THE GOSPEL TO ST. JOHN — — — — THE (1:1-18) The Prologue to the Gospel is in the form of a hymn,1 whose theme is the Christian doctrine of the Logos, explanatory comments being added at various points. Speculations about the Logos of God were current among Greek thinkers, and Jn. does not stay to explain the term, which was in common use at the time. But he sets out, simply and without argument, what he believes the true doctrine to be; and he finds its origin in the Jewish teaching about the Word of God rather than in the theosophy of Greek Gnosticism. Its final justification is the Life and Person of Jesus Christ. Paul had declared that “ a man in Christ is a new creation” (καινὴκτίσις , 2 Corinthians 5:17). This thought is connected by Jn. with the Jewish doctrine of the creative Word, and accordingly he begins by stating his doctrine of the Logos in phrases which recall the first chapter of Genesis. The Divine Pre-Existent Word (Vv. 1, 2) 1:1. ἐνἀρχῇἦνὁλόγος . The book of Genesis opens with ἐνἀρχῇἐποίησενὁθεὸςτὸνοὐρανὸνκαὶτὴνγῆν . But Jn. begins his hymn on the creative Logos even farther back. Before anything is said by him about creation, he proclaims that the Logos was in being originally— ἐνἀρχῇἦν , not ἐνἀρχῇἐγένετο (see for the distinction on 8:58). This doctrine is also found in the Apocalypse. In that book, Christ is also called the Word of God (19:13), and He is represented (22:13) as claiming pre-existence: “ I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Paul, who does not apply the title “ Logos” to Christ, yet has the same doctrine of His pre-existence: “ He is before all things” (Colossians 1:17). With this cf. the words ascribed to Jesus in 17:5. Philo does not teach the pre-existence of the Logos (see Introd., p. cxl); but a close parallel to Jn.’ s doctrine is the claim of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:23, κύριος … πρὸτοῦαἰῶνοςἐθεμελίωσέμεἐνἀρχῇ , πρὸτοῦτὴνγῆνποιῆσαι , Jn. never employs the word σοφία , while he uses λόγος of the Personal Christ only here and at v. 14; but it is the Hebrew doctrine of the Divine Word going forth rather than the Greek doctrine of immanent Divine Reason which governs his thought of the relation of the Son to the Father. λόγος is apparently used of the Personal Christ at Hebrews 4:12 (this difficulty need not be examined here); as we hold it to be in 1 John 1:1, ὃἦνἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςὃἀκηκόαμεν … περὶτοῦλόγουτῆςζωῆς (see for ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς on 15:27 below, and cf. Introd., p. lxi). καὶὁλόγοςἦνπρὸςτὸνθεόν . εἶναιπρόςτινα is not a classical constr., and the meaning of πρός here is not quite certain. It is generally rendered apud, as at Mark 6:3, Mark 9:19, Mark 14:49, Luke 9:41; but Abbott (Diat. 2366) urges that πρὸςτὸνθεόν carries the sense of “ having regard to God,” “ looking toward God” (cf. 5:19). This sense of direction may be implied in 1 John 2:1 παράκλητονἔχομενπρὸςτὸνπατέρα , but less probably in 1 John 1:2, τὴνζωὴντὴναἰώνιονἥτιςἦνπρὸςτὸνπατέρα , which provides a close parallel to the present passage. In Proverbs 8:30, Wisdom says of her relation to God, ἤμηνπαρ ʼ αὐτῷ : and in like manner at John 17:5, Jesus speaks of His pre-incarnate glory as being παρὰσοί . It is improbable that Jn. meant to distinguish the meanings of παρὰσοί at 17:5 and of πρὸςτὸνθεόν at 1:1. We cannot get a better rendering here than “ the Word was with God.” The imperfect ἦν is used in all three clauses of this verse, and is expressive in each case of continuous timeless existence. καὶθεὸςἦνὁλόγος , “ the Word was God” (the constr. being similar to πνεῦμαὁθεός of 4:24). θεός is the predicate, and is anarthrous, as at Romans 9:5, ὁὢνἐπὶπάντωνθεός . L reads ὁθεός , but this would identify the Logos with the totality of divine existence, and would contradict the preceding clause. This, the third clause of the majestic proclamation with which the Gospel opens, asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos, His Pre-existence and Personality having been first stated; cf. 10:30, 20:28; and Philippians 2:6 2. This verse reiterates, after a fashion which we shall find Jn. to favour, what has been said already in v. 1, laying stress, however, upon the fact that the relationship with Deity implied in πρὸςτὸνθεόν was eternal; it, too, was “ in the beginning.” That is to say, v. 2 is a summary statement of the three propositions laid down in v. 1, all of which were true ἐνἀρχῇ . For the emphatic use of οὗτος , cf. 1:15, 6:46, 7:18, 15:5. The Creative Word (V. 3) 3. πάντα (all things severally, as distinct from ὁκόσμος , the totality of the universe, v. 10) δι ʼ αὐτοῦἐγένετο , “ all things came into being (for creation is a becoming, as contrasted with the essential being of the Word) through Him.” In the Hebrew story of creation, each successive stage is introduced by “ And God said” (Genesis 1:3). The Psalmist personifies