taught publicly in the synagogue and temple. He had entered into no conspiracies as Annas himself had done.] Jesus recognized that the fair and just way was to prove by others if he were guilty of wrong. So he answered that the Jews have had ample and frequent opportunity to know all that he taught, so he said: 21 Why askest thou me? ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.—[All his life and teaching could be learned by inquiring of those who had heard him, so let those who seek information ask them. He had no secret clique, but “ taught the world.” His reply seems to be a rebuke to those trying him. Jesus claims that the examination may proceed in the regular order by calling witnesses. “ Ask them” ; “ Why asketh thou me?” He wanted all the facts brought out.] 22 And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?—The answer was construed as impertinent and one of the officers struck him on the mouth, and reproved him for so answering the high priest. [To hear a prisoner stand upon his rights and boldly defend them was new to the officer so he struck Jesus.] 23 Jesus answered hirn, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?—Jesus plead, if there is evil in what he said, point it out, if no evil why should he be smitten. Moderation, self-control, and courage marked all that Jesus said or did. He was never excited or thrown into a temper. [Paul under similar circumstances (Acts 23:3) answers like a man, but Jesus like the Prince of Peace. Usually those who are in the wrong resort to violence.] 24 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.—This verse tells what had before been implied. PETER’ S SECOND AND THIRD DENIALSJoh_18:25-27 25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself.—Peter, chilled by standing without, now crowded himself up to the fire, kindled by the servants of the high priest and the officers of the court. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples?—Either from his appearance or the fact that he was an acquaintance of John, those standing around the fire asked him the second time if he was not one of them. More than one seem to have joined in asking this question. It is probable that a number had spoken of his being one of the disciples of Jesus and together approached him on the subject. Luke (Luke 22:58) says, “ After a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not.” John says “ they,” implying more than one. He denied, and said, I am not.—[He simply lied, which shows that poor weak human beings do not know in advance what course they will take under extreme test of their faith and loyalty. But the Lord knew, and told Peter in advance just what he would do and the time of doing it.] 26 One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?—He saw and recognized him [and knew that he had lied. Matthew reports that Peter made his denial with an oath, even cursing and swearing. He grew desperate.] 27 Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.—There have been questions raised about the cockcrow ing and contradictions charged. There certainly was no effort made by the different writers to show exact agreement. Each told what occurred in his own way and in his own style and from his own standpoint. There are two periods of cockcrow ing. The crowing at the latter hour is much more profuse than that at twelve o’ clock. Hence that at three o’ clock is the cockcrowing when only one is mentioned. When two are mentioned that at twelve o’ clock is the first cockcrowing; that at three, the second. Some of the writers speak of only one, that at three o’ clock; others of the two. The last denial of Peter occurred just before three o’ clock. Peter was a man of courage even to rashness, as his smiting off the ear of the servant of the high priest proved. When he cut off his ear he doubtless expected a resistance on the part of Jesus and his disciples. The healing of the servant, his enemy, and the reproof of Peter for using the sword discouraged and disheartened him, took from him his courage and left him despondent. He knew not what to do. He in common with the other disciples then fled. His courage was renewed sufficiently to return with John; but “ followed him afar off.” (Matthew 26:58.) This is a dangerous position. John entered as a friend of Jesus. Peter in his fear after what had passed sought to pass as a stranger. The temptation came upon him much stronger than if he had at once declared himself the friend of Jesus. The man who declares himself as the friend of Jesus and walks closest to him finds fewer temptations to deny him and greater help to stand with him. Luke says that when the last denial was made, “ The Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.” The reproving look was more than he could bear; he broke down and “ went out, wept bitterly.” (Luke 22:61-62.) [Following this, at dawn of day, Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin, as recorded in Luke (Luke 22:66-71) ; and all attempts to prove him guilty of some crime or violation of the law had failed. In spite of false witnesses Jesus was called upon to answer, and upon his affirmation of divine majesty they condemned him to die as guilty of blasphemy. To carry the sen¬tence into effect the sanction of the Roman governor was necessary. Therefore he is next sent to Pilate.] BEFORE PILATE John 18:28-40 John 19:1-16 28 They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praeto rium:—The Jewish council determined that Jesus should be put to death. The Jews were permitted to try and inflict any punishment save that of death on their subjects. When the sentence was death, they were compelled to have the sanction of the Roman governor. This sentence then necessitated the trial of Jesus before the Roman governor. The praetorium was what we would call the courtroom. Courts were frequently in session at night in that country to avoid the heat of day. Then, too, the Jews were pressing this to the end that there might be no reaction in the public mind or opportunity of the common people to interfere in behalf of Jesus. and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.—The Gentile houses, courts, and everything they touched were defiled to the Jews. This was the passover week and these priests and scribes were especially anxious to avoid defilement that they might eat the passover, so they did not go in to make their accusations, 29 Pilate therefore went out unto them,—It was an act of condescension on the part of Pilate that, to accommodate them, he went out of his courtroom to hear their accusation and proof against Jesus. and saith, What accusation bring ye against this man?—The accusation had not been sent up with the prisoner, so he asks them for their charge. 30 They answered and said unto him, If this man were not an evildoer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee.—It is clear that they had no thought of a regular legal trial. They had not given him this in their own council. Nicodemus very pointedly asked the Sanhedrin: “ Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?” (7: 51.) There must be a specific charge and clear proof of guilt in the thing charged. They give to Pilate an indefinite and evasive answer, which shows that they expected him to give his judgment to please them regardless of facts. The results show that they did not misjudge him. 31 Pilate therefore said unto them, Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.—Since he was an evil¬doer according to their law and they desired Pilate to act on their judgment of their law, he naturally suggested that they take him and judge him according to their law. The Jews said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:—They had determined to put him to death so plead that they were not permitted to execute the death sentence. [They had judged and condemned Jesus according to their own law, and Pilate, on their refusal to state their charges, requested them to proceed with the case according to their own laws. The power of life and death had been taken away from them and placed in the hands of the Roman au-thorities. Had this not been in their way, doubtless they would have already killed him.] 32 that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should die.—Jesus had foretold that he would be crucified. This meant that he would be executed under the Roman law. That was the Roman method of executing the lowest criminals. The Jews stoned them. [Stephen was stoned to death in Jerusalem by a mob (Acts 7:58-59), and had the Jews been permitted to put Jesus to death, he would have been stoned to death also. But he had foretold what death he should die and that he would be crucified. (12:32; Matt. 30: 18, 19.) ] 33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?—Luke (Luke 23:2) says: “ And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbid give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.” So Pilate asks him of his claims to be king of the Jews. This was another effort to make him condemn himself. [Before Pilate returned to the courtroom, where Jesus had been taken, the Jews had made a formal charge that Jesus was seeking to overthrow the Roman government. (Luke 23:2.) This, of course, demanded the attention of the Roman governor. Jesus did claim that he would establish a kingdom and that he would be a king. He had been hailed as king of the Jews on entering Jerusalem. It was not expected that Pilate would understand that his kingdom was spiritual but political, especially when a band of dishonest priests were perverting every fact to give color to their accusation. They had charged against him a triple accusation: (1) seditious agitation ; (2) prohibition of the payment of the tribute money (taxes); and (3) the assumption of the suspicious title of “ King of the Jews.” (Luke 23:3.) The last accusation amounted to a charge of treason— the greatest crime known to Roman law. Of the three points of accusation, the second was utterly false; the first and third, though in a sense true, were not true in the sense intended by his enemies.] 34 Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me?—Jesus asked him whether this charge was originated with himself, or was it made by others. [Jesus did not ask the question for information, but it strikes the heart of the charge. Who made it? Did you or any Roman citizen ever see me breaking the Roman law? If a Roman preferred the charge, it might be examined, but when did the Jews ever find fault with a man seeking to free them? Pilate knew how restive the Jews were under the Roman yoke, and how ready they were to rebel, and the very hate shown Christ by them was proof that Jesus was not aiming to be such a king as they desired. Pilate comprehends the point.] 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me:—The Jews, not he, were accusing him. [The Romans had nothing to do with bringing the accusation. This disproved their charge.] what hast thou done?—To stir up his people against him. 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:—While Jesus, in the thirty-fourth verse, had not said he was King of the Jews, he had no purpose of denying that he was their lawful king by descent from the kingly race; but ex¬plains to Pilate that his kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.—In earthly kingdoms their subjects fight to deliver their king from their enemies. He did not do this as he had shown in forbidding Peter to use the sword. He said this to satisfy Pilate that he in no sense laid claim to earthly power or was a rival to Caesar. [His kingdom was not of this world, for the reason it did not spring from it, was heavenly in its origin, and hence his servants would not fight that he should not be delivered to the Jews. The fact that no resistance was made to his arrest was a proof that his servants did not propose resistance to worldly governments. His kingdom is supernatural, not of human origin. It is in the world, but not of the world. It is established and maintained, not by carnal weapons, but by spiritual and moral means. All attempts to propagate Christianity by the carnal sword are prohibited by the Prince of Peace. The only sword the Christian is authorized to use is “ the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” If servants of Christ cannot fight for their Master, it stands true that they cannot fight for one not their Master; yet they have duties to perform. It is their duty, by example and teaching, to restrain the evil and angry passions, to teach moderation and self-restraint, to inculcate forbearance and mercy, and to pray earnestly and faithfully for kings and rulers and all that are in authority, that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. When war does come, it is their duty to act the part of the good Samaritan and do good to all that suffer and that are in need.] 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then?—With the explanation given that it was not an earthly kingdom, he answered Pilate directly: Jesus answered, Thou [rightly] sayest that I am a king.— In confessing this truth concerning his being a king which sealed his death warrant, he added: To this end have I been bom, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.— And he had done it in confession that he was a king even though it brought suffering to himself. And those who ac¬cepted this truth would listen to Jesus. He not only told the truth in this, but his mission in the world was to proclaim truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.—[They “ hear” in the sense of heeding to what he says. They follow his instructions.] 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?—This he asked as though skeptical as to the claims or existence of truth. He was a timeserver. Such have little faith in truth, or any being faithful to truth. And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him.—He testi¬fied unto the Jews that he found no fault in him worthy of condemnation.] 39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?—To conciliate the favor of the Jews, the Romans had adopted the rule of releasing to them some one guilty of some act of rebellion against the Roman authorities as friends of the Jews. Pilate proposed to release the King of the Jews to them. This was said in ridicule of them and the claims of Jesus to be the King of the Jews. [By a comparison of other records of this incident, we find that in the interval, before Pilate’ s effort to release Jesus according to the custom of the passover feast, he sent Jesus to Herod in order to shuffle off the responsibility, but Herod had sent him back to Pilate. Then he asks whether I shall not release him according to the custom. He was placed in a very trying position. Jesus was accused of treason against the Roman emperor; he declared that he was not guilty; the priests then accused Pilate of not being Caesar’ s friend, intimating that they would accuse him to Caesar. Had he been accused of letting a man go free who claimed to be King of the Jews, it would have gone hard with him— probably would have been the cause of being put out of his office. This had much weight in his final cowardly decision.] 40 They cried out therefore again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.—Barabbas had ex¬cited an insurrection against the Roman authorities and had in the insurrection been guilty of both murder and robbery. They demand him in preference to Jesus. The difficulty of the Jews in formulating charges against Jesus, and the utter disregard of the Jews of justice arose from this: the crimes against the Roman law were not crimes under their law. What the Romans regarded as high crimes the Jews at heart approved. The crime against the Jewish law was that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. The Jews at heart would gladly have accepted a king that would deliver them from Roman rule. In his trial, the singular thing was: sins of a man tried in the lower court for blasphemy in making himself the Son of God and in the appeal to the higher court the charge of claiming to be a king as treason against Caesar is substituted. It is not strange that a specific charge was not made against him, although it is once stated that he made himself obnoxious to their law by making “ himself the Son of God.” (19:7.) John 19:1-16 1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.—The scourging was a severe beating upon the naked flesh. It was a degrading punishment, one to which the Roman citizen could not be subjected. (Acts 22:25.) Paul claimed exemption from it because he was a Roman citizen. The citizen differed from the subject who belonged to some of the provinces subjected to the Roman government. It was customary to scourge those who were crucified. It is thought that Pilate scourged him, thinking that this would excite the sympathy of the Jews and that they would be satisfied without his crucifixion. 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment;—This was done in ridicule of his claims to be a king. The crown of thorns was not an instrument of torture, but of ridicule. The thorns were brambles, not thorns that would pierce. 3 and they came unto him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.—They hailed him as King of the Jews, yet smite him with their hands, as much as to say, a poor king that may thus be smitten with impunity. A reed was placed in his hands to ridicule his claims to kingly power. (Matthew 27:29.) [The Jews had already demanded his death by crucifixion. (Luke 23:20-21.) If condemned to this death, scourging must necessarily precede it. The scourge was made of rods or thongs with pieces of bone or lead fas-tened to one end. The condemned person received the blows while fastened to a post so as to have the back bent and the skin stretched. With the blows the back became raw and the blood spurted out. The punishment was so cruel that the condemned person very often succumbed to it immediately.] 4 And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you,—Seeing Jesus thus mocked and ridiculed, when he knew he was innocent of crime, seemed to arouse his sense of justice, and the sympathy of Pilate for Jesus, and he brought him forth and showed him to the Jews and said: that ye may know that I find no crime in him.—In this Pilate shows that he had some sense of justice and right, and that he preferred to let him go free. He had an apprehension too that Jesus was more than human. The trouble with Pilate was that he was not willing to suffer for the truth. He saw justice, acknowledged it, but was lacking in the devotion and manhood that made him willing to suffer for the truth and do justice at all hazards. There was nothing of the true hero in Pilate. 5 Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment.—Jesus was serious, solemn, earnest; bore the buffetings and the ridicule of the soldiers; and with the crown of thorns and the mock robe Pilate brought him out and showed him to the Jews. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold, the man!—He no doubt said this, thinking to appease their wrath, excite their sympathy, and induce them to be satisfied to let Jesus go free. Look at him in this pitiful condition! Does he look to be dangerous to you or to me, to your ecclesiastical or my secular power, thus to be treated, and no friends to speak for him?] 6 When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him!—Instead of appeasing or satisfying them, it seemed the more to infuriate them and with increased wrath. Pilate knew they had no right to crucify him, neither did Pilate, when he was innocent. So they demanded that he should be crucified without cause. Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.—His crucifixion on these testimonies is unlawful, you demand it, you do the deed. [ Pilate’ s patience was evidently giving out. As they were disregarding all law and justice in demanding that he should crucify him, they might just as well disregard law and crucify him themselves. Perhaps he meant to intimate that as governor he would not hold them responsible; but they were too wily to take such a risk.] 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die,—As justification for their course, they now bring forth their law that makes blasphemy against God ground for inflicting death on him. Pilate could not condemn them for respecting their own law, and the Roman government gave them the right to enforce their law on their sub¬jects, modified by the requirement that death could not be inflicted without the sanction of the Roman government. because he made himself the Son of God.—The statement that he claimed to be the Son of God and according to their law he should die possibly palliated their course in demanding his death, but it involved Pilate in a greater difficulty. He had been impressed by the hearing of Jesus that he was a superior being, and now if he claims to be the Son of God, it increases the importance of the case and greatly increases Pilate’ s responsibility. He may be dealing with God and not man. [They repudiate Pilate’ s intimation of illegality in their demand, and undertake to demonstrate that it is legal and just. Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, if a mere man, which by Jewish law (Leviticus 24:16) incurred the penalty of death. As Pilate had taken away from them the legal power of death, he was bound by general Roman policy to recognize their decision, and give the sentence that he only could give. This is the argument implied. Here is the Jewish testimony to the fact that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and thus far it is true. Pilate was in close quarters.] 8 When Pilate therefore heard this saying, he was the more afraid;—The idea that he might be God made Pilate afraid. At this time came the message from Pilate’ s wife, “ saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” (Matthew 27:19.) By this Pilate’ s fears were more aroused. [Pilate had not heard this before. Up to this time the whole accusation before him was that claiming to be Messiah, he claimed to be a king, and was therefore a rival of Caesar, and, as such, ought to die by Roman law. They realize now that this plea has failed, and so enter another, that of verse 7. He realized that Jesus was something out of the common order of men, and these words aroused in his mind a weird questioning as to who or what he might be. The fear he had felt in con¬nection with him was now intensified.] 9 and he entered into the Praetorium again, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.— [All the interviews with the Jews had taken place outside, because these eminently religious ( ?) gentlemen feared to be defiled on this sacred day by entering a Gentile room. Pilate took Jesus with him for a private audience, but Jesus made no reply to his question, and why should he? His silence was answer enough— that, if he did not make this claim, he would certainly have denied it.] 10 Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?—This was said half as a threat and half as a promise to him. Neither the fear nor the hope moved Jesus. The peace of God was his that no fear or prom¬ise could disturb. 11 Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above:—Jesus was perfectly composed, realizing that he was guarded and guided by God. Judas was chosen of God to betray Jesus into the hands of his enemies. He was chosen because he was suited in character to do the work. [In reply to Pilate’ s arrogant boast, Jesus asserts the supremacy of God, perhaps with a significant gesture pointing up. God allows him to exert this power.] therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.—Judas and the Jews who accused and delivered him were greater sinners than Pilate. [Some think it no greater sin than Pilate, but greater sin on his own part on account of delivering him to Pilate.] 12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him:—Pilate showed a disposition to release him. He shows none of the marks of a bloodthirsty, vicious, or cruel man. He presents the character of a placable man, approving right and truth, but no strength of character to maintain right and enforce justice. Of the characters who dealt with Jesus in his personal ministry only Judas surpasses in turpitude and shame that of Pilate. Christendom has reechoed this judgment of God. To get the benefit of this judgment of God and man, we must recognize the sins for which they were condemned. Judas for the love of money betrayed Jesus, the embodiment of truth, justice, and mercy of God into the hands of his enemies. Pilate, with the power to rescue and save Jesus in his hands, for fear of losing his place, incurring the ill will of the Jews, bearing testimony to his innocence, yet turned him over to his enemies to be crucified. The same truths and interests then embodied in the fleshly body of Christ are now embodied in his spiritual body. Why is it not as great sin to betray the spiritual body as it was the fleshly? Why is the man who knows the truth and for the sake of popularity refuses to maintain it as guilty as was Pilate for so treating the fleshly body? but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’ s friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.—Pilate made a show still of de¬siring to release Jesus. The Jews seeing his hesitating, tem¬porizing spirit directly threatened him with Caesar’ s displea¬sure since Jesus claimed to be a king and the rival of Caesar. 13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.—Under this threat of the Jews, Pilate cowardly brought Jesus out and took his seat in the hall where he was accustomed to deliver his judg¬ments and decisions. 14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour.—There is disagreement between this statement and that of Mark (Mark 15:25), who says he delivered him to them the third hour of the day. Most critics think it should be the third hour or nine o’ clock. Some think it was six o’ clock in the morning, counting six hours from twelve o’ clock. Mark uses the Hebrew count and makes the crucifixion begin at nine o’ clock. Pilate yielded to them, released Barabbas, scourged Jesus, and delivered him to the Jews to be crucified. He did this against his judgment of what was right and just to appease the Jews. He had made cowardly surrender to their demands for fear that he might be accused to Caesar as encouraging treason against him. [There is no contradiction between the statement of John and that of Mark regarding the time that Pilate gave sentence against Christ. The Jews divided the day into four quarters, which they called hours. The first was called the third hour, which answers to our ninth; the second, called the sixth hour, answering to our twelfth; the third, called the ninth hour, answering to our three in the afternoon; the fourth, called the twelfth hour, which was the time of their retirement from labor, and the beginning of the first watch. The whole time from the third hour to the sixth, that is, from nine to twelve, was called the third hour; and the whole intervening time from the sixth to the ninth, that is, from twelve to three, is called the sixth hour. John does not say it was the sixth hour, but about or near the sixth hour. So when he says about the sixth hour, and Mark the third hour, we are to understand that Mark takes in the whole time of the third hour, from nine to twelve, and that John puts it near twelve. So in either case our Lord was sentenced between the hours of nine and twelve.] And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King!—Like cow¬ardly spirits after yielding in the important matters, they show spite and tyranny in small ones, so he tantalizes them by calling Jesus their King. 15 They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him!—Aroused and excited by their success, with more bitterness they cry out thus. Pilate still taunts them with demanding the crucifixion of their King. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.—The Jews were anxious to be free from the dominion of the Ro¬mans, but to meet Pilate on grounds that condemn him, they claim Caesar as their only king. Men maddened with wicked fury profess anything to carry their ends. 16 Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified.—Pilate yielded and gave Jesus to be crucified by the Roman soldiers at the behest of the priests and Pharisees and they took him away from the court of Pilate. [We should note how careful the Holy Spirit is to record the time when Pilate gave sentence against Christ. In general, it was on the day of the preparation for the Passover; that is, the day immediately before it, when they prepared everything needed for the solemnization; and, in particular, it was about the sixth hour of that day. We should also observe the great love and condescension of Christ in stooping so low to expiate our guilt, which deserveth eternal sufferings.] Verse 1 This chapter records the betrayal and seizure of Jesus (John 18:1-11), the arraignment before Annas (John 18:12-14), Peter's first denial (John 18:15-18), questioning by Annas (John 18:19-24), Peter's second and third denials (John 18:25-27), Jesus' appearance before Caiaphas and before Pilate (John 18:28-32), Pilate's questioning of Jesus (John 18:33-38) and vain efforts of Pilate to release Jesus (John 18:38-40). John emphasized the regal bearing and demeanor of the Lord even in the hours of his humiliation; and from this some have alleged that he omitted the agony in the garden as unbecoming the impression of Jesus he wished to portray, but that view is illogical in the light of his record of the Lord's being slapped by an officer in the presence of Annas. The logical and obvious reason for the many omissions of details like the agony is found in the widespread knowledge of such details already recorded in the synoptics. Another alleged difficulty derives from Peter's denial having occurred before Annas in John, and in the palace of Caiaphas in the synoptics. This is fully resolved by the fact that Annas and Caiaphas occupied the same palace, and the courtyard where Peter denied the Lord was in front of both apartments, that of Annas and that of his son-in-law, Caiaphas. (See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:57.) 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.[1]The other difficulty, not the "chief" difficulty mentioned by Reynolds, regards the use of the title "high priest" for Annas (John 18:19); but this is not a difficulty at all in view of the prevailing prejudice of the Jews who still regarded Annas as the real high priest. John's acquaintance with the high priest (Annas) which surfaces in this chapter would certainly have inclined him to use this title in speaking of him; and this also explains the somewhat derogatory designation of Caiaphas as "high priest that year" (John 18:13). The officer who struck Jesus (John 18:22), being one of Annas' retainers, would certainly not have referred to his boss otherwise than as "high priest." Thus, like all so-called difficulties in the Bible, these alleged problems disappear in the light of a little study. ENDNOTE: [1] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 17, II, p. 385. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kidron, where was a garden which he entered, himself and his disciples. (John 18:1) These words ... refer to the entire farewell discourse just concluded. The brook Kidron ... This was a "winter torrent" (English Revised Version margin), meaning that it was dry most of the year. It flowed by the southeast wall of the city, and between it and the Mount of Olives.[2] It was down this little valley that David fled from the rebellion of his son Absalom (2 Samuel 15:23); here Asa burned the abominable image (1 Kings 15:3); and near here, Josiah caused the idolatrous vessels to be burned (2 Kings 23:4). In the reign of Hezekiah, the Levites carried the unclean things to this valley (2 Chronicles 29:16); and Jeremiah called it "the valley of the dead bones and of the ashes" (Jeremiah 31:40), adding that this valley should be "holy unto the Lord." There was a garden ... It was in the garden of Eden that Paradise was lost, and now it would be recovered in another garden where Jesus was strengthened through tears and blood to pay the price of human redemption. There an angel helped him to prepare for the ordeal of Calvary (Luke 22:43). Contrasting with the garden in Eden, this one was situated in the valley of Kidron with its overtones of shame and uncleanness; but this one was "holy unto the Lord," for here he found supernatural help through the angelic messenger who aided him to overcome through tears and blood. ENDNOTE: [2] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 375. Verse 2 Now Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with his disciples.There were doubtless several places to which Jesus might have gone that night if he had wished to hide; but this choice of a place Judas knew well showed his willingness to suffer. Verse 3 Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.Band of soldiers ... The word means "cohort," indicating a contingent of several hundred men. The soldiers were a part of the garrison of the tower of Antonio, headquarters of the Roman military presence in the city. Officers from the chief priests and Pharisees ... The soldiers were accompanied by a detachment of the temple guard. This marshaling of a military expedition against Jesus for the purpose of arresting him was as ridiculous as it was unnecessary. Lanterns and torches ... Matthew and Mark mentioned the weapons but not the lanterns and torches. Despite the moon's being full (it was the Passover), the arresting party came prepared to search the dark recesses of the garden with its olive trees. Verse 4 Jesus therefore, knowing the things that were coming upon him, went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye?Large as that company of his apprehenders was, Jesus, and not they, had complete control of the sequence of events; and Jesus at once moved effectively to prevent the arrest of any of his disciples. If he had not done so, it seems certain that the apostles also would have been arrested. Verse 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them.John did not bring himself to mention the dastardly kiss, but his placement of Judas on the side of the Lord's enemies corroborates the synoptics. Was standing with them ... suggests that John could still remember, over the gulf of years, the traitor, standing there in the flickering torchlight, his very presence with the Lord's enemies stabbing the hearts of them who had been his friends. Jesus of Nazareth ... was the designation promoted by the Pharisees who ignorantly thought that no prophet came out of Galilee. What his enemies intended as a slander, however, the Lord accepted as a crown of glory, identifying himself from heaven as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Acts 22:8). I am (he) ... It will be noted that "he" is not in the Greek. Therefore, what Jesus said here was "I AM," thus making it another assertion of his Godhead (see Exodus 3:14 and under John 8:58). Verse 6 When therefore he said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.This remarkable outflashing of Jesus' power explains why the arresting party so readily consented to permit the apostles to leave without being arrested. It was perfectly clear to that entire company that Jesus could do anything, and therefore they allowed his arrest upon his own terms, not theirs. Can there be any other possible explanation of why the whole group was not arrested? It will be further noted that Jesus referred to his prevention of their arrest as a fulfillment of his prophetic words in the great prayer (John 17:12); and from this the deduction stands that if the apostles had been arrested they might have been killed also. See the next verse. Verse 7 Again therefore he asked them, Whom seek ye? And they said Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given me I lost not one.If the arrest had not been prevented, some, perhaps all of them would have been lost. Whom seek ye ... ? The shock of what had just happened was still upon them all; and, under the circumstances, they readily agreed to Jesus' request of exemption from arrest for his apostles. John 18:9 strongly suggests that this miracle, like all the others, was not for Jesus' personal benefit, but for the benefit of others. Verse 10 Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus.This rash action by Peter required another miracle to prevent his arrest and possible execution. Peter never knew until long afterward how thin the ice was upon which he skated that night. Peter was intent on making good his boast of being willing to follow the Lord to prison and to death. This was the only blow struck in Jesus' defense, and one cannot help but admire Peter; wrong as he was, for striking it. For fuller exegesis of this incident and Peter's denials, see my Commentary on Matthew, under Matthew 26:51 ff. His right ear ... is another inadvertent touch of the eyewitness writer. The servant's name was Malchus ... Both Peter and Malchus are named by John, but not in the synoptics. Fear of reprisal by the authorities probably led to the omission of Peter's name in early Gospels. The miracle of healing Malchus' ear is not recorded here, but the necessity for such a thing is revealed. Can the fact of Peter's not being arrested even after his assault with a sword upon the arresting officers be explained in any way, except in the light of the miracles wrought during the progress of the seizure? Verse 11 Jesus therefore said unto Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?Put up the sword into the sheath ... There are two swords in this narrative: Peter's, and that of the authority. Jesus submitted to the latter, even when that authority was being abused by lawless and sinful men. The sword of authority is God-ordained. See my Commentary on Romans, Romans 13:1 ff. For discussion of the related problem of a Christian's service in the police or military establishment, see my book on the Ten Commandments, chapter 8. The cup which the Father giveth me ... is a clear reference to the cup of agony (Matthew 26:39). The synoptics dwell upon the agony; and, from this, some critics allege that Jesus approached the arrest as a whimpering, cowering individual, completely crushed by the onset of events. Such a view is totally wrong. To be sure, there was agony; but Luke explained that an angel from heaven came and strengthened Jesus (Luke 22:43); and in John, the God-Man appears in his true strength, far more than able to cope with every situation. It is not a "different Jesus" which John presents, but the same Jesus, after the heavenly strengthening. The same "cup" appears both here and in the synoptics. Verse 12 So the band and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him.The chief captain ... The Greek word here is [chiliarch] meaning the commander of a thousand men; but this does not necessarily mean that a full cohort of one thousand men was present, but that an officer of that rank was present. The importance the Pharisees attached to this arrest is seen in the employment of such a ranking military figure in the achievement of it. The mention of the chiliarch shows that the Gentiles were represented in the sufferings of Jesus, a fact he had prophesied (Matthew 20:19). And bound him ... This was part of the unmerited sufferings of Jesus, there having been no need at all to bind him, as if he should have tried to escape! He had voluntarily identified himself, commanded his apostles not to resist, and had willingly accompanied the cohort; but satanic instigation in wicked hearts made sure that every possible humiliation would be executed upon the Saviour. Verse 13 And led him to Annas first: for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.Annas had been deposed from the office of high priest by the Romans for putting a young sabbath-breaker to death, contrary to Roman law; but the Jews continued to recognize Annas as the true high priest. That accounts for the arraignment here before Annas. Who was high priest that year ... is alleged by some as an "error" on John's part, supposing that John thought they changed high priests every year! The over-eagerness of critics to find something wrong is apparent in such a view. Certain]y, John neither said nor implied that any such annual change occurred in the high priesthood. That year ... - that awful year of our Lord's crucifixion, was the thought in John's mind as he named the man who was legal high priest THAT YEAR. Caiaphas was only one of six sons and sons-in-law of Annas who held the office throughout Annas' long life after his deposition by Tiberius.[3] See under John 19:11. ENDNOTE: [3] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet's Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 35. Verse 14 Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.For discussion of this unintentional prophecy of Caiaphas, see under John 11:49-50. John's mention of this was to show what a biased and unprincipled judge would preside over the Lord's trial in the Sanhedrin. Verse 15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Note that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest.Simon Peter followed ... The synoptic version is that he did so "afar off" (Mark 14:54), still smarting, perhaps, from Jesus' command to put up his sword. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:58, for an outline of the seven contributing causes of Peter's denial. And so did another disciple ... This refers to John, the author of this Gospel. As Barnes said: John mentions this circumstance of his being known to them, to show why he was not questioned as Peter was. ... The questions asked Peter were not asked by those in authority, and his apprehensions which led to his denial were groundless.[4]The court of the high priest ... was an imposing structure with apartments, a courtyard, stalls for guards, and the usual accouterments of a palace. It is likely that both Annas and Caiaphas lived there. The sending of Jesus bound to Caiaphas involved nothing more than leading him across the courtyard. ENDNOTE: [4] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 362. Verse 16 But Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.The circumstance of John's being favorably known to the high priest was that which provided this eyewitness account and also resulted in Peter's admittance to the theater of his triple denial. Thus the question left dangling in the synoptics as to how Peter happened to be at the trial, or near it, is cleared up by this circumstance, as is also the status of the "damsel" who questioned Peter. Verse 17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.Art thou also ... indicates that John was openly known as a disciple of Jesus, and there is no evidence that Peter would have suffered any inconvenience by an open admission of his discipleship. However, it should be remembered that Peter had cut off Malchus' ear a little earlier; and, if his identity as the perpetrator of that act had been known, there would have been solid grounds for his arrest. If this entered into Peter's thinking, it would show how one wrong act inevitably leads to another wrong act. For full discussion of Peter's denials, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:58. Warming himself ... at the devil's fire was another circumstance in the chain of events leading to the denial. Verse 19 The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.The high priest ... It is a moot question if this was Annas or Caiaphas, for it might have been either. There is hardly any doubt that Caiaphas was in his father-in-law's house, or apartment in the palace, when Jesus was arraigned there; but the view maintained in this commentary is that Annas is referred to here. Annas was deposed in 14 A.D. by Tiberius, but the Jews still honored him as the rightful high priest; and, if Annas was the one who knew John, it would have been perfectly natural for the apostle to have called him "high priest." Annas, in this verse, is represented as engaging in what lawyers call a "fishing expedition." Jesus did not cooperate with him. Verse 20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret I spake nothing.Jesus well knew that the wily old hypocrite, Annas, was merely on a fishing expedition and quite properly refused to tell him anything. Besides that, Annas was not the legal high priest; and Jesus had already decided to make his formal testimony concerning his Messiahship before the Sanhedrin in formal assembly. In addition, the Pharisees' spies had been following Jesus diligently for months; and everything that Jesus had publicly stated was, in all probability, already known to Annas, as was also Caiaphas' determination to put Jesus to death. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 This garden had often been the resting place of Jesus with his disciples. A quiet retreat, he would retire to its shade amid the olive and other fruit trees, and there talk to his beloved disciples about the great work of the future. Had Jesus wanted to evade the mob that he knew would be hunting for him, he would never have come into this place on the present occasion. He knew that Judas knew the place, and would bring his officers to it. But after his time had come, he made no effort to escape or to resist his capture, but submitted like a lamb being led to the slaughter. 3 John omits the events between the arrival of Jesus at the garden, and the coming of Judas with the mob. Those events are recorded in Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:26-42, and Luke 22:39-46. Band is from SPEIRA, and Thayer defines it at this place, "Any band, company, or detachment of soldiers." This force had been delivered to Judas by authority of the chief priests and Pharisees. It was altogether unnecessary to form this posse, for Jesus had frequently predicted his own fate, and there never was any intimation on his part that he would give them any trouble. They were equipped with torches and weapons, which means clubs, as if Jesus would be hiding among the trees, and would have to be found with the aid of a torch, and then perhaps have to be taken by force. 4 The crowd was due a surprise, for instead of having to search for Jesus, he anticipated them and came forward saying, whom seek yet The crowd as a whole was unaware of the person who asked them the question. It was night and they had not been around him enough even to recognize his voice. 5 When the band announced the name of the person they were wanting, Jesus identified himself as the man they were after. All that John records about Judas' part is that he stood with them. But the accounts of the other writers show us that sometime in the course of this conversation, he approached Jesus and gave him the betrayal kiss. It might seem that the kiss was unnecessary since Jesus was making himself known and showing no inclination to evade the crowd. But he had made his contract at a time when he did not know what the circumstances would be, and it was "according to form" for him to go through with his agreement for which he was to receive the money. 6 Had Jesus said nothing, and let them pursue their man hunt unopposed, they doubtless would have been surprised. But when he took a leading part in the search, even to the extent of boldly announcing himself as their wanted victim, they were amazed and stunned, and fell prostrate to the ground. 7 We do not know what they would have done or said next, if Jesus had not aroused them from their daze by repeating his question. They had recovered sufficiently to answer the question as they did the first time. 8 Let these go their way refers to the apostles. Since Jesus plainly identified himself as the man they wanted, it was not necessary to hold the apostles as if the investigation had to be continued. 9 Have I lost none refers to the saying of Jesus in chapter 17:12. It is true that the Saviour was to be deprived of the company of his apostles for the time being, but they would be free from the clutches of the officers, so they could take up His work when the proper time came, and hence would not be lost to Him. 0 Peter was always impulsive and rash, and seemed ready to defend his Lord as long as he could do so with material force. But he was a coward later when called upon to show moral courage in behalf of Christ. 1 This is not the same cup that is mentioned in Matthew 26:39. In that instance Jesus meant the mental suffering he was Just beginning to feel, which is more fully described in Luke 22:42-44. Jesus asked to be spared that present suffering if God willed it so. The cup in the present verse means the ordeal of the crucifixion, against which Peter thought to defend his Lord. Put up thy sword is commented upon at length in the notes at Matthew 26:52. 2 It was at this point that the apostles fled from Jesus, which is shown in Mark 14:50. Binding Jesus was another unnecessary performance as far as actual security of the prisoner was concerned, for the conversation that had taken place immediately preceding it, showed that Jesus was not even protesting his arrest. But that was another routine act in connection with the services of an armed force of officers. 3 Led him away to Annas first. There was no provision made in the law of Moses for more than one high priest to be in office at the same time, but in the days of Christ the secular government was taking much part in the affairs of the Jews. In that arrangement Annas was president of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas was high priest. Verse 24 shows that Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas in the bonds put there by the mob. 4 This speech of Caiaphas with comments is given at John 11:49-52. John regarded him as an official of some note, hence made the second mention of him. 5 The other disciple evidently was John, judging from the indirect way he is mentioned in other connections. (See chapter 13:23; 21:20, 24.) Was known denotes that he had some personal acquaintance with the high priest that gave him more freedom in approaching his presence. By reason of this special intimacy, when they led Jesus into the palace of the high priest, John went in also. 6 Peter lingered at the door while John went on into the palace, doubtless for the purpose of obtaining permission to bring in also his brother apostle Peter. With such authority, he went to the damsel who was guarding the door, and from her he obtained the privilege of bringing Peter on in. 7 The foregoing conversation evidently called the attention of the damsel to Peter, and she asked him about his relationship with this man, meaning Jesus. Peter denied being his disciple, fearing that it might involve him in some trouble. 8 The reader should refer to the comments on Matthew 26:69 for information concerning the palace. That will throw some light on how there could be a fire at the place. Being within hearing distance of the immediate presence of the high priest, it gave Peter an opportunity to "see the end" (Matthew 26:58). 9 Jesus was never ashamed of his doctrine (teaching), and really wished it to be known. But the question of the high priest included the disciples as well as the doctrine, which opened the way for the next statement of Jesus. 0 In secret have I said nothing. All statements should be considered in the light of all circumstances and the context generally. We know the facts would not admit the conclusion that Jesus never said anything to his disciples away from the public, hence we should look for the explanation in the meaning of the language. Secret is from KRUPTOS, which Thayer defines, "hidden, concealed secret." The idea is that Jesus neve' tried to keep his doctrine from the public. We know that is what hE meant here, for in Matthew 10:27 hE told his disciples to preach upon the housetops what they heard in the ear, which means what they heard from Jesus in their private hours. 1 An officer does not take a man into court and then ask him to make out a case against himself. If one has spoken things against the government, then certainly someone knows about it, and he would be the proper person from whom to obtain testimony. That is why Jesus told the high priest to ask them which heard me. Jesus had stated in the preceding verse that he had done his teaching in the synagogue and temple, which were public buildings in which great crowds generally assembled. It surely should not be difficult to obtain legal witnesses if Jesus had been guilty of criminal activities in his teaching. 2 Palm is from , which seems to have a rather indefinite meaning. It is rendered "a rod" in the margin, but the lexicons do not require that translation, though they admit that the word sometimes may have that meaning. Both Thayer and Robinson prefer the definition, "A blow with the flat of the hand, a slap in the face." It was intended as an insult and indignity. Answerest thou the high priest sof They pretended that Jesus had shown disrespect to the dignity of the court. 3 Jesus had only exercised his "constitutional right" in demanding that if any charge was to be lodged against him, it should be upon the statements of eye or ear witnesses. In the absence of even any attempt to secure such testimony, he protested that they had no right to smite him. 4 This is commented upon at verse 13. 5 This was Peter's second denial of Jesus. 6 It had not been long since Peter had attacked this servant and cut off his ear, and die surely would recognize him. However, he leaves out mentioning the matter of being a disciple, directly, and treats the same subject by asking if he had not seen him with him. This conversation is significant, for it means that in the estimation of this servant, being with Jesus was evidence of his being a disciple. His idea was correct as the scripture elsewhere teaches. (See Obadiah 1:11; 1 Corinthians 15:33.) Many professed disciples of Christ today will deny any sympathy with the enemies of the church just because they have not taken any formal stand with them. At the same time, they may be seen often associating with them and thus giving them encouragement. 7 This was the third time Peter denied his Lord. According to Luke 22:60-61, Jesus looked upon Peter at this time which reminded him of their conversation, and in remorse the apostle went out of the crowd and wept bitterly. 8 Hall of judgment is from , which Thayer defines as follows: "The palace in which the governor or procurator [administrator] of a province resided." Smith's Bible Dictionary says of this place, "It is the residence which Pilate occupied when he visited Jerusalem." (See notes on Matthew 27:2 as to the position of Pilate.) Pilate represented the secular government, and it was necessary to bring Jesus before him to obtain a legal sentence of death (verse 31). The pronoun they occurs four times in this verse; the first means the Roman soldiers, the others are the "chief priests and elders of the people" (Matthew 27:1). The soldiers had the charge of personally handling Jesus when he was turned over into the jurisdiction of the secular court; that is why they led him into this judgment hail. But they, the Jews, would not enter into that place, lest they should be defiled. It being a Gentile spot, they imagined it would defile them (ceremonially) to come in contact with such a place, and that would render them unfit to partake of the passover feast that was about due. The law of Moses required the Jews to be ceremonially (as well as physically) clean before they could participate in this feast. (See chapter 11:55). 9 The Jewish leaders were waiting outside for the reason stated in the preceding verse. What accusation bring ye? Pilate was an officer in the secular government, representing that part of the Roman Empire known as Palestine. It was supposed that when a man was brought bound into a hearing of the penal courts, there was some specific and serious charge to be tried against him. 0 This verse states a cowardly reply to the question asked by the governor. The word malefactor is indefinite, meaning an evildoer of any rank or degree. The statement of these Jewish leaders implied that Pilate should take for granted that Jesus was guilty of lawlessness from the mere fact of their bringing him into court. This was contrary to the usages of all courts in any civilized land. 1 Their failure to name any specific charge, left Pilate to conclude that Jesus had not violated any ordinance of the Roman government, hence he should have no jurisdiction in the case. That is why he told them to judge him according to your law. The Jews stated the truth when they said it was not lawful for them to put any man to death, but that was not the true reason they did not want to act in the case. They did not let that truth keep them from killing Stephen, although they did not have even a judicial sentence of death against him. 2 The whole transaction was being directed by the Lord, who decreed that Jesus was to die on the cross, and the secular government only would put a man to death in that manner. That is why John says that it would be according to the kind of death Jesus had signified would be imposed upon him. (See Matthew 20:19). 3 Luke gives us a fuller statement, which includes some false accusations against Jesus (Luke 23:2). Pilate concluded that the complaint the Jews had was based on some claims of the prisoner that were opposed to the government of Rome. He therefore thought he could bring the issue to the foreground by asking him directly, art thou the king of the Jews? The whole situation was based on the idea that no two governments of whatever kinds, could lawfully exist in the same territory at the same time. That idea would be correct if the two were necessarily opposed to each other. But Pilate did not know anything about the character of the kingdom Jesus was heading, hence he asked the question quoted here. 4 Jesus never asked questions for his own information, for he knew all about men (chapter 2:24, 25). He took this method of introducing the important conversation to follow concerning the nature of his kingdom. 5 Pilate represented the matter correctly by referring to his nationality. He stated the truth when he told Jesus that it was his own people who had brought him into this court to be tried before him as a representative of the government of Caesar. 6 The reply of Jesus was not evasive, but it was not direct, as yet. He wished to set forth the principle on which he could claim to be a king, and still not be any rival of the government represented by Pilate. That was what Jesus had in mind when he said my kingdom is not of this world. Jesus never intended to establish a kingdom of a secular nature, while the government of Rome was that kind. That was the reason why Jesus was making the claim of being a king, yet not admitting any charge of rebellion that was being made by the Jews. This verse has been perverted by extremists among professed disciples of Christ. They make Jesus teach that his disciples have no right to take part in the activities of secular governments, particularly those of doing military services, even in defense of their country. They not only err in their position, but make this statement of Jesus teach the very opposite of what he intended. Jesus plainly shows that citizens of secular governments have the right to fight in a defensive war for their country. But that does not make it right for Christians to resort to carnal warfare in defense of the kingdom of Christ_ And that also does not touch the question of whether they may be citizens of an earthly government (which we know they may since Paul the apostle was one, Acts 22:25-28), but that subject was not under consideration at all in the present case of Jesus and Pilate. 7 The speech of Jesus in the preceding verse was taken by Pilate as an affirmative answer to his question, yet he wished a more direct one. He therefore repeated his inquiry, except he said nothing about what people Jesus was to rule. And the answer of Jesus was also without any reference to the people who were to compose the citizenship of his kingdom. To this end was I born is in direct agreement with the question of the wise men, when they asked for him who was "born king of the Jews" (Matthew 2:2). Very logically, if Jesus was to be born as a king, it would be necessary that he come into the world. Also, the principles that were to rule in his kingdom would be so different from any the world had even known, that the king himself would have to bring the -truth about them into the world. The citizens of the new kingdom would be those who showed a disposition to accept this truth. This is why Jesus exhorted men to take his "yoke" (government) upon them and "learn of me" (Matthew 11:29). 8 What is truth? I do not believe that Pilate asked this question with any evil motive. The entire situation was new and somewhat bewildering to him. Here was a man brought bound into his court with a clamor for the death sentence from his complainants, yet against whom no specific charge was made. The nearest he could get to their grievance was the fact that the prisoner claimed to be a king. Furthermore, he seemed to claim kingship only over those who accepted the truth that he delivered to them. No wonder, then, that he asked what is truth. But he did not have time for further details into the mysterious subject, for the plaintiffs were outside waiting for some kind of answer from him. Going out to them, he said I find in him no fault at all. In a court where justice is carried out, such a verdict would have been followed by the dismissal of the prisoner. 9 Although Jesus was found "not guilty" by the court into which he was brought, yet he was not released from custody. Pilate was afraid of public sentiment and wanted to shift the responsibility of terminating the case from his own shoulders to others. He thought of a custom that had been followed, whereby the time of the passover was celebrated by releasing a prisoner. The guilt or innocence of a prisoner did not seem to have any bearing on the selection of the man, except as it might affect the sentiments of the people whose right it was to name the fortunate person. If Pilate could persuade the people to select Jesus for the occasion, it would effect a compromise whereby an innocent man (as Pilate believed Jesus to be) would be let go, without directly denying the clamorous demand of the crowd. 0 The plan of Pilate did not work. The people did not wish to abandon their custom either, so they gave their unanimous voice that the release was to be given to Barabbas who was a robber and murderer (Luke 23:18-19). David Lipscomb Commentary On John 19 BEFORE PILATE John 19:1-16 (See also John 18:1-40) 1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.—The scourging was a severe beating upon the naked flesh. It was a degrading punishment, one to which the Roman citizen could not be subjected. (Acts 22:25.) Paul claimed exemption from it because he was a Roman citizen. The citizen differed from the subject who belonged to some of the provinces subjected to the Roman government. It was customary to scourge those who were crucified. It is thought that Pilate scourged him, thinking that this would excite the sympathy of the Jews and that they would be satisfied without his crucifixion. 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment;—This was done in ridicule of his claims to be a king. The crown of thorns was not an instrument of torture, but of ridicule. The thorns were brambles, not thorns that would pierce. 3 and they came unto him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.—They hailed him as King of the Jews, yet smite him with their hands, as much as to say, a poor king that may thus be smitten with impunity. A reed was placed in his hands to ridicule his claims to kingly power. (Matthew 27:29.) [The Jews had already demanded his death by crucifixion. (Luke 23:20-21.) If condemned to this death, scourging must necessarily precede it. The scourge was made of rods or thongs with pieces of bone or lead fas-tened to one end. The condemned person received the blows while fastened to a post so as to have the back bent and the skin stretched. With the blows the back became raw and the blood spurted out. The punishment was so cruel that the condemned person very often succumbed to it immediately.] 4 And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you,—Seeing Jesus thus mocked and ridiculed, when he knew he was innocent of crime, seemed to arouse his sense of justice, and the sympathy of Pilate for Jesus, and he brought him forth and showed him to the Jews and said: that ye may know that I find no crime in him.—In this Pilate shows that he had some sense of justice and right, and that he preferred to let him go free. He had an apprehension too that Jesus was more than human. The trouble with Pilate was that he was not willing to suffer for the truth. He saw justice, acknowledged it, but was lacking in the devotion and manhood that made him willing to suffer for the truth and do justice at all hazards. There was nothing of the true hero in Pilate. 5 Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment.—Jesus was serious, solemn, earnest; bore the buffetings and the ridicule of the soldiers; and with the crown of thorns and the mock robe Pilate brought him out and showed him to the Jews. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold, the man!—He no doubt said this, thinking to appease their wrath, excite their sympathy, and induce them to be satisfied to let Jesus go free. Look at him in this pitiful condition! Does he look to be dangerous to you or to me, to your ecclesiastical or my secular power, thus to be treated, and no friends to speak for him?] 6 When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him!—Instead of appeasing or satisfying them, it seemed the more to infuriate them and with increased wrath. Pilate knew they had no right to crucify him, neither did Pilate, when he was innocent. So they demanded that he should be crucified without cause. Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.—His crucifixion on these testimonies is unlawful, you demand it, you do the deed. [ Pilate’ s patience was evidently giving out. As they were disregarding all law and justice in demanding that he should crucify him, they might just as well disregard law and crucify him themselves. Perhaps he meant to intimate that as governor he would not hold them responsible; but they were too wily to take such a risk.] 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die,—As justification for their course, they now bring forth their law that makes blasphemy against God ground for inflicting death on him. Pilate could not condemn them for respecting their own law, and the Roman government gave them the right to enforce their law on their sub¬jects, modified by the requirement that death could not be inflicted without the sanction of the Roman government. because he made himself the Son of God.—The statement that he claimed to be the Son of God and according to their law he should die possibly palliated their course in demanding his death, but it involved Pilate in a greater difficulty. He had been impressed by the hearing of Jesus that he was a superior being, and now if he claims to be the Son of God, it increases the importance of the case and greatly increases Pilate’ s responsibility. He may be dealing with God and not man. [They repudiate Pilate’ s intimation of illegality in their demand, and undertake to demonstrate that it is legal and just. Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, if a mere man, which by Jewish law (Leviticus 24:16) incurred the penalty of death. As Pilate had taken away from them the legal power of death, he was bound by general Roman policy to recognize their decision, and give the sentence that he only could give. This is the argument implied. Here is the Jewish testimony to the fact that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and thus far it is true. Pilate was in close quarters.] 8 When Pilate therefore heard this saying, he was the more afraid;—The idea that he might be God made Pilate afraid. At this time came the message from Pilate’ s wife, “ saying, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” (Matthew 27:19.) By this Pilate’ s fears were more aroused. [Pilate had not heard this before. Up to this time the whole accusation before him was that claiming to be Messiah, he claimed to be a king, and was therefore a rival of Caesar, and, as such, ought to die by Roman law. They realize now that this plea has failed, and so enter another, that of verse 7. He realized that Jesus was something out of the common order of men, and these words aroused in his mind a weird questioning as to who or what he might be. The fear he had felt in con¬nection with him was now intensified.] 9 and he entered into the Praetorium again, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.— [All the interviews with the Jews had taken place outside, because these eminently religious ( ?) gentlemen feared to be defiled on this sacred day by entering a Gentile room. Pilate took Jesus with him for a private audience, but Jesus made no reply to his question, and why should he? His silence was answer enough— that, if he did not make this claim, he would certainly have denied it.] 10 Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?—This was said half as a threat and half as a promise to him. Neither the fear nor the hope moved Jesus. The peace of God was his that no fear or prom¬ise could disturb. 11 Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above:—Jesus was perfectly composed, realizing that he was guarded and guided by God. Judas was chosen of God to betray Jesus into the hands of his enemies. He was chosen because he was suited in character to do the work. [In reply to Pilate’ s arrogant boast, Jesus asserts the supremacy of God, perhaps with a significant gesture pointing up. God allows him to exert this power.] therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.—Judas and the Jews who accused and delivered him were greater sinners than Pilate. [Some think it no greater sin than Pilate, but greater sin on his own part on account of delivering him to Pilate.] 12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him:—Pilate showed a disposition to release him. He shows none of the marks of a bloodthirsty, vicious, or cruel man. He presents the character of a placable man, approving right and truth, but no strength of character to maintain right and enforce justice. Of the characters who dealt with Jesus in his personal ministry only Judas surpasses in turpitude and shame that of Pilate. Christendom has reechoed this judgment of God. To get the benefit of this judgment of God and man, we must recognize the sins for which they were condemned. Judas for the love of money betrayed Jesus, the embodiment of truth, justice, and mercy of God into the hands of his enemies. Pilate, with the power to rescue and save Jesus in his hands, for fear of losing his place, incurring the ill will of the Jews, bearing testimony to his innocence, yet turned him over to his enemies to be crucified. The same truths and interests then embodied in the fleshly body of Christ are now embodied in his spiritual body. Why is it not as great sin to betray the spiritual body as it was the fleshly? Why is the man who knows the truth and for the sake of popularity refuses to maintain it as guilty as was Pilate for so treating the fleshly body? but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’ s friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.—Pilate made a show still of de¬siring to release Jesus. The Jews seeing his hesitating, tem¬porizing spirit directly threatened him with Caesar’ s displea¬sure since Jesus claimed to be a king and the rival of Caesar. 13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.—Under this threat of the Jews, Pilate cowardly brought Jesus out and took his seat in the hall where he was accustomed to deliver his judg¬ments and decisions. 14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour.—There is disagreement between this statement and that of Mark (Mark 15:25), who says he delivered him to them the third hour of the day. Most critics think it should be the third hour or nine o’ clock. Some think it was six o’ clock in the morning, counting six hours from twelve o’ clock. Mark uses the Hebrew count and makes the crucifixion begin at nine o’ clock. Pilate yielded to them, released Barabbas, scourged Jesus, and delivered him to the Jews to be crucified. He did this against his judgment of what was right and just to appease the Jews. He had made cowardly surrender to their demands for fear that he might be accused to Caesar as encouraging treason against him. [There is no contradiction between the statement of John and that of Mark regarding the time that Pilate gave sentence against Christ. The Jews divided the day into four quarters, which they called hours. The first was called the third hour, which answers to our ninth; the second, called the sixth hour, answering to our twelfth; the third, called the ninth hour, answering to our three in the afternoon; the fourth, called the twelfth hour, which was the time of their retirement from labor, and the beginning of the first watch. The whole time from the third hour to the sixth, that is, from nine to twelve, was called the third hour; and the whole intervening time from the sixth to the ninth, that is, from twelve to three, is called the sixth hour. John does not say it was the sixth hour, but about or near the sixth hour. So when he says about the sixth hour, and Mark the third hour, we are to understand that Mark takes in the whole time of the third hour, from nine to twelve, and that John puts it near twelve. So in either case our Lord was sentenced between the hours of nine and twelve.] And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King!—Like cow¬ardly spirits after yielding in the important matters, they show spite and tyranny in small ones, so he tantalizes them by calling Jesus their King. 15 They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him!—Aroused and excited by their success, with more bitterness they cry out thus. Pilate still taunts them with demanding the crucifixion of their King. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.—The Jews were anxious to be free from the dominion of the Ro¬mans, but to meet Pilate on grounds that condemn him, they claim Caesar as their only king. Men maddened with wicked fury profess anything to carry their ends. 16 Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified.—Pilate yielded and gave Jesus to be crucified by the Roman soldiers at the behest of the priests and Pharisees and they took him away from the court of Pilate. [We should note how careful the Holy Spirit is to record the time when Pilate gave sentence against Christ. In general, it was on the day of the preparation for the Passover; that is, the day immediately before it, when they prepared everything needed for the solemnization; and, in particular, it was about the sixth hour of that day. We should also observe the great love and condescension of Christ in stooping so low to expiate our guilt, which deserveth eternal sufferings.] DEATH, BURIAL, AND OF JESUSJoh_19:17-42 Joh 20:1-25 JESUS BEARS THE CROSS John 19:17-24 17 They took Jesus therefore: and he went out, bearing the cross for himself,—They went forward in the work with all haste, wishing to get through with it before the Passover. Jesus started to the place of crucifixion without the gate, bearing his own cross. From some cause, supposed to be exhaustion on the part of Jesus, before he reached the place, Simon of Cyrene coming along was compelled to bear it for him. unto the place called The place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha:—The location of this place is not known. Some think it was the common place for executing criminals. 18 where they crucified him,—The crucifixion consisted in nailing him to a cross. The hands were stretched out and a nail driven through the fleshly part of each hand into the crossbar nailed across the upper end of the post. The feet were then nailed to the post. A pin was put into the upright post between the legs to support the body. The person thus nailed to the cross frequently lingered four or five days before death relieved their sufferings. and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.—[Matthew and Mark say they were “ robbers,” and Luke “ malefactors.” Probably they were accomplices of Bar- abbas, who had escaped occupying the place of Jesus through the determined malice of the chief priests. (See Isaiah 53:12.)] 19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross.— Over the head of the person the crime for which he was exe¬cuted was written that all that saw might know the crime. Pilate wrote this title as if resentful to the Jews for pressing on him to crucify him against his wishes. And there was written, JESUS OF , THE KING OF THE JEWS.—[It is impossible to resist the im¬pression that there was a grim humor in the writing of Pilate. The Jews had humiliated him in forcing him to assent to the crucifixion. He now gets even with them by conceding the al¬leged claim of Jesus, and crucifying thus their king. Had he been acquainted with the prophecies, he might have realized a still more profound significance in the inscription.] 20 This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city;—The cross was erected in a public place that it might be seen. and it was written in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek.—This was written in the three languages spoken by the people that all might be informed of the charge against him. It is rather singular that each of the evangelists records this and no two of them give it in exactly the same language. If there were only three variations, these might be explained as translations from the three languages in which it was written. As it is, the copying was not exact, although all the writings are substantially the same. [The biting taunt of Pilate was made as public and accessible as possible. It was felt too as shown by next verse.] 21 The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but, that he said, I am King of the Jews.—The priests were chagrined at his saying, “ The King of the Jews,” and suggested that he change it. [Pilate evidently had his revenge.] 22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.—Pilate, like many other cowardly men who allow themselves to be drawn into wrong, after he had committed the main crime, becomes courageous in some minor point so he refuses to accommodate them. [Pilate’ s natural stubbornness once again had sway now that he had deprived them of all ground of accusation in appeal to Caesar. So, to all time, Calvary proclaims the truth, the reality of the claims of Jesus and the same of the apostasy of the Jews.] 23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.—The garments of the victim were the prerequisites of the soldiers who executed him. There were four of these soldiers. They stripped Jesus of his clothing. There were four pieces of his inner garments. Each soldier took a piece. His coat or outer garment was seamless, woven throughout. To divide it would destroy its value so they cast lots for it. 24 They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be:—[Some see in this a symbol of the unity of the church and superintending provi¬dence that the symbol might be preserved.] that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.—These soldiers knew nothing of this prophecy, yet fulfilled it in following their own idle fancies. The Jews fulfilled the scriptures and proved him to be the Son of God while gratifying their bitterness toward him by crucifying him. [The quotation is from Psalms 22:18, according to the Septuagint. Luke records that the soldiers mocked him, offering him vinegar, and bidding him to save himself. Here we may mention the prayer of Jesus for his enemies, given only by Luke, the derision of chief priests, scribes, elders, people and robbers, and the episode of the penitent thief.] JESUS COMMITS HIS MOTHER TO JOHNJoh_19:25-27 25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother,—It had been fore¬told to his mother that a sword would pierce through her own soul. This was now fulfilled as she beholds her son and the Son of God nailed to the cross. and his mother's sister,—[Named Salome (Mark 15:40), the mother of John and James. (Matthew 27:56.)] Mary the wife of Clopas,—She is supposed to have been a near kinswoman. and Mary Magdalene.—Out of Mary Magdalene he had cast seven demons. Her gratitude led her to follow him, minister to him, and led her to come near him while he is nailed to the cross. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold, thy son!—The disciple whom Jesus loved was John the writer of the book of John. He is supposed to have been a kinsman of Jesus and his mother. His love for his mother and his desire to provide for her wants during her remaining days on earth led him to forget his own sufferings on the cross in the home of one noted for his tenderness and love. [The relationship in the flesh between Jesus and his mother was about to close, hence he commends her to another who should care for and protect her during old age. A son, who will not provide for his mother, is not worthy to be called a son. The last time the mother of Jesus is mentioned she was with John in Jerusalem, which would indicate that John was true to his trust. This was as great a compliment as Jesus could have given John as pertaining to this world.] 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.—This expressive language shows his tender love and the will¬ingness of both his mother and John to comply with his wishes. This circumstance would seem to indicate that Mary at this time had no other children to whom she could look for kindness and support. This would indicate that Joseph her husband was dead. No mention of his life or death has been made after Jesus began his public ministry. HIS LAST John 19:28-30 28 After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now fin¬ished, that the scripture might be accomplished,—[All things preceding his death which were necessary to complete his work and to the fulfillment of prophecy were finished. He now realizes his intense physical suffering, which had been forgotten in the more awful mental anguish of abandonment by his Father as he bore the burden of the world’ s sin.] saith, I thirst.—Jesus had completed his work and the end was near. The suffering and bleeding he had undergone produced thirst. [The increasing inflammation of the wounds, the unnatural position, the forced immobility and the rigidity of the limbs which resulted from it, the local congestions, especially in the head, the inexpressible anguish resulting from the disturbance of the circulation, a burning fever and thirst tortured the condemned without killing him.] 29 There was set there a vessel full of vinegar:—[Sour wine, or vinegar and water, the common drink of the Roman soldiers, but probably a vessel of this specially placed for the use of those crucified.] so they put a sponge full of the vinegar upon hyssop, and brought it to his mouth.—Jesus was too high on the cross likely for them to reach his mouth with the hand so they dipped the sponge in vinegar and raised it to his mouth. [It is said that hyssop stalks grew to the height of eighteen inches. As the cross was not very high, this would be length sufficient to reach his lips with the sponge.] 30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished:—[The work of the suffering Savior is accomplished, all the prophecies embodying it are fulfilled, the price of redemption is paid, henceforth will be the work of the conquering, triumphant, and glorified Savior.] and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.—After drinking the vinegar all was completed and he let his head fall upon his breast and surrendered his spirit to God. Luke says (23: 46): “ And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost." [Consult Matthew 27:51-56; Mark 15:38¬41; Luke 23:47-49; John 19:31-37 for the accomplishment of his death.] THE BODIES FOR REMOVALJoh_19:31-37 31 The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.—The death of Jesus occurred on Friday, the day for preparing for the Sabbath. This Sabbath falling in the week of the Passover was a day of special sanctity, and is called a “ high day." The Jews did not wish the bodies to hang on the cross to mar the sanctity of this Sabbath. They besought Pilate that their legs might be broken. This was to hasten death, so they would be taken away and buried. [Not only did they prepare for the Sabbath, but it was also preparation of the Passover. (Verse 14.) Breaking the legs was a barbarous method to hasten death. Something like a sledge hammer was used crushing the legs and the shock would bring speedy death.] 32 The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him:—This was a cruel method of hastening death. It would have been much less cruel to pierce the heart and let them bleed to death. But the purpose of crucifying was to prolong torture and cruel methods were used when from any cause it was desired to hasten the death. 33 but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:—The speedy death of Jesus removed the occasion for breaking his legs. God’ s providence so overruled that the prophetic type of the passover lamb should be fulfilled in that not a bone of Jesus was broken. 34 howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, —Why the side was pierced by the soldiers is difficult to tell save God had so ordained and foretold, and the soldier did it to fulfill the prophecy unconscious to himself. and straightway there came out blood and water.—Many suggestions have been made as to the significance of the blood and water. As the scriptures give none, it is safe to follow their example, and conclude that it is the natural result of piercing the side at this state of a dying body. 35 And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his wit¬ness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe.—John the writer was an eyewitness of the occurrences and states them as he saw them. [It is conceded that John the apostle was this eyewitness and that modesty kept him from identifying himself plainly. What he saw establishes the death of Christ. His testimony kills the argument of modern skepticism that Jesus fainted and was taken from the cross and restored by his disciples.] 36 For these things came to pass, that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.—This prophecy was made in the passover lamb, a type and prophecy of the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, repeated in Psalms 34:20. The fulfillment that a bone should not be broken was the more significant, as Pilate had commanded that they should be broken, and the legs of the others were broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.—The scriptures had not only foretold that a bone of him should not be broken, but that he should be pierced. (Psalms 22:16; Zechariah 12:10.) JESUS IS BURIED BY JOSEPH AND Joh_19:38-42 38 And after these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took away his body.—It is singular that one who had failed to confess him while alive and manifesting his power should now do it when he was dead and all seemed lost. It is pretty sure that it was a modesty and shyness that shrank from publicity rather than a cowardly fear of the opposition it would have incurred. Persons moved by personal timidity, rather than by cowardice, often when the issue can no longer be evaded, make the best and trusty friends of the truth. Joseph and Nicodemus both seem to be of this class. They shrank from prominence until all friends seemed to forsake, then they put themselves upon the side of truth and justice. So he took charge of the body so as to give it sepulture. 39 And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds.—Nicodemus was of a similar tem¬perament, and now declared himself the friend of the dead Savior by bringing the mixture for embalming the body of Jesus. [This is the third time Nicodemus is mentioned. First in John 3:5, the second John 7:50 where he protested against the injustice of the Sanhedrin, and here he is assisting in the burial of Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea is not mentioned save in connection with the burial of the body of Jesus. The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death, but here we learn that two of its members were minority voters in the Sanhedrin’ s decision to crucify the Savior. This shows that the majority rule is not a safe rule.] 40 So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.— They wrapped the body in linen with the spices and laid the body away. [Here is fulfilled another prophecy that though Jesus was “ numbered with the transgressors,” he was “ with a rich man in his death.” (Isaiah 53:9 Isaiah 53:12.) ] 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a gar¬den; and in the garden a new tomb wherein was never man yet laid.—Joseph of Arimathea owned a garden close by the place of crucifixion. He had hewn out of rock what we call a vault rather than a grave. This vault was large enough to contain a number of bodies and for persons to pass out and in. This sepulchre or vault had never been used. The body of Jesus was laid in this vault. It was a convenient place to deposit the body, as the Sabbath was now at hand and other arrangements for his sepulchre had not been made. It is not probable that it was intended that his body would permanently remain in this vault. 42 There then because of the Jews’ Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus.—It was a convenient place to deposit the body of Jesus until the Sabbath had passed when the women intended a more thorough embalming and sepulchre. [In the tomb of Jesus the Jews supposed his works to be buried forever. In it were buried the hopes of his disciples who had “ hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel.” In it, had he not risen, would have been buried the gospel, Christian civilization, and the hopes of the world. The future of the world was sleeping in this tomb.] Verse 1 This chapter continues the narrative of the trials and the ultimate triumph of the Jewish leaders over the stubborn will of Pilate, who under the duress of political blackmail and mob violence at last gave in to their will. It details the actual crucifixion, the affairs regarding the inscription, the disposition of the Lord's clothes, his provision for his mother, some of the last words, and the burial. Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. (John 19:1) This was actually an effort by Pilate to substitute a lighter penalty for that of death (Luke 23:22), although there was nothing light about the type of scourging inflicted. Men were known to die under the lash; and one shudders to think of such punishment being inflicted on any human being, especially upon a man the governor had just declared to be innocent. The horrible injustice of it was sickening. In post-apostolic times, there was a tendency to romanticize the role of Pilate in the crucifixion, viewing him as a helpless victim of circumstances imposed upon him by the Jews; but the glaring facts do not support any romantic view of this spineless procurator who ordered the scourging of a man he knew to be innocent, and followed that by condemning him to death. The kind of man that Pilate was, based solely upon what is in this chapter, is enough to declare him worthy of the odium that fell upon his name. Philo mentioned his corruption, outrage, robbery, insult, contumely, his indiscriminate and continuous murders, and his unceasing and vexatious cruelty."[1]The synoptics leave an impression (but do not state it) that the scourging was part of the sentence of crucifixion; but John sets it in a different light, causing some to suppose there were two scourgings; but Westcott is doubtless correct in seeing only one. He said: It is not to be supposed that the scourging was repeated ... the passing references (in the synoptics) do not necessarily bear that meaning. There is no real discrepancy between the accounts.[2]Pilate's tactic failed. A taste of blood only intensified the sadistic hatred of Jesus' enemies. Pilate had arbitrarily imposed the scourging on Jesus, supposing that such brutality might awaken a sense of humanity in his foes; but it failed. Thus it came to pass that this pagan procurator fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, "By his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). Excavations in the old tower of Antonio, Pilate's Praetorium, have uncovered a truncated column in a vaulted room, having no architectural connection with the building, and being exactly the kind of device to which criminals were tied for scourging.[3]For an account of scourging in this present century, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:26. [1] B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 275. [2] Ibid., p. 268. [3] Ibid. Verse 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment.This conduct on the part of the Roman military, brutalized from experience on many a bloody field, nevertheless seems atypical, even in such men as themselves. It seems out of character that they could have been sufficiently motivated to perform the repulsive actions of this mockery. The crooked hand of Satan appears in these events, as in the equally repugnant mockery in the very palace of the high priest of Israel, where they "spat in his face, buffeted him, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee" (Matthew 26:67-68). Purple garment ... This was a three-color fabric of sufficient extravagance of design to suggest royalty, being, in all probability, red and blue on opposite edges, blended into purple in the middle, thus accounting for the variable descriptions of it as "crimson," "scarlet," or "purple." These were the colors of the veil of the temple; and, in view of the extensive symbolism of that veil, standing in one figure for Christ himself (Hebrews 10:20), it was most appropriate that he should have borne the colors of it in his sufferings. See full treatment of this subject in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:51. A crown of thorns ... See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:29. Verse 3 And they came unto him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands.For an entire article on the mockery, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:28. There is a spiritual mockery of Jesus more damnable even than this which appears in the text. We dare not judge our fellow mortals; but, time and again, we have discovered upon our own lips words of loyalty and devotion not fully consonant with our deeds. Verse 4 And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him.John kept the principal actors of this dark drama perpetually on stage. The very fact of Pilate's again confronting the Jewish leaders exhibits his determination to release Jesus, his view apparently having been that his brutal punishment of Jesus, if it could satisfy the leaders, was far better than crucifying him; but he reckoned without consideration of the satanic hatred of Israel's leaders. Verse 5 Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And Pilate said unto them, Behold the man!Barnes ascribed the following meaning to Pilate's actions here: "In all this suffering, he is meek and patient. Behold ... this man that you accuse! He is brought forth that you may see that he is not guilty."[4] Hendriksen interpreted Pilate's meaning thus: "Look! The Man! Has he not suffered enough already? Is it really necessary to inflict any more punishment upon him?"[5][4] Albert Barnes. Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 368. [5] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 416. Verse 6 When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves and crucify him: for I find no crime in him.This might be taken in two ways. It looks like a suggestion by Pilate that the Jews go ahead and crucify Jesus without a legal sentence, with the implied promise of the governor to look the other way. Had not Pilate himself just imposed a merciless scourging upon an innocent, and without any legal sentence? Perhaps he was saying, "Look, I have just shown you how I handle things like this. Why don't you do likewise? Why all this bother about trying to get a legal condemnation from me?" However, Reynolds, Hendriksen, Hovey, and others view Pilate's remark differently. Take him yourselves and crucify him; that is, if you dare. Go do your deed of blood by your own hands and take the responsibility for it; for I find no fault in him. He thus derides their powerlessness and repeats his verdict of acquittal.[6]That Reynolds' view is the better one seems proved by what immediately happened. Those evil men, so intent on Jesus' death, were extremely reluctant to reveal their true reason for demanding Jesus' death; and, if there had been any way by which they could have accomplished it without revealing it, they would have done so. But, at this point the governor balked at doing what they wished. No legal reason for Jesus' death had appeared; in fact, his innocence had been established; and, in that situation, those hypocrites had the choice of losing their quarry or producing a capital charge. They chose the latter and, in the next verse, gave the real reason why they condemned him. All kinds of excuses have been offered on behalf of those religious murderers to explain their so long concealment of their actual charge against Jesus; but the best explanation of it is that, in their hearts, they knew Christ's testimony under oath that he was "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" was the truth of God, and that they dreaded swearing in open court that it was false. That element of self-condemnation within themselves alone explains their reluctance to bring out their charge publicly. Moreover, Satan, so visibly active in the whole drama, was determined, if possible, to murder Jesus upon any other charge than the real one. ENDNOTE: [6] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), Vol. 17, II, p. 418. Verse 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.Well, there it was. All of Satan's efforts to get Jesus crucified for sedition, or as a trouble-maker, failed. The solemn fact that Jesus had sworn under oath that he was the divine Messiah came squarely into focus in those events, and it would remain forever visible in the heavenly light shining upon the cross. Christ had, in this, at last accomplished the enlightenment of all men for all ages, who would thenceforth have his testimony under oath, and sealed with his blood, to the effect that he was the only begotten Son of God, the divine Messiah, the Saviour of the world, and the world's only Redeemer. No wonder his enemies so stubbornly resisted letting the word out. They instinctively knew that the myriads of the human race would believe Jesus' testimony. This verse gives the technical charge upon which Jesus was crucified. His sworn testimony was the truth, for he was indeed the Son of God; but the Jewish law to which the priests appealed made it a capital offense for one to claim to be the divine Messiah, UNLESS IN TRUTH HE WAS SO (Leviticus 24:16). Thus the technical charge that Jesus had violated that law by falsely swearing that he was the divine Messiah was itself fraudulent, untruthful, and damnable. In speaking of the "true" grounds for Jesus' death, it should be remembered that the "true grounds" was their lie! What Jesus swore was God's truth; their calling his testimony false was Satan's lie. Son of God ... as Jesus used this title, and as the Pharisees understood it, meant the same unique, divine Sonship believed in by Christians of all ages. There is a lesser sense in which all believers are "sons of God," but the meaning here is that of the unique, supernatural Sonship of God's only begotten. The action of the Jewish hierarchy in demanding the crucifixion of Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God shows that they fully understood all of the majestic overtones inherent in that precious title, SON OF GOD. Strangely, if Jesus had falsely made such a claim, they would have been correct in demanding his death. Thus, from that moment, and ever afterward, people are confronted with the dilemma in Christ Jesus, there being no middle ground. He either was, or was not, what he claimed to be; and the way every soul answers that question determines the soul's destiny. Verse 8 When Pilate therefore heard this saying, he was the more afraid.Pilate had many fears, fearing for his relations with Herod, his reputation with the emperor, the outbreak of violence in his city, the implications of his wife's dream; and now, typical pagan that he was, this injection of Jesus' claim to be the Son of God thoroughly moved him, but not toward any good conclusion. Skepticism and fear go hand in hand. Herod, it will be recalled, who would have scoffed at the doctrine of the resurrection, nevertheless feared that Jesus was John the Baptist (whom he had beheaded) risen from the dead! Therefore, Pilate may have believed that "the wondrous Being before him was enshrouded in a mystery of supernatural portent that he could not fathom, and before whom he trembled."[7]ENDNOTE: [7] H. R. Reynolds, op. cit., II, p. 419. Verse 9 And he entered into the Praetorium again, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.Jesus did not reply because: (1) he knew that Pilate would not stand against the hierarchy, and (2) his silence allowed the Pharisees' testimony concerning his claim to be the Son of God to stand unchallenged. As Lipscomb noted, "His silence was answer enough - that if he did not make that claim, he certainly would have denied it."[8]ENDNOTE: [8] David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 293. Verse 10 Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?Pilate was astounded at Jesus' silence. His words indicate near belief that any man could so behave in his presence. His words show how unspiritual, selfish, proud, and arrogant was the heart within him. Such a misjudgment of his "power" by Pilate deserved a reply from the Master; and Jesus promptly delivered it. Verse 11 Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.Jesus here pointed to that doctrine which was elaborated at a later time by Paul (Romans 13:1 ff), regarding the state and authority as God-ordained. (See my Commentary on Romans 13:1 ff.) Jesus' application of this to Pilate reveals the hand of God in the affairs of state. Pilate's being the Procurator that year[9] was not Pilate's sole achievement, despite his arrogant assumption that it was; but God had raised him up, no less than Esther at another time, "for such a time as this." The greater sin ... The high priest of Israel was the person guilty of greater sin, a greater sin shared by all who had aided and abetted that crime of the centuries; but, in what way was their sin greater than Pilate's? Westcott thus explained it: Pilate was guilty of using wrongfully the power. The high priest was doubly guilty in using a higher (spiritual) power and in transgressing his legitimate rules of action ... By appealing to a heathen power to execute an unjust sentence on Christ, he had sinned against God by unfaithfulness, and by unrighteousness.[10]Except it were given thee from above ... Pilate's power of continuation in office was directly from God and was exercised only under God's permission. Jesus might have called for legions of angels; he even had the power to have changed Pilate's mind, or to prostrate the entire garrison of Antonio on their faces, as had happened to some of them the previous night. The tiniest display of Jesus' supernatural power could have turned Pilate into putty in Jesus' hands. The procurator was already frightened, and the silence of Jesus recorded in the previous verse was probably for the purpose of permitting him to act in character, rather than as a judge frightened out of his wits. It was here that Satan played out his last tactic in the strategy of inducing Jesus to abandon the purpose of redemption by refusing to die on the cross. Pilate, in this scene, actually seemed to plead with Jesus to do something that would enable him to deny the religious leaders the sentence they wanted. The Lord was silent. He would not resort to any miracle to avoid crucifixion. Regarding the satanic strategy here referred to, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:39 ff. [9] Note to critics: This writer is aware that they did not change the procurator every year! [10] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 270. Verse 12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend: everyone that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.This was vicious political blackmail. If Pilate would not do their will, they would prefer charges against him before Caesar, charges which both Pilate and themselves knew to be false; but also known to both was the fact that such charges, whether true or false, could blast the procurator out of office. Such was the political climate of the times; and, alas, it must be hailed as the usual political climate of all times. This did it. Pilate moved at once to crucify the Lord, caving in completely before the unscrupulous scoundrels before him. Verse 13 When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.The seat mentioned here was a stone platform in the courtyard of the Praetorium, or near the adjacent tower of Antonio. From its name, it appears to have been made of stones ingeniously joined in the manner of Roman stone masons, to form a throne-like platform with steps and ornaments for the purpose of adding dignity to the decisions announced by the procurator therefrom. Upon that judgment-seat, Pilate, the all-powerful deputy of Caesar, seated himself and ordered the innocent Christ before him for sentencing. Verse 14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!The Preparation ... This was the day before the passover which began that night at sunset. The sixth hour ... Since this was an official Roman event, the time was Roman time, making this 6:00 A.M. Behold your King! ... Very well, Pilate seems to have concluded; if the Jews would blackmail him as an enemy of Caesar, he would prove his loyalty by crucifying the Jews' King! In forcing the procurator's hand, the Jews got far more than they intended. Having exhausted every means of avoiding it, except, of course, incurring any personal political risk, Pilate ordered the crucifixion. Verse 15 They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.Pilate here maneuvered the chief priests in a manner that enraged them and drove them to a blind fury. "Shall I crucify your King?" was his mocking taunt; but their blindness to the consequences of what they were doing was so complete that in their irrational rage they even renounced God himself. We have no king but Caesar ... It was just as well that they said this, for in crucifying Christ they had indeed renounced the Father; but it is one of the ironies of their hardening that they were goaded into this public renunciation for the records of all subsequent sacred history. We have no king but Caesar ... Where was all the professed devotion of those people for God as their only King? That they hated Caesar was known to all. That they claimed God as their true king was the major thesis of the whole history of Israel; but here they were shouting before the pagan governor: We have no king but Caesar ... Caesar would crucify 30,900 of their young men on the walls of ruined Jerusalem within a generation (at the siege in 70 A.D.). Caesar would expel them from Rome; Caesar would perpetrate countless injustices and atrocities upon them; God had never done anything except love them, bear with them, and protect them throughout their wretched history; but now hear them: We have no king but Caesar ...! What an avalanche of woe this unhappy people loosed upon themselves by their rejection of the Lord! As Hovey said, however: We are thankful that it was not the whole multitude that made this profession, but only the chief priests. ...They who gloried in the Theocracy and boasted that whey were never in bondage to any man" (John 8:33) - THEY confess that Caesar is their only king.[11]ENDNOTE: [11] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 379. Verse 16 Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified.Them ... has reference to the chief priests. Yes, Pilate provided the soldiers and a centurion to command the detail; but he put those evil priests squarely in charge of the crucifixion. The decision was then final, and the further deeds of that dark day would unfold on schedule. Pilate had vainly tried to avoid what he knew was an injustice; but there was no way that such a man as he could avoid doing what, in the last analysis, he held to be expedient to the maintenance of his political power. He hated the whole Jewish nation; and what matter to him was it, if an innocent was put to death? The chief priests too must have thought the whole business was finished. God was out of it, as far as they were concerned; they had shouted their allegiance to Caesar only; but history held some surprises for them also. As Hendriksen put it: They forgot, however, that God as king of the universe was not through with them. In a certain terrible sense, he was still their King. Indescribable punishments were not far away. In winning this battle, they had lost the war.[12]There is no evidence that the chief priests actually supervised the crucifixion, but, in a sense, it was their act. They demanded it and were present for the gory execution of the sentence, even adding insulting taunts of the holy Saviour on the cross itself! ENDNOTE: [12] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 422. Verse 17 They took Jesus therefore: and he went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha.John omitted many details found in the synoptics. This verse is all that John related of the Via Dolorosa. For an account of the events associated with that title, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:32. Golgotha ... The place of the skull was near the city but outside the walls, but any certainty as to the exact location is precarious. The favored location for many is the hill which strikingly resembles a deaths-head, and which is always pointed out to visitors in the Holy City. Verse 18 Where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.For discussion of the malefactors and the words of Jesus with one of them, and for other particulars, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:32. Verse 19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. And there was written, JESUS OF ; THE KING OF THE JEWS.The full inscription actually had ten words, thus: THIS IS JESUS OF ; THE KING OF THE JEWS, as indicated by a composite of all four Gospel accounts. Matthew recorded eight of the ten, omitting "of Nazareth." Mark gave the last five words, which appear in all four Gospels. Luke omitted "Jesus of Nazareth," giving the other seven; and John gives us eight of the ten words, omitting only the words "this is." This is a perfect example of the type of reporting found in the sacred Gospels. Not one of them gave a word that was not in the inscription; not one of them omitted the final five words; each writer gave it as he remembered it; and no two are exactly the same. A composite of what they all said gives the perfect and complete inscription. In the light of the above, one can only be astounded and disgusted at the allegations of scholars pontificating about "discrepancies," "contradictions," etc., in the Gospel accounts of the inscription. Even Alfred Plummer complained that "No two Gospels agree as to the wording of the title on the cross."[13] Against such a view, we would present the undeniable truth that all four accounts are in perfect harmony. For full discussion of this, see my Commentary on Matthew (Matthew 27:37). ENDNOTE: [13] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 396. Verse 20 This title therefore read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city; and it was written in Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek.The roads to the city were choked with thousands traveling to the Holy City for Passover; and it must have been a matter of widespread consternation when the entire city was filled with buzzing conversation about the "King of the Jews" being crucified just outside the city. Intended by Pilate as a sadistic joke and as a final slap in the face of the priests, the inscription was nevertheless the truth of God! As so frequently in history, the "wrath of man" praised the Lord (Psalms 76:10). Verse 21 The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am the King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.The King of the Jews ... Thus the chief priests also gave an abbreviated summary of the inscription. The diabolical murder of Jesus backfired upon the perpetrators of it. Events were not turning out at all as they had planned. Pilate's inscription was being painted in blood upon every conscience; and the shocking truth of the inscription was a double-barreled blast against everything the priests wanted. The inscription shouted two overwhelming facts to the crowds entering the city: (1) Jesus of Nazareth was the King of the Jews, and (2) the Romans had crucified him. No matter how one read it, it was bad news for Israel, and one can easily understand the chagrin and anxiety of the priests who sought to get it changed. The chief priests ... This indicates that the hierarchy attached a great deal of importance to the inscription, indicating also a much greater perception on their part in this matter than they had exhibited in so many other things. The great hour of their influence, however, had slipped away. No longer would a frightened and vacillating governor bend to their desires; the tables were turned. From that hour, history hardened around the deeds of the day, and there could be no alteration of them. Forever etched into the conscience of the human race was the crucifixion of the Lord and Saviour of men. What I have written I have written ... What's done is done. A proverb was born in this reply of Pilate; and the pagan palace of the procurator must have resounded that day with many a ribald laugh - for a while, that is; because the day was not over; and before it ended, the sun would stop shining; the veil of the temple would fall asunder; an explosive earthquake would occur; and a dreadful apprehension would fall upon the city of the great King (Matthew 5:35). Pilate's words, if spoken in Latin, were "Quod scripsi scripsi!" Verse 23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, And upon my vesture did they, cast lots.The soldiers ... There were four of them, a quaternion. A centurion was in charge. They did not wait for Jesus to die but went about, dividing up his clothes as if he were already dead. The coat ... may be rendered tunic" (English Revised Version margin). This was the vesture, or undergarment, which formed a usual part of the clothing of that day. Here John described the manner of its manufacture. This is one of the most astounding things in the Bible. The clothes of Jesus! Can anyone tell what Napoleon was wearing when he died, or what Franklin D. Roosevelt had on when he was stricken, and how the garments were made and what became of them? The record of Jesus is itself supernatural. Concerning that seamless vesture, Saunders said: "It was the type of garment worn by the high priest (Leviticus 16:4). Christ is the true high priest whose death is the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world."[14]That the Scriptures might be fulfilled ... The soldiers did not consciously fulfill prophecy in their disposal of the clothing; but this was a case of the all-powerful Providence accomplishing through evil or indifferent men the fulfillment of divine prophecy. The Scripture fulfilled is Psalms 22:18. For an extensive examination of twenty prophecies of the crucifixion contained in that Psalm, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:66. ENDNOTE: [14] Ernest W. Saunders, John Celebrates the Gospel (New York: Abingdon, 1966), p. 149. Verse 25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.His mother's sister ... was Salome, the wife of Zebedee, and the mother of James and John, according to Westcott, thus making James and John cousins of Jesus. He wrote: This connection of St. John with the mother of the Lord helps explain the incident which follows .... The omission of the name of Salome, on this supposition, falls in with John's usage as to his brother and to himself.[15]Any so-called "problem" concerning the mention by one Gospel of different women, or different numbers of women at the cross, or of different distances from which they viewed it - all such differences derive from eyewitness observance of the scene at different times throughout the day. Where is the critic who will affirm that exactly the same number of women, and exactly the same women, stood in exactly the same place throughout the whole day? ENDNOTE: [15] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 276. Verse 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he said unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy, mother! And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.This is one of the seven utterances from the cross; and, as Westcott observed, the seven make an entire sequence in their own right and deserve treatment together. For a detailed discussion of all seven, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:66. This is the third in the chronological sequence of the seven utterances. From that hour ... is not a statement that within sixty minutes John took Mary to his own home, but means rather that from the authority conveyed in that hour the future residence of the blessed Mary was with the beloved John. Significantly, Jesus did not here address his mother as "Mother of God," a title which developed long afterward; and regardless of the intentions of the people using it, it is unscriptural: inappropriate, and, in a sense, even idolatrous. Verse 28 After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the Scriptures might be accomplished, saith, I thirst.This does not mean that Jesus said, "I thirst" in order to fulfill prophecy. As Westcott said, "The fulfillment of scripture was not the object which the Lord had in view, but there was a necessary correspondence between his acts and the divine foreshadowing of them." [16] Old Testament passages prophesying the Lord's thirst are Psalms 22:15 and Psalms 69:21. See under John 19:27. ENDNOTE: [16] Ibid., p. 277. Verse 29 There was set there a vessel full of vinegar; so they put a sponge full of vinegar upon hyssop, and brought it to his mouth.There is no way that any person, except an eyewitness, would have filled this account with so many specific details. The words before us are clearly the result of a vivid menial picture in the mind of the narrator of what he had seen. The vessel full of vinegar, the sponge, the very kind of stick used to lift it to the Lord's mouth. No forger would have dared to piece together such a narrative as this; and, besides that, there could not possibly have been any motive for doing such a thing. Matthew and Mark mention the "reed" that bore the sponge, but there are many kinds of reeds; John here spontaneously described it as "hyssop," identified with the caper plant, and usually some three or four feet long. These are the words of an eyewitness. Verse 30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.For detailed comment on the seven words, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:66. The vessel of vinegar was probably the property of the soldiers in charge of the crucifixion, something they had probably brought along for refreshment during the long watch. It was not the product marketed under that label today, but the thin sour wine provided by the Roman army as the soldiers' daily rations (Luke 23:36). It is reasonable to infer that one of the soldiers, near the end, performed this act of mercy for our Lord. It is not necessary to infer that Jesus drank the proffered vinegar. He had promised not to drink of the fruit of the vine until the day when he would drink it new with them in the kingdom of God (Matthew 26:29). The sour wine offered by the soldier was not new; the kingdom had not begun; and it was not a disciple who offered it. "And when he had tasted it, he would not drink" (Matthew 27:34). Although Matthew referred to the earlier offering of vinegar, it is the key to what happened later. John's statement that Jesus "received" it refers only to its having been brought to his mouth. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Mat 27:27 should be read in connection with this verse. The scourging had been done in the court, then Jesus was led into the common hall, where the whole band of soldiers was gathered to see the indignities to be imposed on him. He had said he was a king, and in mockery they put a crown of thorns upon his head. The thorns were those of a brier or bramble bush. Purple was one of the royal colors, so they put such a robe on Jesus which was also in mockery of his claim to being a king. 3 These derisive words were said in mockery with the same motive that prompted their actions in the preceding verse. Smote him. See the comments on John 18:22 for the description and significance of this shameful act. 4 Having put Jesus through these cruel indignities, Pilate announced to the Jews in waiting that he was bringing their prisoner out to them. That ye may know was said with the meaning, "Although your prisoner has been treated with such indignities as you can see, yet no final sentence has been pronounced upon him. I am therefore offering him to you because I still find no fault in him." 5 With this "introduction," Jesus appeared on the scene, wearing the crown of thorns with its thousands of prickles having been pressed down pon his head, and robed in the colors that only belonged to Roman kings. His appearance was plainly visible to all the mob, yet Pilate thought to arouse their pity by a pointed phrase, behold the man. The first word is from IDE, and Thayer defines it, "see! behold! lo!" He then explains it, "as the utterance of one who wishes that something should not be negelected by another." Robinson gives the same definition as Thayer, then follows with the comment, "As calling attention to something present." 6 When the chief priests had their attention especially directed to Jesus, it had the opposite effect upon them to what Pilate expected. They were enraged and caused to repeat their demand that Jesus be crucified. Take ye him and crucify him. This was not a judicial sentence; that came later. But it was another effort of Pilate to evade responsibility for punishing a man in whom he still found no fault. 7 Made himself the Son of God. This was a new charge as far as Pilate had heard. Up to the present he could get only the idea of a rival against the government, but which was not in any of the evidence so far produced. Pilate was a heathen in religion, and could not realize fully what it would mean to be called by such a title as the Jews named. Yet he was not entirely unacquainted with Jewish history as was indicated by washing his hands (Matthew 27:24), an act based on Deuteronomy 21:1-6. 8 From his knowledge of Jewish history, referred to in the preceding verse, Pilate had some idea of the importance attached to their God. Now here was a man in his court who claimed to be the Son of that God. If such claim was true, then it might be dangerous to mistreat him. All of this in connection with his wife's dream (Matthew 27:19), filled him with uneasiness so that the record says he was the more afraid. 9 Pilate was still unwilling to let the matter drop, but made another effort to get Jesus to commit himself. The question whence art thou was related to the claim just made that he was the Son of God. Jesus made no answer to the question, but that was not because he could not do so, neither was it from pure contempt of the court, for he did speak presently. In the appearances of Jesus be fore the rulers, he was silent when his personal comfort or safety was all that was involved, and that fulfilled the predictions in Isaiah 53:7. But when an important issue was called up, he would speak out and give the teaching upon it, as we shall see very soon. 0 Pilate thought Jesus was maintaining silence in contempt. He thought he would goad him into speaking by a sort of "threat of the law." The self-importance which he felt he possessed was expressed in the words, I have power. 1 Jesus considered it was the proper time for him to speak. He did not deny the power (or authority) that Pilate claimed to have, but informed him that this power was not his directly, but that it had been given him from above. It meant that Pilate was acting as the instrument of a Higher Power, and hence that his part in the solemn drama was not purely upon his own motive; he personally did not wish it to be so. But the Jewish leaders, though also acting in fulfillment of the prophecies, were yet carrying out their personal desires. That is why Jesus told Pilate that he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. 2 It seems that every turn of the conversation and events only confirmed Pilate in his belief that Jesus was an innocent man. But his political interests outweighed his conscience, so that he made only such attempts at releasing the prisoner as would not endanger his standing with the government of Caesar. The Jews realized this situation, and used it with telling effect in this verse. 3 Pilate yielded to the political pressure which the Jews brought to bear upon him in the preceding verse, and concluded he would pass the sentence of death against Jesus. Judgment seat is from BEMA, which Thayer defines, "A raised place mounted by steps; a platform, tribune." He further says it was used as the official seat of a judge. This was the spot where Pilate brought Jesus for the final act in the tragedy. 4 The meaning of preparation will be fully explained at verse 31. The present verse puts the time of the crucifixion about the sixth hour, which seems to disagree with the account in Mark 15:25 which puts it at the third hour. There is no contradiction in thought when the various kinds of calendars that were used are considered. One method of dividing the day was by the single hours, starting in the morning at what corresponds with our six o'clock, which was the first hour in New Testament times. The hours were then numbered from one to twelve, and a reference to any certain hour (such as 3rd or 6th) meant a period of one hour only. Another form of calendar divided the twelve hours into four periods of three hours each and each period was named by the last hour of that period. By that method, the sixth hour would mean the period that really began with the hour that was called the third in the single hour method. John's statement is based on this calendar. As the source of my information, I will quote from Owen C. Whitehouse, Professor of Hebrew, Chesnut College, near London, on the Hebrew Calendar: "The later division of the day was: Third hour, 6 to 9 A. M.; Sixth 'hour, 9 to 12 A. M.; Ninth hour, 12 to 3 P. M.; Twelfth hour, 3 to 6 P. M." This same information is given by The Oxford Cyclopedic Concordance, under article "Day." 5 When Pilate asked the Jews to behold their king (in preceding verse), it enraged them still more and made them want the execution performed at once. Pilate gave them one last chance just before giving Jesus over to the executioners, to change their minds and snatch him as it were from the cross. He made the appeal as pointed as possible by asking, "Shall I crucify your King?" This desperate move of his reminds us of the language of Peter in Acts 3:13, where he says of Pilate's attitude toward Jesus, "he was determined to let him go." The chief priests rejected all of Pilate's suggestions. Their statement, We have no king but Caesar, was not made except as a retort to Pilate's question, and not in the spirit of patriotic loyalty. 6 Pilate regarded the remark in the close of the preceding verse as final, and at once delivered Jesus unto the soldiers, who led him away to be crucified. 7 Bearing his cross. According to Luke 23:26, Simon was compelled to help Jesus bear the cross. There was a rule that if a victim condemned to the cross was unable physically to carry it alone, someone would be made to take up the rear part and help carry it, walking after the other to the place of execution. Place of a skull. There is a long note on this phrase at Matthew 27:33, containing information gleaned from the lexicons and other authentic works of reference. 8 The two other were thieves according to Matthew 27:38. 9 The title also means an inscription, in the form of a placard or poster, placed on the cross in full view of the passers-by. The wording on this poster was, Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews. The inscription was to inform the public of the charge on which the victim had been crucified. This one showed that Jesus was nailed to the cross for the "crime" of being king of the Jews. 0 The inscription was written in the three languages named, because people of those tongues were present at Jerusalem at that time and thus they could read it. 1 The title on the cross was such a flimsy reason for having Jesus slain, that the chief priests were ashamed as they saw the crowds reading it. They thought it could be made to seem more fitting if the charge would read so as to represent Jesus as an arch impostor; they requested Pilate to change the wording to that effect. 2 What I have written I have written, was a brief way of saying, "I have written the inscription as I wanted it, and I will not let it be changed." 3 We may learn from Smith's Bible Dictionary (article--"crucifixion"), that the victim to be crucified was stripped of his clothing before crucifixion. It was a custom that the soldiers performing the execution should have the victim's raiment as an extra pay in addition to their wages as soldiers. According to the present verse there were four of the soldiers, corresponding to the four parts of the body to be nailed; the two hands and two feet. This would call for four divisions to be made of the garments so each soldier could have a share But the coat was woven in one piece in such a way that it could not be divided without ruining it. 4 In the case of the one-piece garment, the soldiers agreed to decide the question by casting lots for it. That the scripture might be fulfilled means, "and in so doing the scripture was fulfilled," etc.; the prediction is in Psalms 22:18. 5 This verse corresponds with Matthew 27:56, with some variation in the names of some of the women. Mary the mother of Jesus was the same as the mother of James and Joses (Mark 6:3). 6 The disciple whom he loved was John, the writer of this book (chapter 21:20, 24). Behold thy son. The term son comes from HUIOS, which has a great many shades of meaning besides the one commonly used. Thayer says it is sometimes used "of one who depends on another." Jesus used it in that sense as may be seen in the following verse. When he told his mother to behold John as her son, he meant for her to depend on him for support. 7 By the same token as set forth in the preceding verse, when Jesus told John to behold his mother, he meant for him to let Mary depend on him for support. John also understood it that way, for he began at once to take her as a member of his own household. And the arrangement was exactly on the same principle that was taught by Paul in 1 Timothy 5:4; 1 Timothy 5:16. In that place the apostle was writing about dependent widows, and the obligation of nephews to care for them. The same idea would hold good in the case of others who are able to care for worthy disciples who are dependent. 8 Not until after all things were accomplished did Jesus give expression to his dying desires. In the throes of his feverish last hours, he complained of being thirsty. That the scripture might be fulfilled denotes that in his thirst and its quenching he would fulfill the scripture. 9 The scripture prediction that was fulfilled by this is in Psalms 69:21. When Jesus expressed his wants by stating the condition of thirst, someone dipped a sponge in vinegar (sour wine) and placed it upon hyssop so as to reach it up to the parched lips of the dying Saviour. This was the most convenient way either of serving or receiving it under the circumstances. It was done merely to quench his thirst and not as an opiate, since it did not have the gall mixed with it which he had refused (Matthew 27:34). Some confusion might occur over this word hyssop, since both Matthew and Mark say it was put on a reed. I shall quote from Smith's Bible Dictionary on the article in question. "Besides being thus lit for sprinkling, having cleansing properties, and growing on walls, the true hyssop should be a plant common to Egypt, Sinai and Palestine, and capable of producing a stick three or four feet long." 0 It is finished. In John 17:4 as Jesus was praying he said, "I have finished the work which thou gayest me to do." That was said prospectively, because his work on earth was virtually completed then. In the present instance it was said literally, because it was among the last words Jesus uttered before death. Gave up the ghost (spirit), indicates that when a man dies, something in his body leaves it, which proves that the human being is not wholly material. 1 Preparation. Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary says of this day, "This term signifies in general any day which preceded a great feast. The usage is somewhat analogous [similar] to that of the English 'eve' (Christmas eve, New-year's eve, etc.)." The call for such a day lay in the restrictions of the law of Moses regarding holy days. On them it was unlawful to perform any manual labor, even to the gathering of sticks for fuel (Numbers 15:32-36). It was therefore directed that all their baking and boiling be done the day before by way of preparation for the sabbath or holy day to come (Exodus 16:23). The law of Moses forbade letting a body on a tree (or cross) over night (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). The Jews were attentive to such items as this, and especially as it would have caused a dead body to be thus exposed on a sabbath day. What was still more important in this case was that it would have been on a high day. The word is from MEGAS, which Thayer defines at this place, "Of great moment, of great weight, important; solemn, sacred." Even without the definition from the lexicon, the way it is used indicates that the sabbath day referred to was not the ordinary or weekly one. The explanation is in the fact that the day following the crucifixion was the Jewish Passover. Leviticus 23:1-7 clearly shows that day was a holy one which made it a sabbath day. The regular sabbath came each week, while this other came only once a year, and was commemorative of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. No wonder, then, that John called it a 'high day. Crucifixion caused a slow death as a rule, so that the victims might linger on into the night and even up till the following day before dying. It was not lawful to permit them thus to remain there, neither could they take them down from the cross while alive. Hence it was a rule to hasten death before night by breaking the legs with clubs, the shock on top of what they had already endured being the final cause of death. That is why the Jews requested Pilate to have the legs of the three broken. 2 We are not told why the soldiers came to the thieves before Jesus. It was not because of their order on the crosses, for verse 18 says they were on the sides of Jesus. We might speculate and suggest that a humane feeling prompted them to put off the brutal performance as long as possible, but that would be a guess only, and I merely offer it for what it is worth. But the custom of the occasion was carried out under the authority of Pilate. 3 Jesus had suffered so much physical shock in addition to his intense nervous strain (Luke 22:44), that he anticipated the soldiers and died before they arrived at the cross. The fact was unusual, and hence Pilate was surprised when he heard that Jesus was dead (Mark 15:44). The only reason the soldiers had for not breaking the legs of Jesus was that the purpose for the act (to hasten death) was not present. But their refraining from doing it fulfilled another prediction, that his bones were not to be broken (Psalms 34:20). The same fact was also typified by the restrictions on observing the first pass-over in Egypt, "neither shall ye break a bone thereof" (Exodus 12:46). 4 The scripture does not tell us the motive of the soldier in piercing the body of Jesus with his spear. Doubtless the hand of God was in the act, using the heathen servant as the instrument in producing the greatest event in all history. Blood and water. In the very nature of the cue, the source of the water had to be the circulatory system. The word is from HUDOR, and Robinson defines it, "A watery fluid, serum," and explains it at this place, "which flowed from the wound in Jesus' side." This critical authority will justify another note, in the form of a medical comment, by Henry H. Halley, as follows: '. 'Some medical authorities have said that in the case of heart rupture, and in that case only, the blood collects in the pericardium (the lining around the wall of the heart), and divides into a sort of bloody clot and a watery serum. If this is a fact, then the actual physical cause of Jesus' death was heart rupture. Under intense pain, and the pressure of his wildly raging blood, his heart burst open." Thus the spear of the Roman soldier started the flowing of the most precious stream that ever existed in the universe. In it was fulfilled the prophetic words, "In that day there shall be a fountain opened in the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness" (Zechariah 13:1). And with that amazing circumstance in our minds, we sing these beautifully solemn words: "There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Emman-uel's veins; And sinners plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains." 5 This verse is virtually the same as John 21:24, which lets us know that it means John. He knew that his record was true, not only because he was an eye witness (John 19:26), but was one of the inspired apostles and wrote by the Holy Spirit. 6 This is commented upon at verse 33. 7 This prediction is in Zechariah 12:10. The mere act of looking on Jesus might seem as an unimportant item. But Matthew 27:36 says, "And sitting down they watched him there." This was not from mere morbid curiosity, but it was a part of their duty. Smith's Bible Dictionary says, "The crucified was watched, according to custom, by a party of four soldiers, John 19:23, with their centurion, Matthew 27:66, whose express office was to prevent the stealing of the body. This was necessary from the lingering character of the death, which sometimes did not supervene even for three days, and was at last the result of gradual benumbing and starvation. But for this guard, the persons might have been taken down and recovered as was actually done in the case of a friend of Josephus." 8 secretly for fear of the Jews means that his being a disciple had been kept secret up to this time. But he maintained that secrecy no longer, which he could not do if he performed the act he planned on doing in taking charge of the body of Jesus. The soldiers would not have permitted him to take the body, had he not been authorized to do so by Pilate, hence the record says that he "commanded the body to be delivered" (Matthew 27:58)." And the open manner of Joseph's actions is expressed in Mark 15:43, that he "went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus." 9 The visit of Nicodemus with Jesus is recorded in chapter 3 of this book. Nothing is said at that place as to the impression made on the ruler, nor of what his attitude was afterward; but the present verse indicates that it left him with a favorable feeling. Also the protest he made against the unfair treatment accorded to Jesus by the Jews (chapter 7:50, 51) agrees with that attitude. Hence he joined with Joseph in giving the body of Jesus this honorable burial. Thayer says that myrrh is, "a bitter gum and costly perfume which exudes from a certain tree or shrub in Arabia and Ethiopia, or is obtained by incisions made in the bark; as an antiseptic it was used in embalming." Of aloes he says it is "the name of an aromatic tree which grows in eastern India and Cochin China, and whose soft bitter wood the Orientals used in fumigation and in embalming the dead." The immense weight of these materials that Nicodemus brought would indicate his respect for Jesus. 0 The products mentioned in the preceding verse were bound to the body of Jesus with the linen cloth, after which it was prepared for burial according to the Jewish custom in, practice at that time and in that coun-try. 1 A new sepulchre. This place had become the property of Joseph according to Matthew 27:60. We are not informed when nor why Joseph had acquired this tomb, but having done so evidently for his own use whenever the occasion came that it would be needed, it was at this time unoccupied. That gave the occasion for the body of Jesus to be placed "wherein was never man yet laid" (stated here and in Luke 23:53). 2 Because of the Jews' preparation day. Luke 23:54 says it was the day of the preparation, "and the sabbath drew on." The preparation day was a busy time for the Jews (see notes at verse 31), hence it was convenient from that standpoint to bury Jesus at this place, for the sepulchre was nigh at hand. David Lipscomb Commentary On John 20 MARY, JOHN, AND PETER FIND THE TOMB EMPTYJoh_20:1-10 1 Now on the first day of the week—The body of Jesus had been hastily buried on Friday evening to avoid breaking the Sabbath. The task of embalming him had not been as care¬fully done as the women who followed him desired. They had bought perfumes on Friday afternoon. (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1.) The approach of the Sabbath caused them to delay the completion of their kind offices until Sunday morn¬ing. With the first dawn of the morning they appeared with the spices to complete the work. [This was our Sunday, here called “ The first day of the week.” The Sabbath ended at sunset so that Jesus had been dead and buried Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday morning, beginning at the previous sunset, three days according to Jewish reckoning. (1 Samuel 30:12-13; 2 Chronicles 10:5 2 Chronicles 10:12.)] cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb,—John mentions only Mary Magdalene; Matthew (Matthew 28:2) and Mark (Mark 16:1) mention also Mary the mother of Jesus, and Salome. John gives prominence to Mary Magdalene. She had been possessed of seven demons, most likely quite a sinner. The demons had been cast out of her, her many sins forgiven her, and she loved much— was much devoted to her Lord. For this devotion special mention is made of her service. [They had prepared spices to anoint and em¬balm the body.] and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.—They had anticipated difficulty in rolling away the stone from the door of the vault that they might enter. They found it rolled away, saw the angels and empty tomb, and went and told the disci¬ples. (Matthew 28:2-4.) 2 She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved,—They find Peter and John and tell the strange discovery. No thought of a resurrection seems to have entered the minds of either of the apostles or the women, notwithstanding Jesus had so often told them he would rise. The women were not led by faith, but by love, to the tomb to perform the last rites of respect and love for one who had been their true friend and helper while alive. (Mary Magdalene left the other woman and ran to carry this news to the apostles. The others walked on and had the experience described in Matthew 28:5-8; Mark 16:5-8; Luke 24:3-9 and left the tomb.] and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him.—The only thought that came to their minds was that he had been taken away and they knew not where to find his body. This shows how difficult it is to see and accept things that are con¬trary to our fixed convictions and desires. [She had jumped at this conclusion from the sight of the open sepulchre, for none were expecting a resurrection.] 3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.—Peter seems to have led in the start with his characteristic promptness. John first reached the tomb, but went not in. His timidity likely caused him to pause at the entrance, but he looked in and saw the cloths lying. 4 And they ran both together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to the tomb;—[Their emotion would not allow them to walk.] 5 and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet entered he not in.—[He was too timid to enter the tomb immediately. He went close enough to see the linen in which Jesus had been wrapped.] 6 Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and en¬tered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying, —[How characteristic this is of Peter who twice plunged into the sea to meet Jesus. He hesitates not a moment, like the timid John, but springs at once into the tomb.] 7 and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.—Peter, coming up without hesitation, entered the tomb and found the clothes folded carefully, showing deliberation and care in disposing of them. [This napkin doubtless held the mouth closed. Its po¬sition and condition shows a calm preparation to leave the tomb instead of a hasty removal of the body.] 8 Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed.—[Doubtless believed that Jesus had risen from the grave.] John, after Peter had entered, also entered, saw and believed. It is not clear as to the extent of his belief. As yet they had not un¬derstood what he meant when he said he would rise from the dead. Now the truth began to dawn on their minds that he had been made alive and had risen from the dead. 9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.—[Scriptures mentioned include Psalms 16:10; Isaiah 53:10-11. John desires to emphasize the fact that his faith was founded on what he witnessed with no pre¬vious expectations founded on scripture.] 10 So the disciples went away again unto their own home.—Finding the tomb empty, the body gone, these two disciples went away to their places of abode in Jerusalem. JESUS APPEARS TO MARY John 20:11-18 11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb;—Mary, with her feelings wrought up, disappointed and supposing that some one had moved his body to a permanent resting place, lingered near the grave and relieved her overburdened feelings by weeping. She again stooped down and looked into the sepulchre. [Jesus had been everything to Mary in a spiritual way. He had freed her from the influence of seven devils. Around him all her hopes had centered, and now to be deprived of the privilege of embalming his body, the last sad rite of affection to his lacerated body, seemed to be greater than she could bear.] 12 and she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.— [Two angels known by their bright attire sat, one at the head, the other at the feet, of, where Jesus had lain.] 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.—They ask the question doubtless to open the way to say unto her: “ Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” (Luke 24:5-7.) “ Go quickly, and tell his disci¬ples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.” (Matthew 28:7.) 14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and be-holdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.—Jesus was standing near and as she turned from speaking to the angels she beholdeth him. She was so troubled in spirit that she did not look with care and did not discern that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.—When Jesus spoke to her she still did not recognize him, but took for granted it was the keeper of the garden who would know of the removal and so asked if he had removed it to let her know and she would take charge of the body. [Observe the realistic touch in the use of the pronoun “ /iim” as though she knew that the gardener understood who she meant. In her intense love for, and grief of the body, she seems to forget womanly physical weakness, and proposes doing the work of men.] 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is to say, Teacher. —Jesus, in a tone of tender reproach for not recognizing him, spoke her name with emphasis in a tone she well knew. She recognized the voice, and turned and called him, Rabboni. [All the former richness of tone of Jesus who spake as never man spake was in that single name that she had heard so often from his lips, and she recognized him immediately and addressed him as Teacher.] 17 Jesus saith to her, Touch me not;—She ran to him, prostrated herself at his feet, and as Matthew (Matthew 28:9) says “ took hold of his feet, and worshipped him.” They did touch him as he afterwards had Thomas to do. for I am not yet ascended unto the Father:—It is difficult to determine what is meant here. Was this done before the final ascension? Some interpret it to “ cling to” instead of “ touch,” and that he meant to tell them not to cling to him, for he would not leave them immediately, but go and tell his disciples that he would meet them in Galilee. This was an assurance that the time had not yet come for him to leave them. but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.— [Why did he not say our Father and our God since he included both himself and them? For the reason he is not our Father, our God in the same sense that he is his Father and God.] 18 Mary Magdalene cometh and telleth the disciples, I have seen the Lord; and that he had said these things unto her.— Mary went to make his resurrection known to his disciples and to deliver his message to them. Peter and John had seen the empty tomb and were prepared somewhat for the information of his appearance, but Mark (16: 11) says, “ And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved.” [John does not mention their unbelief because he himself believed (verse 8), and he could not mention their unbelief without an invidious distinction. Mary Magdalene was the first to tell the story of the resurrection.] HE APPEARS TO THE ELEVEN John 20:19-23 19 When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews,—The crucifixion of Jesus filled his disciples with fear as to their fate. So at evening they were met together to discuss the wondrous reports they had heard during the day. They did it within closed doors lest they should attract the attention and incur the hostility of the Jews. Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.—[He suddenly appeared among them. How he did it, by miracle, or otherwise, it is useless for any one to discuss, since it is an untaught question. It is enough for us to know and accept the fact.] 20 And when he had said this, he showed unto them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.—While his wounds did not now create the suffering and pain that such wounds would in other persons, else he could not have been able to walk around as he did, still the gaping wounds were there into which they could thrust their fingers and these he showed to his disciples to produce perfect assurance that he was the same Jesus that they had seen nailed to the cross. The effect was to fill their hearts with gladness to see their Lord. [Seven days later Jesus shows his wounds to Thomas. The resurrected body still carried these proofs of his suffering and love. Sixty years later, when the apostle at Patmos saw the Lion of the tribe of Judah, he beheld “ a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.” Whether our Lord in glory will continue to bear the marks of the cross and whether these will forever, as we live with him in glory, remind us of the story of our redemption, I shall not discuss. Suffice it to say, that when the apostles saw Jesus they were glad.] 21 Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you:—He again pronounces the benediction of peace upon them and announces. as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you.—For the same purpose and end. He was sent by the Father. By the same authority Jesus sends them. The authority* of the Father and of the Son was to be present with the apostles. [The apostles are the executors of the New Testament that comes into force after the testator dies (Hebrews 9:15-17) and are to be sent forth to declare its provisions to a lost world. This is the first development of the Great Commission, which is more fully developed in Galilee a little later, and finally completed on Mount Olivet, just before he ascended.] 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them,—This verse presents difficulties. Does it mean he blew his breath on his eleven disciples here assembled and that they were at once authorized to forgive or retain sins, to proclaim terms of pardon to the world. This would not be in harmony with his telling them to tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:7.) and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit:—Meaning when the Spirit should come. They showed no indication of having received the Spirit until received on the day of Pentecost. [Breath is the symbol of life. When God created man, he breathed into him the breath of life. (Genesis 2:7.) ] 23 whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.—It was a promise that the Holy Spirit would come to them and when he came they would be authorized to lay down the conditions on which they could be forgiven. God alone forgives sin, and the apostles proclaimed the conditions as he gave them on which sins could be forgiven and which they could not be forgiven. THE OF THOMAS AND ITS REMOVALJoh_20:24-29 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.—Thomas always appears incred¬ulous and slow to believe, given to looking on the dark side. He was not present when Jesus appeared to the disciples at night, nor any of the appearances of Jesus on the day of his resurrection. When told that they had seen Jesus, he firmly protested that he would not believe. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.—When told by the other disciples that they had seen Jesus, he protested that he would not believe either them or his own senses. In addition to seeing and hearing him he should put his fingers in the nailprints and thrust his hand into the pierced side. 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.—After eight days they were all again assembled and Thomas was present. The doors were shut and Jesus again stood in their midst and again spake peace to them. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.—He at once addressed himself to Thomas and proposed to meet the conditions he demanded. He held out his hands and his feet, asked him to place his finger in the nailprints, and presented his side, and asked him to thrust his hand into the wound, and believe. 28 Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.—Thomas was not so hard of belief as he had thought. When he saw Jesus he believed without thrusting in his fingers or his hand and exclaimed, “ My Lord and my God." The evidence came, and his conclusion was that he was both Ruler and God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.—While he presented these evidences to the senses of the apostles, he expected the world through all the ages to come to believe in him through the testimony of these apostles and other evidence that God would give to the world. So he reproved the lack of faith of Thomas by pronouncing a blessing on all who should believe without seeing him. OTHER SIGNS AND OF THE RECORDJoh_20:30-31 30 Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book:—Jesus did many other miracles after his resurrection beside those mentioned in this book. “ This book" means the book written by John. [Much that Jesus did both before and after his resurrection is not recorded. Each historian recorded some features of his work that the others omitted, and each of them reveal the fact that they only outlined his work.] 31 but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;—These mentioned in the book and that believing ye may have life in his name.—The faith is based on the testimony given in the writings concerning Christ, his work, and teaching. The faith leads to put on Christ, enter into his name, and as a servant of Christ, as a member of the body of Christ, might so act as to attain to eternal life. [Producing faith in Christ is the object of all gospel history. They so reveal Christ as to produce faith in him. “ So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17.) “ Here, with these words, John ends the great argument that he entered upon with the first chapter and which continues with unbroken connection until it reaches its culmination in the remarkable declaration of the purpose which he had written. The chain of argument embraces the testimony of Moses and the prophets, the witness of John the Baptist, whom the Jews acknowledged as a man of God, the wonderful life of Christ, the supernatural wisdom and authority of his teaching, his supernatural works, and last and greatest of all, the fact of his death, burial and resurrection. The last is the crowning argument, and it is after he has established it beyond a doubt, if such a wonderful fact can be proven by human testimony, that he closes with the declaration: These are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, etc."] Verse 1 Here John outlined the evidence upon which he himself accepted the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact. For the greater part of a century, the church had been in possession of oral traditions and the synoptic Gospels, the earliest going back as far as 44 A.D.; and, added to all this, were the remarkable writings of the apostle Paul and others. But John did not begin his witness of the resurrection with any of the documentary proof which was abundantly available, but he went back to the very moment when he himself first believed, and recounted in the most amazing detail exactly the evidences he had seen and which first overwhelmed his soul with the certainty that Jesus was risen from the dead. That dawn of belief in his heart is recorded in John 20:1-10. He next appealed to the testimony of Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18), out of whom Jesus had cast seven devils; and the allegation that any falsarius would ever have ascribed such a choice of witness to him whom the Lord made the guardian of his mother transgresses the bounds of credibility. Other testimonies offered in this chapter are the appearance to the eleven, Thomas absent (John 20:19-25), and the appearance to the eleven, Thomas present (John 20:26-29). The last two verses give the statement of John's purpose in writing the Gospel, and the added comment that the things recorded are but a fragment of the massive mountain of evidence that might have been presented but was omitted. If this Gospel had ended with John 19, there would have been no gospel. Christ in the grave was not good news; and had he remained in the grave, there could have been no Christianity. As Paul declared, absolutely everything depended upon the physical resurrection of Christ. IF the resurrection did not occur: The preaching of the apostles is vain; The faith of all Christians is vain; The apostles are false witnesses; All men are still in their sins; The dead in Christ have perished. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 Regarding the somber impact of the dead Saviour, Morgan wrote: He was dead. His enemies thought they had done him in, and they were glad. His friends thought he was done for, and they were sad. But heaven watching was preparing the music that should ring around the world declaring the defeat of evil, the mastery of sin, and the ransom of the race.[1]There is a repeated threefold motif in this chapter: (1) John's faith was inspired by three things: the stone's removal, the empty tomb, and the undisturbed grave clothes (John 20:1-10). (2) The testimony of three individuals is given: that of John, of Mary Magdalene, and of Thomas. (3) Three appearances of Christ are noted: his appearances to Mary Magdalene, to the eleven (Thomas absent), and to the eleven (Thomas present). ENDNOTE: [1] G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel according to John (Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), p. 306. Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb. (John 20:1) On the first day of the week ... Sunday here comes into the prominence it was to have through the ages, being mentioned here and in John 20:19 andJohn 20:26. The custom of Christian assemblies on Sunday received initiation and continuity from the events of this chapter. Mary Magdalene ... This was the woman out of whom Jesus had cast seven demons and should not be confused with the woman who anointed Jesus' feet with her tears in the house of Simon the Pharisee. While it was yet dark ... The Christian student should not be confused or unsettled by the allegations of critical enemies who are ever seeking (in vain) to find some "contradiction" in the sacred Gospels. Mark's mention of the coming of several women, including Mary Magdalene, to the tomb, "after the sun was risen" refers to another visit to the tomb, Mary Magdalene having made at least two trips to the sepulchre, and probably three, as follows: (1) the first trip, as recorded here, while it was still dark, (2) the second when she followed Peter and John (whom she quickly notified) and who ran on ahead of her to the tomb, and (3) when she came with the other women bringing the spices after the sun was risen. John specifically stressed that the tomb was "nigh" to the cross (John 19:42); and the sudden onset of the high sabbath at sunset prevented any of the witnesses from traveling after the burial. In all probability, none of those mentioned were any further away from the tomb than a few hundred yards. Mary Magdalene's repeated visits would make that deduction a certainty. It is likely that hundreds, or even thousands, visited the empty tomb that day, as soon as it was discovered. Would not the hierarchy have investigated, especially after the report of the guard whom they bribed to lie about what happened? Did not Pilate investigate the breaking of his official seal on the grave? Was there any follower of the Lord who did not react to the electrifying message delivered, perhaps several times, by one angel, again by two angels, to the throng of persons viewing the empty grave? saying, "He is not here; he is risen!" The brief, dramatic accounts of the Gospels cover far too little of all that happened that day to permit arrogant and unbelieving presumption to deny any of it on the basis of this or that evangelist's not having mentioned it, or one evangelist's mentioning one of Mary Magdalene's visits and another's mention of a different one. These reflections bring us to consider the fact that our Lord's resurrection is the central, pivotal fact of our holy religion. It occurred as the historical Gospels affirm, or it did not; and, if it did not occur, there is no Christianity. So-called Christian scholars who deny the resurrection are infidels and are not Christian in any sense of the word. So-called Modernism is Christianity denied; and concerning this, Gaebelein said: Modernists, like other infidels, charge the sacred records with being contradictory. While there are difficulties, they are not contradictions, such as the Modernists claim them to be. The different accounts can be harmonized; and, instead of being marks of error, or deception, these different accounts bear witness to their genuineness and trustworthiness.[2]As soon as Mary Magdalene saw that the stone was removed, she correctly concluded that the body was not there, although her supposition that men had removed it was incorrect. She went at once and notified Peter and John. All this happened while it was still dark. ENDNOTE: [2] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1965), p. 379. Verse 2 She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him.Several things of consequence come to light in this verse. First, John deferred to the leadership of Peter, mentioning him first, thus confounding the theory of the Gospel's being anti-Petrine. Not only was Peter mentioned first here, but "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" makes it apparent that the same designation belonged to Peter. Also, it is important to note that the apostles had come back together again after being scattered; and the ready availability of Peter and John to receive Mary Magdalene's notification confirms the deduction already mentioned that many of the disciples, in respect of the holy days, were but a very short distance from the cross and the grave. Also, Peter's denial had not resulted in his rejection by the other apostles. We ... Mary Magdalene's use of the plural pronoun suggests that she had asked others where the body was but had received no information. It is possible that in searching out the place where Peter and John were, she might have encountered others, none of whom could tell her about the missing body and the empty grave. Verse 3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.Note the deference to Peter. Even after John's outrunning Peter and reaching the scene first, it was Peter who first entered the grave. Verse 4 And they ran both together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to the tomb.John's outrunning Peter should have been expected, as Peter was much the older. Verse 5 And stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet entered he not in.In addition to the deference to Peter, evident throughout in this passage, there was another deterrent to John's entering that tomb. "He seeth the linen cloths lying!" There is no marvel why John hesitated. Those linen cloths remained in the exact position AS IF THE LORD HAD STILL BEEN WOUND THEREIN. The impact on John was the same as if he had seen the linen cloths WALKING! The position of those medical bandages in which the body was wrapped absolutely demanded the conclusion that Jesus had risen THROUGH THEM, even as he had risen THROUGH the tomb, leaving them undisturbed, as if he had still been in them. The miracle of those undisturbed cloths was the clincher in John's mind, proving that Jesus had risen from the dead. John gave this evidence in his Gospel, because it was the evidence which convinced him. See under John 19:40 for notes on the medical bandages. They had not been ripped off; and, if any man had taken them off, it would have been impossible to have restored their position, Even the napkin, to be mentioned later, still held the position it had when Jesus' head was in it. It had not even collapsed! It should be remembered that the angel who (presumably) rolled the stone away from the grave did so, not to let the Lord out, but to let the witnesses in. He rose through the tomb exactly as he did through the bandages. For fuller study of this miracle in the context of five others surrounding and corroborating the even greater miracle of the resurrection, see article, THE AND , in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:51 ff. Verse 6 Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying.Commentators who refer this to some mere tidying up of the grave, or the folding of the garments (there were no garments; but medical bandages), miss the point. Since when has it ever been supposed that a folded garment, or cloth, proved that the dead had arisen? The certain implication of this astounding narration is that Jesus had risen through the winding shroud of bandages, napkin and all, leaving behind the positive and undeniable evidence of his supernatural triumph over death. Remember, this evidence convinced John. The very amount of space accorded this phenomenon in this Gospel is far more than enough to indicate the extraordinary implications of "the linen cloths lying." Matthew has a remarkable corroboration of this account in the words of the angel, "Come see the place where the Lord lay" (Matthew 26:6), thus emphatically implying all that John here related. Verse 7 And the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.Robertson noted that the verb "rolled up" does not mean merely to compress into a roll, but to "wrap in,"[3] thus supporting the interpretation advocated here. The napkin around the head would not have connected with the winding shroud; and that independent placement was preserved in the manner of the linen cloths lying. ENDNOTE: [3] A. T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 310. Verse 8 Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed.This is the climax of the whole paragraph regarding fine cloths. It resulted in John's everlasting faith that Jesus had risen from the dead. There were three elements of this convincing sign: the open grave, the absence of the body, and the undisturbed linen cloths. As for the reason why the stone was removed (supernaturally), it cannot be viewed as a means of letting the Lord out, but as a means of letting his disciples in for the purpose of beholding and being convinced of his resurrection. Verse 9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. So the disciples went away again unto their own home.Jesus had repeatedly prophesied his resurrection; but until that moment they had not comprehended that he would actually come out of the grave. Until that moment, they did not really know it. The impact of this miracle was great enough to overcome all prior unbelief. They did not initiate a search for the body; they now knew he was alive! Thus their conduct confirmed their faith that he had risen. Moreover, their conduct throughout life afterward never deviated from the pattern established here. In all the years to come, their every word, deed, and thought proved the absolute certainty of their belief. They went to death shouting, "He is risen!" Verse 11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb.Mary did not leave the tomb, as did Peter and John, but remained there to weep. It is not known if she was alone, or what time of day this occurred. It is received in faith and reverence, as from the eyewitness account of an apostle, and with full consciousness that the revelation we have received, though inspired: is nonetheless fragmentary, but fragmentary only as regards inconsequential details. Of the great central facts, there is an overwhelming profusion of faith-inducing information. Verse 12 And she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.For a discussion of angels, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 1:14. This student has found absolutely nothing in the voluminous writings of destructive critics which offers any logical challenge to the Scriptures. All allegations of "discrepancies" and charges of inaccuracies are, without exception, grounded in the prior bias and infidelity of men who will not have it so, no matter what the word of God reveals. As for the fact that the Scriptures speak here of two angels, and in another place of one angel, and of angels standing, or sitting, and saying this or that upon one occasion or another - and particularly regarding Mary Magdalene's having seen two angels, and Peter and John not having reported seeing any angels, despite their being in the tomb first - the answer to all the "problems" seen by the critics in such facts (and they are facts) is a shrug of the shoulders. The only real problem that exists is in the minds of dirty old Sadducees clinging to some kind of nominal identity with Christianity who have never been converted from their disbelief, either of the resurrection or of the existence of angels. Jesus believed in the existence of angels, frequently spoke of them, and was ministered to by angels in the wilderness and in Gethsemane; and the nature of such beings is clearly unlike that of men. In Scripture, they appear as supernatural, immortal beings, capable of being either visible or invisible at will, endowed with the power to appear and to disappear instantaneously, and utterly unencumbered by the limitations which restrain the conduct of men. Any quibbling, therefore, over the question of why two angels were seen, and only one in another place, or by different persons, and not seen by some, or why they were, or were not, visible on one occasion or another - all such questions are invariably founded on misassumptions concerning the very nature of those mysterious heavenly beings called angels, who are above men, unlike men, and utterly beyond men. Mary Magdalene's seeing two angels and her conversation with those celestial beings were introduced by John as preliminary to the far greater wonder of the appearance of the Lord himself to this grief-stricken woman who loved the Saviour and had come to water his grave with her tears. No wonder, then, that God sent angels to question her grief, and whose attitude or movement (not mentioned) directed her attention to the Lord himself. See under John 20:14. Verse 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.Mary Magdalene, like Peter and John earlier, despite all that Jesus had taught, was another who had never really believed in the resurrection. The inclusion of such facts by John shows how impossible and preposterous was the falsehood that the Lord's disciples stole his body for purposes of pretending a resurrection had occurred. On the contrary, they hardly believed it after the fact, being singularly blind to it, until the absolute and overwhelming proof of it enlightened them, Matthew recording the launching of the lie that the apostles stole the body (Matthew 28:11-13); and it may be assumed that the falsehood was still being repeated in John's time. The conduct of two of the Lord's most intimate disciples, as well as that of Mary Magdalene, demonstrated the incapacity of the disciples either to contrive or advocate such a falsehood. Woman, why weepest thou ...? The victory had been won, Satan crushed, death vanquished, and salvation for humanity made possible; but Mary, as yet, did not know it. The stone had been rolled from the grave but not from her heart. Her devotion was rewarded by the very first appearance of our Lord after the resurrection. Even the appearance of two angels in the shining livery of heaven afforded no relief of her sobbing grief. Angels could not take his place in her heart; and thus has it ever been with them that love Jesus. No angel could his place have taken, Highest of the high though he. The loved one on the cross forsaken Was one of the Godhead Three.[4]Because they have taken away my Lord ... Stupefied by grief, Mary apparently took no note at all of the angels. She answered their question, but at once turned away from them. No interpolator, forger, redactor, or falsarius could ever have come up with a thing like this. Two mighty angels from heaven opened up a conversation with weeping Mary; but she only made the necessary reply and turned away! How mightily is that soul held in thrall whose heart's love is fastened upon Jesus Christ our Lord! ENDNOTE: [4] L. O. Sanderson, Christian Hymns Number Two (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1948), Hymn No. 187, What Did He Do? Verse 14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.Why did not Mary inquire of the angels where the body lay? Was there something in their look, attitude, or actions which directed her attention to one whom she supposed to be the gardener? It is simply a marvel, any way it may be viewed. The appearance of the Lord might have drawn the adoring attention of the angels, which, in turn, would have directed Mary's eyes to the Saviour. And knew not that it was Jesus ... What an insight is this into the fact of mankind's inability to recognize that which is best and highest; nor is this exceptional. The apostles "knew not that it was Jesus" at the sea of Tiberius (20:4); and all of the great leaders in Jerusalem "knew him not, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him" (Acts 13:27). And of men today, are we any more able than they to know him? Concerning the reasons why men do not recognize the Lord: (1) some, like Mary, are blinded by grief; (2) some are blinded by prejudice and preconceived notions, as were the leaders in Jerusalem; (3) some are blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4); and (4) some are blinded by the lowliness of our Saviour's birth and life, as was Nathaniel (John 1:46). Verse 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Mary's failure to recognize the Lord is not a problem, for her attention was focused inwardly upon her own grief, from which not even the angels of God could divert it. Jesus asked exactly the same question as the angels, but with the additional question, "Whom seekest thou?" Some power beyond herself was required to break her soul out of the power of the smothering grief that overwhelmed her; and that power Jesus at once provided. Verse 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is to say, Teacher.The personal greeting of Jesus opened her eyes and thrilled her heart with recognition, and she at once exclaimed, "Rabboni," using the term she had often used before his death. She turneth herself ... indicates that until the Lord used her name, she had not actually been looking at him. It is false to allege that she looked at him carefully without recognition. When he spoke her name, "There was doubtless a sameness in the expression of her name which went straight to her heart."[5] Mary's response to the sudden knowledge that the Lord was indeed risen from the dead, standing before her, and calling her by name, was spontaneous and natural. She began at once either to embrace him or to fall at his feet and clasp them to herself. ENDNOTE: [5] Arno C. Gaebelein, op. cit., p. 388. Verse 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. Mary Magdalene cometh and telleth the disciples, I have seen the Lord; and that he had said these things unto her.Although forbidden to touch the Lord, Mary nevertheless was granted the far more wonderful privilege of telling the good news of his resurrection and of announcing to them the forthcoming ascension. Touch me not ... is another "discrepancy" in the eyes of some, for Matthew recorded that "the women came and held him by the feet and worshipped him" (Matthew 28:9). But, like all "discrepancies," this one also disappears in the light of study. The occasion in Matthew was marked by the presence of several women (including Mary Magdalene); in this incident, only Mary seems to have been present. These are therefore two separate epiphanies; and the only thing that may be made of it is that Jesus permitted several women to do something which, in this first appearance to Mary, he had denied. Also, the KIND of touching in the two appearances was different. The worship of Jesus does not seem to have been the purpose of Mary in that first spontaneous greeting. There was no inherent refusal of Jesus to be touched by mortals after the resurrection, because he specifically invited Thomas to do so (John 20:27); and he invited all the apostles to "handle" him (Luke 24:39). There was, therefore, clearly some divine reason for Jesus' prohibition of Mary's intended touching of him in this appearance. But is such a thing a "discrepancy"? Emphatically, No! There is another case of this same type of discrimination a little later in John, where the Lord prophesied the martyrdom of Peter, but denied the specific request to prophesy the future of John (John 21:18-23). If those two events had been related in separate Gospels, the critics would have been baying yet about a "discrepancy" in the Lord's prophesying the future of one apostle and refusing to do so of another. The Lord's permission to touch him, denied in one instance and granted in another, cannot logically be viewed as a "discrepancy." Morgan's words seem to shed some further light on the question, thus: He did not say, "Touch me not." It is unfortunate how that rendition misses the true meaning. The English Revised Version margin reads, "Take not hold of me."[6]It should not be overlooked that to Mary came the unique honor of being first told of the ascension to the Father. She also conveyed the glorious message of his resurrection, not merely of an empty grave, but of the living Saviour! My brethren ... These are significant words. Peter had denied him, and all had fled during the crucifixion; but the Lord unhesitatingly addressed them as his "brethren." They had then entered upon their new status, henceforth being Christ's brothers, joint heirs with Christ of eternal life and partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. Christ nowhere ever addressed all humanity as "brethren." As Hendriksen said of the saved, "These, these all, these alone, are Christ's brothers."[7][6] G. Campbell Morgan, op. cit., p. 314. [7] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 456. Verse 19 When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.The first day of the week ... This was already pinpointed as the time of these events (John 20:1), and therefore the repetition of this fact is emphatic. Chief among the days of the week is Sunday, not Saturday; and this profound change began the day our Lord rose from the dead and met with his disciples. Such New Testament passages at Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; Luke 24:26; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; and Revelation 1:10 are the Scriptural basis for observing Sunday, the first day of the week, as the correct day for Christian assemblies, contributions, communion, and all other acts of corporate Christian worship. When therefore it was evening ... indicates that the old Jewish method of reckoning days is over with. There can be little doubt that this appearance behind closed doors took place after sundown. As Westcott noted: The hour was evidently late, about 8:00 p.m. Time must be allowed for the return of the disciples from Emmaus, who were not likely to leave Jerusalem until after the evening prayer (Acts 3:1).[8]Despite the lateness of the hour, it was still the first day of the week; and John, writing so long after the events, did not pause to explain a change which had been so long in effect. This was the third, fourth, or even the fifth appearance of Jesus on this day. He had already appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 10:16), to a group of women (Matthew 28:9), to those on Emmaus road (Luke 24:31), and especially to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34). The apostles had gathered together, perhaps in that same upper room where they had met before. Luke tells of the disciples returning from Emmaus with such excitement and finding the apostles together in the scene before us. Doors were shut ... for fear of the Jews ... Their fears were natural. They had seen their enemies in action and knew that no mercy, restraint, caution, or even honesty could be counted upon to temper the hatred of the Sadducees and Pharisees if they decided to move against them as they had moved against the Lord. It is not known if the doors were locked, or only shut, that question being absolutely immaterial; because the point of the statement is that Christ appeared without the necessity of the doors' being opened. As Westcott said, "The clause (when the doors were shut) - can only have been added to mark the miraculousness of our Lord's appearance."[9]In this connection, Luke records, concerning the appearance of Jesus on the Emmaus road, that "They knew him, and he vanished out of their sight" (Luke 24:31). The Lord's physical body, actual as it was, was not subject to ordinary mortal limitations. It is best not to bother with all the scholarly dissertations on the nature of Jesus' physical body after his resurrection. The apostles offered no explanations but only recorded the facts as they occurred. And what is the great fact here? It is that of Jesus' sudden dramatic appearance before the apostles and the two returning from Emmaus (who had already seen the Lord). This appearance provided positive and infallible evidence of the resurrection; the identification of Jesus was complete and undeniable; he was the one and the same person they had seen crucified and buried three days previously. This is the fact that crushed the head of Satan, set the apostles on fire with holy zeal, and sent them shouting down the ages, "He is risen! He is risen!" Peace be unto you ... These were the last words Jesus had spoken, perhaps in that very room, when he went forth to endure the agony, arraignment, trials, mockery, and crucifixion. His greeting by the same words in this new context was a shout of victory, a declaration of confidence, and an outpouring of blessing upon the disciples. How welcome were those words! The far from perfect conduct of the group during the previous terrible days had probably left them filled with feelings of guilt and fear; but these glorious words dispelled the gloom. [8] B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 294. [9] Ibid. Verse 20 And when he had said this, he showed unto them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad when they saw the Lord.Christ showed them also the wounds in his feet and ate a piece of broiled fish in their presence (Luke 24:36-43). He asked them to handle his body and to be fully convinced of his reality, thus fortifying them forever against any thought that they had merely seen a vision of him, or that his presence was just a spiritual manifestation. Glad when they saw the Lord ... This appearance before twelve men (including the two from Emmaus) was authentic and convincing; and they who saw it never wavered or doubted afterward. It was even repeated a week later when Thomas had rejoined them; and this double epiphany to the Twelve constituted the very foundation of Christian evidence. This was the sacred fountain that supplied the evangelistic zeal of the apostles. The certainties established in these scenes enabled them to stand before the whole world shouting the message of redemption in Christ. The conviction made final and permanent by these events sustained them in the fires of persecution and death. The Galilean had triumphed! If the facts here related did not occur, then what did happen? Skepticism has no answer. For nearly two millenia the wisest and best have received this narrative as sacred Gospel. The record here is the truth, and it shall stand forever. Verse 21 Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace be with you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you.Peace be unto you ... By this repetition Jesus brought them back to their responsibilities, which they had tended to forget during the previous sorrowful days. So send I you ... This has all the force of the great commission. As God had sent Jesus, so he sent them. In these words, John went back to that first intimate, overwhelmingly impressive moment when the Christ moved tenderly to bring his wayward disciples back to a full realization of their duty. This was the moment, above all others, that motivated them in carrying out the formal pronouncements of the great commission enunciated later. Verse 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit.Jesus had promised the apostles that after he went away he would send the Spirit, hence his action here (John 16:7 ff). Windisch said, "It is impossible to see in John 20:22 ff the fulfillment of the Paraclete prophecies";[10] but, of course, it is impossible not to see it. Windisch's argument is that in the Paraclete sayings the Spirit was to be sent by the ascended one "from heaven" and not from on earth as here! The stupendous error of such an argument is that it views the sending of God's Spirit as a one-shot operation comparable to a president's sending an ambassador. Such is not the case at all. God's (and Christ's) sending of the Holy Spirit is a continuous thing, being done constantly in all generations, and to benefit each new recipient of salvation. As so many unspiritual writers do, Windisch incorporated elements invariably present in the sending of a mortal man with the promise of sending the Spirit, a far different thing. Jesus' appearance in this verse as conveyor of the Spirit is no contradiction of the fact that Jesus sends the Spirit from heaven, as on Pentecost. Furthermore, even in this verse, the Spirit came from both God and Christ who are one (this is the essential fact missing in Windisch), there being thus no possible denial of the Spirit's coming, even here, from heaven. ENDNOTE: [10] Hans Windisch. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), p. 33. Verse 23 Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.Here (as in Matthew 18:18) this authority to forgive or withhold forgiveness of sins was not restricted to Peter but belonged to all of the apostles. For full discussion of this, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 16:19. Verse 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.Thomas' absence was a tragic loss to him; and what was true of him is true of all Christians in a spiritual sense. He was absent from the assembly, and thus he failed to see the Lord and receive his blessing. That absence contributed to his delinquency in his refusal to believe that anything had really happened in his absence. Absence from Christian worship quickly moves a believer into a posture of doubt and unbelief. "Didymus" means "twin" (English Revised Version, margin). Verse 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.Eight days (Sunday to Sunday) elapsed between the two appearances with Thomas absent and Thomas present; and during that period he found his way back to the group. He had once affirmed that he would die with the Lord (John 11:16); but, like the others, he had failed. However, he came back, and that is what counts. He came back, and Jesus came back to meet him. Jesus came back to the man who came back; and therein is a promise of hope for all who will return to the Master. There can be no doubt that the second of these Lord's Day appearances was primarily for the benefit of the absentee. Naturally, the others told Thomas what had happened; but he said, in effect, that he would not believe unless he received the same evidence they had witnessed; and the marvel of marvels is that Jesus simply came back and gave it to him, incidentally giving double corroboration to the entire apostolic group. Verse 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.To this point all was exactly the same as before: the disciples within, the doors shut, but with this difference: Thomas was present. Perhaps they were wondering if the Lord would return; and sure enough he did. Again, he appeared through closed doors that had not opened. His magnificent "Peace be unto you" rang out just as before. And then came the climax of that second appearance to the eleven. Verse 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.The overpowering drama of this is worthy of the Son of God himself and his blessed apostles; and one cannot but reflect upon the poverty of the church of all ages which would have been sustained had not John the apostle provided this record of what happened. Reach hither thy finger ... thy hand ... Neither Christ nor his religion has anything to hide, nothing to conceal or cover up, no issues to avoid or problems to evade. To every unbeliever of all ages, the challenge of the risen Christ still thunders across centuries and millennia: ! Test the evidence; make your own examination of the facts; and be not faithless but believing. Thus, infidelity was rooted out of the sacred group, and thus it has been rooted out of the heart of every unbeliever throughout history who took the trouble to investigate. This gives the lie to the satanic falsehood that knowledge leads to unbelief. It is the opposite. Ignorance leads to unbelief, as do prejudice, sin, and rebellion in the heart. Thomas is often called "the doubter," but this is only another example of dignifying sin with some other title than its true one. The Lord did not refer to Thomas as a doubter, but as an unbeliever. Verse 28 Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.Thomas' confession ranks among the greatest ever made, being one of the ten New Testament passages which declare categorically that Christ is God (see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 1:8). This confession is the climactic note that crowns the entire theme of John that "Jesus is God." This pinnacle of the sustaining witness of that theme is inherent in the fact that even an apostle who at first would not believe came back to confess, "My Lord and my God." Verse 29 Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.It was absolutely necessary that Thomas' unbelief be removed, and the dramatic and sensational manner in which Jesus removed it had the desired effect; but Jesus thought of the future millions whose faith would have to depend upon the very word of those apostles whose testimony Thomas had refused. In the very nature of things, all men cannot put their fingers in the nail-prints and their hands in his side. Thus, their faith will be a moral judgment, not an intellectual one; and thinking of them, Jesus conferred his divine blessing upon THEM, rather than upon Thomas. "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed!" One's own heart must speak to him as the sacred chapters of the New Testament are read. The glorious testimony is all there; but, in the last analysis, it is human testimony. In the word of God? Certainly, but conveyed in earthen vessels; and it is the polarization of the soul with reference to the Creator that will trigger the soul's reaction to it. See under John 3:19. Jesus did not pronounce a blessing upon Thomas, which is not to say that a blessing was withheld, but that he did not here announce one, that grace having been reserved for the faithful of all ages who have believed without seeing and whose hearts rightly appraised the words of the apostles as absolute truth. That appraisal, Thomas was not able to make. Verse 30 Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written that ye may believe; and that believing ye may have life in his name.This is the statement of the purpose of John, every line in the Gospel having been related to the purpose in view here. John never intended his Gospel as merely another biography of Christ. He consciously omitted much material found in the synoptics and introduced a wealth of material found nowhere else, intimate, personal things which only he could relate, and also material of another kind, such as that relating to the resurrection of Lazarus and the healing of the man born blind. Significantly, John warned his readers that only a fraction of Jesus' mighty words and deeds were published, the very last word in John being a statement of the absolute impossibility of any full reporting of all that Jesus did. The same pertains to all the Gospels; and in the light of this extremely important consideration, how ridiculous are the objections of critics that this or that Gospel omits this or that word or deed with the implication that such omissions reflect against the truth of another Gospel that included them. The only support of such criticisms is inherent bias in the critic. As Hovey said: The materials were so abundant that they could be used in no other way (except that of abbreviating them). Is it not surprising then that critics like Baur and Strauss say, whenever a miracle or word of Jesus is recorded by only one or two evangelists, that the others KNEW NOTHING OF IT?[11]Can any truly thoughtful student of the word of God imagine that any of the holy Gospels, or even all of them together, contained anything more than a brief resume of the entire four years of Jesus' world-shaking ministry? It requires a book ten times as large as the whole New Testament to record the history of a six-months campaign for the office of president; and to suppose that the Gospels are any kind of exhaustive record of all that Jesus did is foolish. They are on very tenuous grounds who make arguments based on the silence of this or that Gospel. All the Gospels were actually designed by the Holy Spirit; and the omissions, as well as the inclusions, were purposeful, that purpose being the one announced here at the close of this principal section of the Gospel of John. This chapter concluded John's proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ; but, in the larger view, the purpose of the whole gospel was the presentation and proof of Jesus as God come in human form. Of such a being, and in that context, as John was at constant pains to demonstrate, the resurrection was to have been expected. No grave could hold the Lord of Life. ENDNOTE: [11] Alvah Hovey, Commentary on John (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 409. Questions by E.M. Zerr For John 201. What day is mentioned ? 2. What period of the day is mentioned? 3. Who came to the grave? 4. Upon arriving what did she see? 5. Why had this stone been there? 6. To whom did she go ? 7. What was the news to them ? 8. Upon this what did they do? 9. Which arrived first? 10. What did he see? 11. When did he enter? 12. What was observed about the clothes? 13. When did John see and believe? 14. What scripture was still overlooked by them? 15. Where did they go now? 16. Tell who was still standing there. 17. And what was she doing ? 18. Whom did she see in the sepulchre? 19. How were they sitting? 20. Repeat their question. 21. What did Mary think had happened? 22. Tell who was standing near her. 23. What was his question to her? 24. Whom did she think him to be? 25. And what did she think he had done? 26. At what did she recognize him ? 27. What did she call him? 28. Tell what had not yet taken place. 29. What was she told not to do? 30. But instead, to do what? 31. Did she obey? 32. Who appeared that evening? 33. Why were the doors shut ? 34. Tell what he said. 35. He then displayed what to them? 36. How were the disciples made to feel ? 37. What was said about the Father? 38. Jesus then bade them receive what? 39. What power over sins did this impart ? 40. Which one was not present at first ? 41. Tell what this man was called. 42. Repeat the announcement made to him. 43. Did he accept it? 44. Did he deny it? 45. What evidence did he require ? 46. How long till the next meeting ? 47. Who was present then? 48. Tell who came to them again. 49. Through which door did he enter? 50. What did he say to them ? 51. Then what did he tell Thomas to do? 52. He should then be how ? 53. Did it turn out so? 54. State the observation Jesus made. 55. Were these the only signs Jesus did? 56. These were written for wliat purpose? 57. What were they to believe? 58. What would the belief bring? 1 It is unnecessary to quibble over the particular hour in which Jesus arose from the grave. Neither should any of the indefinite statements about "darkness" be an occasion for confusion. Mark 16:9 plainly says "Jesus was risen early the first day of the week." No one of the other accounts disagrees with this, hence the conclusion is that the first day of the week was the day on which Jesus arose from the dead. Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:1 shows that Mary Magdalene was not alone in coming to the sepulchre. These women were coming with the' intention of anointing the body of Jesus (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1). But when they got to the tomb they saw that the stone was taken away. Matthew 28:1-6 and Mark 16:5-6 adds the information that they found the grave empty, and that Jesus was alive although they did not realize it at first. 2 Luk 24:3 tells why the woman ran to meet Peter. She had looked in and seen the empty tomb and thought the body had been removed and laid elsewhere. 3 The other disciple was the one whom Jesus loved (chapter 21:20, 24), who was John. The two disciples started running toward the sepulchre. 4 John outran Peter and arrived first at the sepulchre. 5 John went near enough only to see the empty clothes. 6 Peter reached the sepulchre, and when he did, he did not pause on the outside as did John. Went into the sepulchre. This phrase will be better understood by reading the notes at Matthew 27:60 on the description of tombs. 7 The order in which the clothes and napkin were neatly folded and laid back, indicates that no confusion or violence was present when Jesus was ready to depart from the tomb. The linen clothes was all the clothing the body of Jesus wore as he was laid away in this tomb, as all of his own raiment was taken from him before he was crucified. (See the notes at Matthew 27:35.) We are not told how he obtained clothing suitable for public appearances, but we know he was wearing some ordinary kind, for Mary thought he was the gardner when she saw him (verse 15). 8 By this time John was ready to enter the cave or tomb. The statement is that he saw and believed. This may be the origin of an old saying, "seeing is believing." The phrase is not strictly true, for what one sees, he knows, which is not the same as belief. However, the present passage is true, for the thing that John saw was not what he believed. He saw the empty tomb and the unoccupied grave clothes. This caused him to believe that Jesus was alive, though at that moment he could not see him. 9 Knew not means they did not realize the meaning of the scripture that predicted the rising from the dead. The writer makes this statement as an explanation of why it took these plain evidences to convince them that Jesus was really alive. The scripture prediction referred to is in Psalms 16:8-10. 0 The disciples means Peter and John who had run to the sepulchre. 1 In the meantime, Mary had returned to the tomb, and was weeping in grief for her Lord. Her interest would not let her be inactive, so she stooped down and looked into the tomb. 2 This gave her a view of the place where the body of Jesus had lain, which was in the same condition it was when she was first at the sepulchre (Luke 24:3). But this time she saw something she did not see the first time. That was two angels tin white sitting at the head and foot of the place where Jesus had lain. 3 Mary still thought that someone had removed the body of her Lord; she told the angels this in answer to their question why she was weeping. 4 While this conversation was going on, Jesus had returned to the tomb and was standing near Mary. She knew not that it was Jesus. One meaning of the Greek word for knew is "to perceive." The circumstance here was perfectly natural because of the unexpectedness of the appearance of Jesus. Mary was so positive that the body of her Lord had been stolen, that it caused her eyes to be restrained from their usual functioning. (See the notes on Luke 24:15-16.) 5 The salutation of woman was so formal and distant, that it helped to keep her in the dark as to his identity. She could think of no one who would be addressing her in this unfamiliar way but the man who had care of the garden. In that case he would likely be the one who had removed the body to some spot more convenient to his work. That is why she offered to take charge of it if he would tell her of it. 6 Jesus pronounced the one word Mary, which was so personal and direct that it roused her from her far-away state of mind. She turned herself does not mean that her back had been toward him before, for she had looked at him closely enough that she took him to be the gardener. The idea is that she assumed a more direct and deliberate attitude toward Jesus, for she then recognized him. In her surprised Joy she saluted him with one of the most reverent title she knew, which was the Greek word , which John interprets to mean Master. 7 Touch is from the Greek word HAPTO, and Thayer's definition is, "To fasten to, make adhere to; to fasten one's self to, adhere to, cling to." As the word is used in this verse, Thayer explains it, "Do not handle me to see whether I am still clothed with a body; there is no need of such an examination." I believe this explanation is correct, and that Jesus did not mean merely that no personal contact with him would be right. We may be sure of such a conclusion, for a little later (verse 27), Jesus told Thomas to make a very decided contact with him, and his body was then in the same condition it was when he was talking to Mary. A similar use of words is in the instruction of Jesus to the apostles not to "salute" anyone in the way (Luke 10:4). The explanation given in that place is as follows: "As a salutation was made not merely by a slight gesture and a few words, but generally by embracing and kissing, a Journey was retarded by saluting frequently." For I am not yet ascended to my Father. This remark is plainly a logical one under the circumstances. Whenever Jesus' went back to Heaven, he would no longer have the fleshly body and other evidences of the eyes as to his identity. But since he had not yet made that change, her own eyes should tell her that it was the same Lord who was crucified. Therefore, instead of spending time with unnecessary handling of his body, she should go to 'his brethren and tell the good news to them. She was to tell them also that their Lord would soon ascend back to their God. 8 Mary obeyed the instructions of the Master. 9 Same day . . . being the first day of the week. This statement is another proof that the first day of the week was the one on which Jesus arose from the dead. The persecuting spirit of the Jews still hovered in the community, causing the disciples to meet "behind closed doors." Luke 24:33-35 tells us the subject they were discussing was the report that Jesus had risen from the dead. Jesus stood in the midst. This is taken by some to mean that Jesus had already undergone a change in his body, since he was able to appear in their midst in spite of the closed doors. However, that act would not require any greater miracle than did his disappearance from them unnoticed before his death (Luke 4:29-30). 0 Jesus knew the disciples were puzzled by his sudden appearance, and Luke 24:37 says they thought he was a spirit. But he clarified their confusion by showing them his hands and his side, which still had the wounds inflicted on him at the cross. This satisfied the disciples and made them glad to recognize their risen Lord. 1 Whenever Jesus promised peace for his disciples, it was always the kind that was backed up by his Father. The same is true of the sending mentioned in this place. The wording shows that Jesus was sending his apostles out with the same authority by which He had been sent by his Father. The verse is the same in thought as Matthew 28:18, where Jesus declared that all power (or authority) in heaven and in earth had been given to him. 2 Receive ye the Holy Ghost was a promise, and not a gift bestowed at that moment. It was the same "promise" that is stated in Luke 24:49, and the same that Luke meant in Acts 1:4 when he was preparing to appoint another apostle. 3 This verse is equivalent in thought and application to Matthew 16:19. In order for the apostles to be correct in their remitting and retaining of sins, it was necessary for them to be inspired by the Holy Ghost or Spirit, hence the command for them to tarry in Jerusalem until they received the Spirit. 4 See the notes at John 11:16 on the fact of Thomas' being a twin, also with regard to the popular phrase, "doubting Thomas," applied to him because of the present circumstance. He was not in the group when Jesus showed his hands and side. 5 The disciples told the story to Thomas, but he demanded to have even more positive evidence of the identity of Jesus than merely seeing the wounds. No severe criticism should be made of Thomas, for he seemed only to be more exacting or cautious than the others, and might not have realized how convincing the very sight of the wounds would be in establishing the identity of Jesus. 6 In a little more than a week, Thomas had the opportunity he said he would require before he would believe. The disciples were again assembled behind closed doors, and Thomas was present. Jesus came again as he did in verse 19, but his presence did not excite them this time for they understood the situation. 7 We are not told whether the disciples had reported the statement of Thomas to Jesus, or that it was a part of his general knowledge of all men (2:24, 25). But he quoted the words of Thomas verbatim as to thrusting his hand in the side wound. 8 After all the demand that Thomas had made to the other disciples, there is no indication that he took the advantage that Jesus offered him. Instead, the response he made to the invitation was only to answer Jesus, and make the full confession of faith, My Lord and my God. 9 Here is the plain statement of Jesus that Thomas believed because he had seen the wounds, which proves the comment above that he did not thrust his hand in the side of his Lord. This passage has the two words seen and believed in about the same connection they are used in verse 8. That is, Thomas saw the wounds which Jesus only could have exhibited at that time. This identified Him as the one who had been dead but now was alive, and that caused Thomas to believe that he was his Lord and God. Jesus did not condemn Thomas for arriving at his faith from the things he had seen. The point is that he had enjoyed an advantage that few others could have, for the world in general was to be left to believe on the strength of sound testimony. All such were to be blessed or be considered happy, because mankind could not all have the bodily presence of Christ for an evidence. 0 This verse corresponds with the thought in chapter 21:25, as to the immensity of the things that went to make up the life of Christ. 1 John wrote these last two verses for the information of the readers, the pronoun ye referring to them. The immediate purpose of recording the signs or miracles was to make believers by them, as Jesus stated in verse 29. The ultimate purpose was to give the believers spiritual life and salvation through His name. David Lipscomb Commentary On John 21 JESUS APPEARS TO SEVEN AT THE LAKE OF Joh_21:1-14 1 After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and he manifested himself on this wise.—Jesus had promised to meet his disciples in Gali¬lee. All the apostles that are now faithful to him were Galilee, and the greater portion of his public life had been spent in that country. The greater number of his following were Galileans. So he had promised to meet them in Galilee. He showed himself to over five hundred brethren at one time in Galilee, but now he meets a few fishermen at the Sea of Galilee or Tiberias. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Did ymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.—Five apostles are mentioned by name, and two others not named who may have been other than apostles. 3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also come with thee. They went forth, and entered into the boat; and that night they took nothing.—Simon Peter was a leader. He determined to go fishing. The others said they would go with him. They fished all night and caught nothing. [Although the night was considered the most favorable season they caught nothing. Doubtless a symbol of the utter failure of fishers of men without Christ, and verse 6 illustrates their abundant success with Christ.] 4 But when day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.—The dis¬ciples consisting of Peter, Thomas, Nathanael (supposed to be Bartholomew), James and John (sons of Zebedee), and the others not named had spent the night fishing in the Sea of Tiberias, or Galilee. They caught nothing. When morning came Jesus stood on the shore. The disciples did not know him. Whether it was yet too dark to distinguish a person, or they were too far from shore, or whether he transformed him¬self, as Mark (Mark 16:12) intimates, so they could not know him, is not told. That he was near enough to talk with them as he did would indicate either the first or the last was the truth. 5 Jesus therefore saith unto them, Children, have ye aught to eat?—He calls them “ children,” an affectionate and familiar style of address. Still they did not recognize him. [He meant have you caught any fish? His manner was that of a householder, desiring to purchase for the morning meal.] They answered him, No.—[Evidently without a suspicion of his identity. There was nothing in his question that made the disciples suspect who he was.] 6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.—They did as he directed, and caught as many as their net could hold. A similar occurrence took place in the early part of his ministry. (Luke 5:1-10.) The command was so done that they obeyed without inquiring why. [They were fishing on the wrong side to catch fish; you must fish where fish are. The fish were on the right side of the boat and Jesus knew it; not by natural signs, for the disciples would read these as well as he, but by his supernatural insight.] 7 That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his coat about him (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea.—This was John, who, on several occasions, speaks of himself in this way. (John 13:23 John 20:2.) Doubtless the similarity of this to what had been done before suggested to John, “ It is the Lord.” The number of fishes after the night of fruitless toil, and the voice of Jesus, impressed on John the idea that it was Jesus, and he so told Peter. It is to John’ s credit that he was reminded of Jesus. While John first thought of him, Peter as usual is the first to go to him. He had nothing on the upper part of his body, but threw his coat about him and left the fishermen’ s vessel, and went through the water to land. The water was doubtless shallow so he waded to the shore. 8 But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from the land, but about two hundred cubits off), dragging the net full of fishes.—They were about one hundred yards from shore. The ships were boats, or canoes. In one of these they came to the shore, dragging the net with fishes. Their fishing vessel was a small one. The net likely had one end fastened to the shore. The boat with the other end made a circuit and caught all the fish in the circuit. 9 So when they got out upon the land, they see a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon and bread.—Jesus had “ a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.” Whence the fire and the fish we do not know. This shows that Jesus ate bread and fish when he was in the state between the resurrection and the ascension as recorded in Luke. (Luke 24:41.) He had risen from the dead, seemed at will to assume the invisible state, and would seem to be immaterial in appearing and disappearing from houses, yet he ate material food. The angels did the same who appeared to Abraham, and we find it difficult to gain clear conceptions of beings in the spiritland. Jesus said “ a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.” (Luke 24:39.) We take it that Jesus suffered hunger else he had not eaten. Nor is it clear that Jesus was clothed with an immortal body at this time. His hands had the prints of the nails in them, and his side the spear thrust. But it is possible he was changed at the moment of ascension. “ It is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.” But in the time before the fall, when not subject to death, they ate and drank. But our ignorance of the future state is so dense that we cannot think about it intelligently. 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now taken.—Jesus asked them to bring of the fish they had caught to cook and eat. This, we take it, was to cook for a meal for the disciples. [The articles of food offered by Jesus must be made completely of the product of their own fishing. This detail would be absolutely incomprehensible unless this whole scene had a symbolic sense. Jesus wishes to tell them that he will occupy himself with their wants, but that their faithful labor must cooperate with his benediction and his aid.] 11 Simon Peter therefore went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, the net was not rent.—Peter ashore could pull the net more easily than those in the boat. He did it. The number, one hundred and fifty-three, even if very large fish, would not at all strain such nets as are now used. But then the material and workmanship of boats, nets, and all things requiring mechanical skill were of an inferior order. [We take it that he went to the water’ s edge on the shore. The net was not a large one, as our people count large, on the fishing shores, else it would have held more than one hundred fifty fishes, and it would have been no wonder that it did not break. Now nets are dragged frequently that draw to the shore thousands of fishes.] 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and break your fast. And none of the disciples durst inquire of him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.—It is presumed that some of the fish they caught were cooked on the fire, and Jesus as host invited them to come and eat. It was so manifest to them all that he was Jesus that they did not ask who he was. 13 Jesus cometh, and taketh the bread, and giveth them, and the fish likewise.—He helped them to bread and fish. We know not whence the bread came. Possibly Jesus provided it by his power. As leader he took the bread he had and distributed to his disciples and the fish likewise. They all ate as they had done before his death while traveling around together. 14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.—Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples the night after he arose from the dead. On the night of the eighth day following he met with them again. (John 19:8.) This is the third time, showing that while he met with them on the first and eighth days after he was raised, he did not meet with them during the interim. He seems to have designed this to sanctify the first day, the day of his resurrection as the day for his disciples to meet with the assurance that he would meet with them to bless them. Thomas, failing to be with them, followed by a sense of doubt and uncertainty that may be a significant lesson to us. Where he was when not with the disciples we know not. Since his body seemed subject to the law of the natural world, we do not even know that he was in the body when not with the disciples. REMARKS OF JESUS TO PETERJoh_21:15-23 15 So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?—Peter, with self-confidence, had declared that though all others, including his fellow disciples, should deny him, he would never deny him. But he had been the first to deny him, and had denied him three times in succession. This occurred before the crucifixion of Jesus. This seems to have been done as a reproof to this falling away of Peter and to result in the restoration to the favor of Jesus. After the restoration, Jesus asked Peter this question. Peter had boasted, if all “ shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended.” The usual interpretation given to it is that these refer to the other apostles and disciples who were with him, and attribute his asking such a question to Peter’ s bold declaration, “ If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended.” But we are sure from the structure of the sentence both in English and in Greek that it refers to the fishes and things of like character. Peter, do you love me more than you love these things of the flesh? We think fishes stand as the antecedent of these. The Greek more clearly indicates this than the English. He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.—This response was an appeal to the knowledge of Jesus. Some think he meant to imply, I do not know myself. He was careful not to say, “ More than these,” but the modest affirmative, “ thou knowest that I love thee.” He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.—The tender ones of the flock. It was an assurance of the restoration of the Master’ s confidence. 16 He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep.—[In repeating the question, he leaves off “ more than these.” Peter gives the same answer. If there was special significance in changing from lambs to sheep, I do not know what it is.] 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?—This corresponds to the number of times that Peter denied him. Jesus desired to assure him of his full and complete forgiveness. That he might do this fully, he must repent fully. So he repented. Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?—Peter was grieved because of his apparent distrust of his statements. And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.—His profession of love without self-confidence or boast was thus apparently equal to the number of denials, and Jesus repeats the admonition. [Peter, pierced to the heart by these repeated questions, throws himself on the knowledge the Lord has of his heart. The third time the Lord charges him to act as a shepherd under him and to take care of the sheep. Three times Peter had denied the Master; three times the Master questions his love; three times he gives him courage concerning his work. The questioning was painful, Peter was grieved, but the grief was wholesome and Peter's whole subsequent life bore proof of the discipline. His rashness was forever gone.] 18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.—This was added by way of illustrating Peter’ s lifework. When one is young he feels buoyant and self-confident, but when the infirmities of age come, he feels dependent and stretches out his hands for help and is led whither he would not go. [“ Peter had denied his Master to save his own life. Now that he is reinstated in the old confidence and charged with the Master’ s work, he is told that he will be called on to die for it. He will be girded, not with a girdle, but with bonds, and he shall be led where he would not, unto death.” ] 19 Now this he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God.—Peter would be taken and slain in his old age for the name of Christ. Jesus foretold it by this method. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.—As much as to say, while the future had good in store for him, all would depend on his fidelity to Christ. [I take the two verses that, though Peter was weak and ungrounded at first, he will increase in faith and courage sufficiently to die a martyr. The universal testimony of the historians of the early church is that he thus died— that he was crucified. He was to follow Jesus until he had drunk the cup that his Master had drunk, and thus “ glorify God.” ] 20 Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also leaned back on his breast at the supper, and said, Lord, who is he that betrayeth thee?—Jesus did not conceal his love for John. John leaned on his breast at the supper. This did not seem to excite envy or animosity of the other disciples, but brought John into prominence among them. 21 Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?—As Jesus had foretold the future of Peter, Peter asked what should become of John. Jesus seems to reprove the curiosity that made Peter seek to know the end of John. [Three years before on the banks of the same sea, our Lord had called Peter and Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee to become fishers of men. Peter seems to fully understand the prophecy with regard to himself, and is anxious to know what shall be the fate of his friend and colaborer.] 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.—So he gave an evasive answer with the hint that it did not concern him. [John did literally tarry until Jesus came, until he saw him, heard him speak and recorded the last revelation from the Lord to the world in the book of Revelation. About sixty years from the time that Jesus uttered these words, John was an exile in Patmos. There, on a Lord’ s day, Jesus came and revealed to him the message he addresses to the seven churches of Asia.] 23 This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?—From this indefinite answer they drew the conclusion that John would not die, but remain till Jesus comes again. [John corrected the error that had spread among the disciples without accusing any one of lying. It is a pity that such a spirit does OF THE Joh_21:24-25 24 This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true.—John who heard these things wrote them down and affirms their certainty. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did,— The writer of this affirms that only a small portion of the works performed by Jesus are recorded. They are recorded that those who read them may believe in Christ Jesus the Lord. (John 20:30-31.) The record made is sufficient to produce faith in all who read with the desire to do the will of God. More would be cumbersome. A man then to believe must know and accept the things written concerning Christ in the scriptures; he must receive the seed into a good and understanding heart; he must hear and attend to the things written in the word of God. No example is found in the scriptures of a man believing, save as he heard the word of God, the testimonies given in it concerning Christ and his teaching and work. God gives us food by giving us the means of producing food. He gives the soil, the seed, the ability to plant and cultivate the seed so as to multiply it an hundredfold and to use this for food. He gives to man a heart to believe Jesus as the object of our faith, the testimony on which our faith in him must rest, and he gives the mental ability to understand and believe upon those testimonies, and then he requires us to use these means to produce faith. We have the power to use them or not as we like. The duty of the unbeliever is to faithfully and candidly study the word of God to see if these things be so with the desire of knowing and doing the truth. The testimonies are sufficient to convince every honest and true heart that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.—In this strong expression, he clearly means that all the books in the world would not hold the record of the things said and done by Jesus. In the things revealed are the words of life eternal. [“ The ministry of Christ was so busy, his teaching so voluminous and his deeds of mercy so numerous that the verse states that it would be impossible to make a minute record, and in order to convey this idea forcibly an oriental hyperbole is employed.” I take it that he does not mean this material world, but that the mind of man would not be able to understand and comprehend all that Jesus said and did were all these things recorded in books.] Verse 1 This chapter has been called a supplement,[1] an appendix,[2] an epilogue,[3] or a postscript,[4] by various scholars, some of whom insist that the Gospel ended with chapter 20; but this student has found no reason for dissociating it from the rest of the Gospel. John 20:30-31 COULD HAVE BEEN USED by John as a conclusion, but he did not so use them. In 1 John 5:13, John used nearly these same words in what could have been a perfect ending of his epistle at that point; but, instead, he went on for eight more verses. The apostle's style of writing thus denies any necessity of viewing John 20:30-31 as his conclusion. "There is no manuscript evidence of John 21 being a later edition."[5] Therefore, it is part of the genuine Gospel. Based upon the material presented, this chapter had the following design: 1. It showed that Peter's denial was forgiven. This might have been supposed from Peter's prominence on Pentecost, or inferred from Luke 24:34; but this Gospel gave a complete account of his restoration. 2. A tradition had developed in the first century to the effect that Jesus would appear in his second coming before John died, or the equivalent of it, that John would remain alive until he came (John 21:23). The apostle here laid that to rest by relating exactly what was said. 3. He answered the question of why this or that particular event in Jesus' life had not been recorded, by noting the impossibility of recording all that Christ did. 4. This chapter is also, in a sense, the sending forth of the apostles on their worldwide mission. Christ's charge delivered specifically to Peter, but inclusive of them all, though different from the great commission (as in Matthew and Mark), was nevertheless similar in import. As Hunter remarked: A Gospel, as we know it, does not end simply with an appearance, or appearances, of the living Lord. It always includes the commissioning of his disciples for their future work. John 21 is such a commission.[6][1] William Hendriksen. Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House. 1961), II, p. 475. [2] W. F. Howard, The Interpreters' Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), p. 802. [3] B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 299. [4] Alan Richardson, The Gospel according to John (London: SCM Press. 1959), p. 214. [5] Ibid. [6] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 191. After these things Jesus manifested himself again to his disciples at the sea of Tiberius; and he manifested himself on this wise. (John 21:1) After these things ... is a connective but does not indicate any definite length of time. Jesus manifested himself ... It should be noted that Jesus' appearances were always of his own choosing, and not of his disciples'. His appearances had none of the marks of subjective visions, but were bona fide visitations of the Lord in his post-resurrection appearances. Verse 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathaniel of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.It is idle to speculate on the identity of the two not named or on the fact of exactly seven being present. The sons of Zedebee ... were James and John, the author of this Gospel, their names being omitted because of the reticence this author had for naming himself. It is not surprising that they were in Galilee, for there the Lord had promised to meet them (Matthew 28:7; Matthew 28:10). Verse 3 Simon Peter said unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also come with thee. They went forth and entered into the boat; and that night they took nothing.The apostles were not ready yet for their worldwide mission. The shock of events had been too great, and the events of this chapter form a part of the process of reorientation which they needed prior to Pentecost. One may not read too much into the fact of their going fishing. Peter did not say that he was again going into the fishing business, but that he was going fishing. Perhaps their attitude was that of one who might say, "Look, I'm going fishing and think this thing over." Significantly, however, the old ways had lost their charm. It was a singularly frustrating night on the lake. They caught nothing. No doubt John intended that men should see the spiritual import of this. After one has followed the Lord, the old life-style loses all of its power to satisfy. Verse 4 But when day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.It was very early, still not full daylight; and the disciples were still a hundred yards offshore, and this was reason enough why they had not at that point recognized the Lord. Verse 5 Jesus therefore saith unto them, Children, have ye aught to eat? They answered him, No.Children ... This shows the tender affection Jesus had for his disciples. John himself adopted this address to Christians (1 John 2:13; 1 John 2:18). Have ye aught to eat ...? Jesus was not asking them for food, but he was rather emphasizing the fact that their return to their old tasks (however momentarily) had resulted in failure. The Lord was not yet through with those men; and Jesus had no intention of permitting them to return to the fishing business, even if they had desired that. The whole sequence of events in this chapter shows conclusively that their long night of failing to catch anything was providential, in the same manner as their astounding catch a little later acting upon the Lord's instructions. Verse 6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right aide of the boat, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.One can never cease to be amazed at the type of mind which cannot find anything out of the ordinary in this episode. Hunter said, "There is no need to find anything miraculous or symbolic here. The Lake of Galilee swarmed then, as it still does, with fish. Jesus had evidently noticed a large shoal!"[7] If, as Hunter says, Jesus "noticed a large shoal of fishes" a hundred yards offshore in the semi-darkness of early morning, and against what light there was (they were on the western shore), it would not have removed the miraculous element from this incident; but it would have made Jesus' vision, at such a time and distance, of fishes under the surface of the water, to have been one of the most notable miracles the Lord ever performed. The entire narrative here cannot be explained at all except in a frame of reference including the supernatural power of Jesus. Can it be doubted that Jesus already knew exactly where to find the apostles, that he knew of their fruitless night's work, or that he had built a fire and prepared food at exactly the place where Peter would swim shore, or that he already knew that they had nothing to eat? Rationalization of Jesus' miracles is essentially dishonest. One may have a certain carnal respect for an avowed infidel; but so-called Christian scholars who attempt to rationalize the miracles are not entitled to either credence or respect. Dishonest handling of the sacred text is incapable of producing an honest argument. ENDNOTE: [7] Ibid., p. 194. Verse 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his coat about him (for he was naked) and cast himself into the sea.Again, John's greater perceptiveness and Peter's greater impetuosity come to light in this event. John was the thinker; Peter was the man of action. John recognized the Lord here, through the use of his mind; it was still too far off to see Jesus sufficiently to identify him visually. In the pull of that net with its mighty catch, John instantly recognized the Lord; and Peter believed it as soon as John announced it. Those experienced Galilean fishermen knew a miracle when they saw one, even if some of the modern divines have trouble seeing it. For he was naked ... means "had on his undergarment only" (English Revised Version margin). Cast himself into the sea ... This was for the purpose of swimming the intervening distance of a hundred yards to go to Jesus. Verse 8 But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from the land, but about two hundred cubits off), dragging the net full of fishes.Two hundred cubits ... is a distance of one hundred yards. That this should have been called "not far," in the light of Peter's swimming it, affords an insight into the physical vigor of the apostles. The others preserved the catch by remaining with the boat and dragging the net ashore. The circumstances of the net's not breaking is one of a number of things distinguishing this from another event involving a big catch (Luke 5:1-11). Verse 9 So when they got out upon the land, they see a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.Westcott discerned that "The very manner in which the charcoal fire and fish and bread upon it are presented here suggests that they were provided supernaturally."[8]In a moment, Jesus would instruct them to take care of the catch, not with a view to their helping provide breakfast, however, for he had already done that. Hendriksen stressed that " John 20:13 indicates there was only one bread-cake and only one fish; and the similarity to John 6:11 implies that in both cases we are dealing with a miracle of multiplication."[9][8] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 301. [9] William Hendriksen, op. cit., II, p. 483. Verse 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now taken. Simon Peter therefore went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, the net was not rent.It is hard to have patience with scholars who make this event a Johannine adaptation of Luke's account of another event (Luke 5:1-11). There are more differences between them than there are similarities. JOHN'S RECORD LUKE'S RECORDChrist was on the land. Christ was on the water. There was one boat. There were two boats. The catch was pulled ashore. The catch was left on board. The net held. The net broke. Six men brought in the catch. Two shiploads of men did it. The number of fishes is given. The fishes were not counted. Christ was 100 yards distant. Christ was on board with them. To meld these two miracles requires the contradiction of both Gospels; and it would be just as correct to make the signing of the Magna Carta and that of the Declaration of Independence the same event. Simon Peter went up ... He "went aboard" (English Revised Version margin), meaning that he went up into the boat and unfastened the net prior to beaching the catch of fishes. Again, Peter took the lead in matters requiring action. A hundred and fifty and three ... Commentators have had a field day with this number, some pointing out that it is a number formed by adding all the cardinal numbers consecutively from one through seventeen, thus making it a perfect number. It seems to this writer that there is no more significance to the number of fishes than there was to the six water-pots at Cana or the 200 cubits that Peter swam to meet the Lord. The big point of all such details lies in their being the kind of specific details that only an eye-witness could have or would have given. There are many examples of such details in John. Verse 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and break your fast. And none of the disciples durst inquire of him, Who art thou? knowing it was the Lord.The catch having been secured, Jesus invited them to breakfast. The impact of that meal must have been dramatic and profound. It recalled so much that had happened. It was suggestive of that miracle recorded by Luke; that charcoal fire must have reminded Peter of that charcoal fire where he warmed himself the night he denied Jesus; their all eating from one fish and a bread-cake could not have failed to remind them of the 5,000 who ate of five small barley loaves and two little fishes out of a lad's basket. Yes, it was a moment of rich meaning for the disciples, and they discreetly observed a befitting silence in his holy presence. Verse 13 Jesus cometh and taketh the bread, and giveth them, and the fish likewise.See under John 20:9 where the similarity with John 6:11 is discussed. There was one significant difference here. The Lord was the waiter, as well as the provider, on this occasion, whereas the apostles were the waiters on the other; but, in both cases, he gave to them. Verse 14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.The third time ... refers to the third appearance to the apostles, as this was the seventh in the sequence of the ten epiphanies: THE TEN To Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18). To the women (Matthew 28:9-10). To Cleopas and his companion (Luke 24:13-35). To Simon Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:15). To the apostles, Thomas absent (John 20:19-23). To the apostles, Thomas present (John 20:24-29). To the apostles at the sea of Tiberius (John 21:1-14). To above five hundred in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20; 1 Corinthians 15:6). To James the Lord's brother (1 Corinthians 15:7). To the apostles on Olivet (Acts 1:4-11; Luke 24:50-51). Verse 15 So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.Simon son of John ... This is the same as Matthew's "Simon Bar-Jonah" (Matthew 16:16-17 ff) and had tremendous significance in Peter's memory, recalling the great Petrine confession which Christ made the dogmatic foundation of Christianity. The very use of "Simon Bar-Jonah" by Jesus here must have flooded Peter's heart with emotion. Lovest thou me more than these ...? More than what? More than the big catch of fishes? More than the fishing business? More than the other apostles, of whom he had boasted that his love was greater? The words of Jesus are not specific here, and why should men feel the compulsion to be otherwise? Perhaps all of the above meanings, in one degree or another, are implicit in the Master's words here to his servant who denied him. Thou knowest that I love thee ... The Greek words for "love" here are diverse (English Revised Version margin); and after reading a number of implications alleged from this premise, the most appealing is this, "There seems to be no difference of meaning between the two Greek words used for LOVE in John 20:15-17."[10] Perhaps the English Revised Version (1885) translators held the same view, for they made no distinction in the words as rendered into English. The big point of the whole episode would appear to be the threefold affirmation of Peter's love, contrasting with his triple denial. Feed my lambs ... is a charge to teach Christ's disciples. The variation "feed my sheep" means the same thing, the only possible distinction being in the emphasis upon youth in the first charge. ENDNOTE: [10] Alan Richardson, op. cit., p. 218. Verse 16 He saith to him again a second time, Simon son of John, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep.See under preceding verse. Tend my sheep ... There is one charge here, that of taking care of, teaching, and nurturing the spiritual body of Christ. Verse 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.Grievous as this was for Peter, it wiped out all guilt of his denials; and the Saviour's total forgiveness is implicit in the threefold charge to care for the church Jesus came to establish. The external situation associated with this triple confession of love inevitably called to mind the denials. There were three of each; the charcoal fire was at both events; the day was breaking on both occasions; and there had to have been another cockcrow, although the latter is not mentioned. The Gospel is infinitely richer for this triple confession of Peter's love of Jesus. It explains why Peter was at his usual place in the lead on Pentecost; and it also makes it impossible to assert (intelligently) that this Gospel was written to downgrade Peter, as some have affirmed. The image of Peter that emerges in John is even higher than that in the synoptics. Verse 18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkest whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. Now this he spake signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God. And when he had thus spoken, he saith unto him, Follow me.There seems to be more than a hint here that Peter's younger life had been uninhibited. He was a very active man who seems to have done just about as he pleased. Such undisciplined behavior, if that is what was implied, was at an end for Peter. His future responsibilities would require his constant attendance upon spiritual things. Also, there was a prophecy here, already fulfilled when John wrote, of the type of death by which he would glorify God. To stretch out the hands ... was often used by Greek writers and the early Christians to indicate crucifixion.[11] In view of John's here referring these words to Peter's death, there can be no doubt of their being a prophecy of his crucifixion. Follow me ... Jesus evidently meant this in a spiritual sense; but Peter, great literalist that he was, immediately walked after Jesus as the Lord departed, John following. Concerning Peter's death, tradition places it at Rome in the reign of Nero, with the detail that he was crucified head downward after his protest that he was unworthy to be crucified in an upright position like Jesus. As Lanctantius wrote of Nero: He it was who first persecuted the servants of God. He crucified Peter and slew Paul. St. Peter, as a Jew, could thus be dealt with; St. Paul, as a Roman citizen, was beheaded. Nor did he (Nero) escape with impunity; for God looked on the affliction of his people; and therefore the tyrant, bereaved of his authority, and precipitated from the height of empire, suddenly disappeared, and even the burial place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen.[12][11] Ibid. [12] Lanctantius, The Manner in which the Persecutors Died (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII, p. 302. Verse 20 Peter, turning about seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also leaned back on his breast at the supper, and said, Lord, who is it that betrayeth thee?This verse identifies "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as the apostle John. The circumstance here is that of the Lord walking away, Peter following Jesus, and John following Peter. +Verse 21 Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?Peter's natural curiosity led to this question. The Lord had spoken of his becoming old, and of others girding him and stretching out his hands; and it is likely that Peter understood the dark implications of the Master's words. How naturally, therefore, that he should have wondered if a similar fate awaited John. However, the Lord never responded to questions of mere curiosity. Verse 22 Jesus saith unto him. If I will that he tarry until I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.Jesus' reply seemed to some brethren to be an implication that John would survive until the second coming of the Lord. Follow me ... In this repetition of the command, Peter probably understood that the Lord meant the imperative spiritually. Verse 23 This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?Thus, John laid to rest the tradition that had developed to the effect that the Lord would return in John's lifetime (the propositions being equivalent). At the time he wrote John, the apostle was very old; and it was apparent to him and others that the days of his pilgrimage were drawing to a close; and, in view of the probable event of his death, he did not wish unbelievers to have an excuse for saying that the prophecy of the Lord had failed. He therefore made it clear that no such prophecy had ever been uttered. Verse 24 This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true.This is everything short of an absolute identification of the apostle John as the author of this Gospel. This attestation, here at the end of it, is thought to have been inscribed by the elders of the church in Ephesus; and their unqualified affirmation that the disciple who witnessed the things reported in this Gospel is one and the same man who wrote them down destroys the allegation that some person other than an eye-witness wrote them. The eye-witness and the author are here declared to be the same person; and, by a process of elimination, there is no other person in the first century who could have qualified as an eye-witness who heard the whispers at the last supper, counted the water-pots at Cana, hauled ashore the 153 fish from the sea of Tiberius, and heard the words of Jesus to Mary and to himself from the cross. Hendriksen's comment on this verse is significant. He said: "This is the disciple, etc. ..." "This" cannot refer to Jesus, for he was no disciple. It must. indicate either Peter or John. But Peter was no longer bearing witness, being dead when this was written ... Neither is it possible to introduce another person here, for "this" clearly means someone just mentioned. Only John is left. That person must therefore be John. Accordingly, the passage must mean: "This disciple, John, who is still bearing witness (the present participle is used) and he is the one who has written (aorist participle) these things."[13]The persons who appended this corroborative testimony did not identify themselves; but the most learned opinions of a thousand years have invariably ascribed them to the elders at Ephesus. As Westcott said, "The words were probably added by the Ephesian elders, to whom the preceding narrative had been given both orally and in writing."[14] Their testimony affixed at the close of this Gospel is not diminished by the absence of their names; for, whatever their names, they were the ones who certified the Gospel as absolute truth and circulated it among the churches of the first century. [13] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 493. [14] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 306. Verse 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.I suppose ... identifies this verse as a separate addendum to the Gospel, probably penned by John himself prior to its being sent to the churches. This statement, with the last two verses of John 20, are a categorical refutation of all critical positions founded on the failure of one Gospel or another to record what was related or omitted by another. We have found many disagreements with scholars like Alan Richardson; but, despite this, his final words regarding this Gospel are magnificent. He said: When in faith we have received John's testimony, and have learned from him that JESUS IS THE CHRIST THE SON OF GOD, we shall, from the depth of our inmost conviction, add our testimony to what he has written, and say, WE KNOW THAT HIS WITNESS IS TRUE.[15]What a marvelous testimony of Jesus Christ is the Gospel of John! Standing near the close of the first century of this era, and after a long and vigorous life of preaching and teaching God's word, the last eye-witness of the ministry of the Lord selected from the incredibly rich storehouse of his blessed memories of Jesus precisely those seven greatest signs of his power and Godhead that he could recall, the same being the great signs he had been preaching for a lifetime; and these he gathered into one final testimony of the divine Christ, launching his Gospel from the platform of a great congregation which attached the corroborative imprimatur of its presbytery. He leveled his witness squarely against the incipient Gnostic heresies beginning, even then, to show themselves in Asia Minor. He designed it so as to refute the false rumors of Peter's unworthiness, due to his denials, and the equally false rumor that the Lord had promised to return within his lifetime. The person of Jesus Christ as both God and perfect man was the theme throughout. There can be no marvel that Satan is very displeased with the Gospel of John; but, despite all satanic opposition to its teachings, the saints of all ages have received it as it is indeed the truth of God, ever rejoicing in its divine revelation of Jesus Christ our Lord. ENDNOTE: [15] Alan Richardson, op. cit., p. 220. Questions by E.M. Zerr For John 211. Where did Jesus next appear to the disciples? 2. What were they doing? 3. Name some of them who were there. 4. Who had proposed this action of theirs? 5. And who seconded it? 6. What was their success ? 7. Who was near in the morning? 8. How about the recognition? 9. What did he ask them? 10. Repeat his instructions. 11. State the result. 12. Who now recognized Jesus ? 13. At this what did Peter do? 14. How did the others come? 15. What did they bring? 16. Upon landing, what did they see ? 17. What did Jesus call for? 18. How many had they caught ? 19. What was remarkable about it? 20. Repeat Jesus’ invitation to them here. 21. On what were they silent ? 22. Why was it so ? 23. Who served the group ? 24. How often has Jesus appeared since resurrection 25. After dinner what did Jesus ask Peter? 26. How often did he ask? 27. Tell how Peter felt about it. 28. Explain why three times. 29. What was he told to do? 30. When was Peter strong ? 31. State the prediction of Jesus. 32. What did this signify? 33. What did he now bid him do? 34. Tell whom Peter noticed. 35. What is said about this man and Jesus? 36. Where had he sat at supper? 37. Tell what he had asked. 38. Repeat Peter's question now. 39. And the answer. 40. This started what report? 41. What was wrong about the report? 42. State the lesson Peter should have received. 43. Who is doing the writing of this book? 44. What did he know? 45. Did he record all the works of Jesus? 46. For what purpose were these written? 47. Which chapter and verse shows this? 48. Had all been written, then what? 49. What is meant by the world ? 50. What is John's endorsement of this book? 1After these things means the events of the preceding chapter. Tiberias was another name for the Sea of Galilee. It was according to previous appointment that Jesus met his disciples at this place. (See Matthew 28:7). 2 Among the men named as disciples was Nathanael, the same man who figured in the interesting conversation of chapter 1:45-51. (See the notes at that place.) The other name for him was Bartholomew, which may be learned from the lists given by the Gospel records. Matthew 10, Mark 3 and Luke 6, name twelve apostles including Bartholomew, but never mention Nathanael; while John mentions Nathanael six times, but never refers to Bartholomew by name one time. The verse merely states that these disciples were together, but does not tell the exact spot where they were nor what they were doing; the next verse will give us that information. 3 The disciples named were together somewhere in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee, when Peter proposed going fishing, his original occupation. The others of the group said they would join him, and thus they returned to the secular business they were in when Jesus first called them into his service (Matthew 4:18-22). They did their fishing in a boat by using a net, but although they spent the whole night in their efforts, they caught nothing. 4 In the meantime Jesus had come to the . sea and was standing on the shore when morning came, or at least as it was getting on towards daylight. But it was still somewhat dark, so that the disciples could not, recognize Jesus. 5 Children is from PAIDION, and its literal meaning is "little ones." It is not used literally in this verse, but is spoken "in affectionate address" according to Thayer. The margin renders it "sirs," and Moffatt translates it "lads." Have ye any meat meant to ask if they had been successful in their fishing, which they had not. 6 The word right is used in the sense of right-hand, and has no reference to the distinction between right and wrong, or "right" as contrasted with "incorrect" A school of fish was coming along that side of the boat at that moment. Jesus had divine power as well as divine knowledge. He could have caused the school of fish to come to that spot at the appropriate time, or he could have known that it was occurring by ordinary causes. In either case it would have been a miraculous demonstration on the part of Jesus. Not able to draw it without help. (See verse 8.) 7 By this time it was light enough to recognize an acquaintance, especially by the help of hearing his voice. The disciple whom Jesus loved (John according to verses 20, 24), was the first to recognize Jesus, and he announced the fact to Peter. Naked is from GUMNOS, which Thayer defines at this place, "clad only in the undergarment." The cloak or outer garment had been laid aside for convenience in the activities of fishing. Peter did not feel "presentable" to come into the presence of Jesus, and threw his fisher's coat over the undergarment. He did not wait to come to land by boat, but plunged into the water and either swam or waded out as it was only 300 feet (verse 8). 8 The short distance from land is mentioned to explain why they came in a little ship. At that distance the water would be shallow, so that a larger boat would not navigate so well, especially when it had to serve as a sort of a "tug" to draw the filled net toward shore. 9 By having fish on the fire, with bread to eat with them, Jesus taught the disciples that he did not need to depend upon them for the necessities of life. 0 But the Lord has always taught that man must contribute to his own needs as he is able, hence the disciples were commanded to bring some of the fish they had caught. 1 The disciples had reached the edge of the water when Jesus told Peter to bring some of his fish. The writer mentions the fact of the net being unbroken notwithstanding the number and size of the fishes, and such reference to it indicates that another miracle was worked to preserve the net. 2 Dine is from ARISTAO. Both Thayer and Robinson define it, "To breakfast," and the latter adds, "to lunch, i. e., to take an early meal before the chief meal." Durst is a form of "dare." The thought is that none of the disciples would dare or venture to ask Jesus to identify himself, for they all knew it was the Lord. Curiosity, as well as a desire to be doubly certain, would have prompted them to ask Jesus the question, but the evidences of his identity were so great they did not have the courage to ask him. 3 The fish having been cooked by the fire that Jesus had kindled before the arrival of the disciples, he served them with bread to them. 4 Third time . . . to his disciples, or apostles. The two other times are in chapter 20:19 and 26. His first appearance was to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9), but she was not an apostle. 7 I believe these verses should be studied as one paragraph for the best results. Some unnecessary labor has been done by some in the way of technical distinctions between certain words, which might cause us to overlook the main point Jesus had in mind. It is true that the Greek originals for love, feed, sheep and lambs has each some meanings different from the others. And yet, those distinctions are not great enough to affect the lesson Jesus was giving the apostles. Peter was engaged in the fishing business when Jesus called him (Matthew 4:18-20). He left his net and followed the call, and later insisted that nothing could separate him from his service to the Master (Mark 14:31). Notwithstanding such a profession of loyalty, Peter denied his Lord three times (Matthew 26:75), and in verse 3 of the present chapter he led the others in returning to their former occupation. Now it was the time and place to make him "take his stand" with reference to his service to the Lord. The masculine and neuter genders for the original of these are the same in form, hence the Greek grammar will not help us in determining to what the pronoun refers. Strong defines the word, "Of (from or concerning) these (persons or things)." From all the foregoing considerations, the question of Jesus means, "lovest thou me more than you do this fishing business?" Upon his three-fold assertion that he did, Jesus very logically directed him to prove it by devoting his efforts towards the spiritual business of teaching His people. 8 The Greek word for young has the comparative form, which makes it mean "younger." Jesus is speaking of the days when Peter was in his prime physically and able to tare for himself, even to the extent of self-defense if necessary. But the time was coming when he would be subject to the will and strength of others. This prediction is so general that we only could have guessed at its meaning, had the writer not given us the key to it in the next verse. 9 By what death indicates not only that the death of Peter would be to glorify (do honor) God, but that the manner of that death was to be a significant item in the affair. I do not believe it requires me to pay any special attention to the tradition that Peter was crucified with his head downward, nor even that he was crucified at all, though that is probable. The point is that he was to die by violence because of his devotion to God. In that kind of experience he would be imitating the example of his Lord, which is what he was exhorted to do in the words, follow me. 0 This entire verse is given to identify the disciple of whom Peter was about to ask his question. That disciple was John according to verse 24. 1 In this verse Peter manifests a very natural curiosity, but which will be interpreted by Christ as an intrusion by Peter into matters that should not have concerned him. Jesus had exhorted Peter to follow Him by faithfulness even to the extent of a violent death. The question of the apostle means as if he had said, "And what do you expect John to do; will he have to die a violent death also?" 2 Jesus did not answer Peter's question directly. Tarry till I come means not only that he would not die a violent death, but would not die at all before Jesus returned to earth. But Jesus did not say that such a thing would happen, only that if it did, it would be no concern of Peter's; his duty was to follow Jesus. 3 This verse gives a clear example of the disposition of men to formulate rumors with no truth as a basis. Jesus only asked Peter a hypothetical question by way of rebuking him for his meddlesome attitude. Then the gossiping spirit of the disciples made an affirmation out of it, and. made Jesus say that John was promised that he would live to see the second coming of Christ. 4 This verse, together with other passages, shows us that the disciple "whom Jesus loved" was John. (See chapter 13:23.) 5 Jesus lived and worked with his disciples and among men for more than three years. It would have made a volume or volumes of immense Size had all of His deeds been recorded. World means the people of the earth. Contain is from CHOREO, and as Thayer defines it, the meaning is, "To receive with the mind or understanding, to understand; to be ready to receive, keep in mind." The entire Bible is very brief, and the Lord has placed before mankind enough only to make the necessary preparation for usefulness in this life, and happiness in the next.