in poetical fashion this creative word: “ By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made” (Psalms 33:6; cf. Psalms 147:15, Isaiah 55:11). In later Judaism, this doctrine was consolidated into prose; cf., e.g., “ Thou saidst, Let heaven and earth be made, and Thy Word perfected the work” (2 Esd. 6:38; cf. Wisd. 9:1). This was a Jewish belief which Philo developed in his own way and with much variety of application, sometimes inclining to the view that the λόγος was a mere passive instrument employed by God, at other times, under Greek influence, regarding it as the cosmic principle, the formative thought of God.1 3, 4. καὶχωρὶςαὐτοῦἐγένετοοὐδὲἕν . This expresses negatively what has been said positively in the previous line, a common construction in Hebrew poetry (cf. Psalms 18:36, Psalms 18:37, Psalms 18:39:9, etc). Jn. uses this device several times (e.g. 1:20, 3:16, 6:50, 1 John 1:5, 1 John 2:4). “ Apart from Him nothing came into being.” The sentence excludes two false beliefs, both of which had currency, especially in Gnostic circles: (a) that matter is eternal, and (b) that angels or aeons had a share in the work of creation. The interpretation of this passage during the first four centuries implies a period or full-stop at ἕν , whereas since Chrysostom the sentence has been generally taken as ending with ὃγέγονεν : “ apart from Him nothing came into being that did come into being.” ὃγέγονεν , if we adopt the later view of the constr., is redundant and adds nothing to the sense But this kind of emphatic explicitness is quite in accordance with the style of Jn. It is also the case that Jn. favours ἐν with a dative at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. 13:35, 15:8, 16:26, 1 John 2:4, 1 John 2:3:10, 1 John 2:16, 1 John 2:19, 1 John 2:4:2, so that to begin with ἐναὐτῷ in v. 4 would be in his manner. The early uncials, for the most part, have no punctuation, while the later manuscripts generally put the point after γέγονεν . But the evidence of MSS. as to punctuation depends upon the interpretations of the text with which scribes were familiar, and has no independent authority. In the present passage the Old Syriac,1 Latin, and Sahidic versions, as well as the Latin Vulgate, decidedly favour the placing of the point after ἕν , the O.L. b putting this beyond doubt by inserting autem in the next clause: “ quod autem factum est, in eo uita est.” The interpretation which places the point after ἕν was adopted by Catholics and Gnostics alike in the early centuries; cf. Irenæ us (Hæ r. II. ii. 4, III. viii. 3), Hippolytus (c. Noetum, 12), Origen (in Ioann. 36, etc.), Clem. Alex. (Pæ d. i. II, Strom. vi. II), and, apparently, Tertullian (adv. Prax. 21). It is difficult to resist their witness to the construction of the Greek, provided that the next sentence as read by them yields an intelligible meaning. Harris2 defends the construction “ without Him was not anything made that was made,” by citing a passage from the Stoic Chrysippus which is alike redundant in form: Fate is “ the λόγος according to which all things that have been made have been made, and all things that are being made are being made, and all things that are to be made will be made.” The Word Issuing in Life and Light (Vv. 4, 5) 4. ὃγέγονενἐναὐτῷζωὴἦν , “ That which has come into being was, in Him, Life,” i.e. the life which was eternally in the Word, when it goes forth, issues in created life, and this is true both of (a) the physical and (b) the spiritual world. (a) Jesus Christ, the Son and the Word, is the Life (11:25, 14:6), the Living One (ὁζῶν , Revelation 1:17); and it is through this Life of His that all created things hold together and cohere (τὰπάνταἐναὐτῷσυνέστηκεν , Colossians 1:17). (b) In the spiritual order, this is also true. The Son having life in Himself (5:26) gives life to whomsoever he wishes (οὓςθέλειζωοποιεῖ , 5:21). Cf. 1 John 5:11, and see on 17:24. The children of God are those who are quickened by a spiritual begetting (see on v. 13). See also on 6:33. If ἐναὐτῷ is the true reading at 3:15 (where see note), we have another instance there of ἐναὐτῷ being awkwardly placed in the sentence. Presumably because of this awkward position of ἐναὐτῷ , some Western authorities א D, many Old Latin texts, and the Old Syriac, replace ἦν by ἐστίν ; interpreting, as it seems, the sentence to mean “ that which has come into being in Him is life.” But this reading and rendering may safely be set aside as due to misapprehension of the meaning. καὶἡζωὴἦντὸφῶςτῶνἀνθρώπων . The first movement of the Divine Word at the beginning was the creation of Light (Genesis 1:3). This was the first manifestation of Life in the κόσμος , and the Psalmist speaks of the Divine Life and the Divine Light in the same breath: “ With Thee is the fountain of life, and in Thy light shall we see light” (Psalms 36:9). God is Light (1 John 1:5) as well as Life, if indeed there is any ultimate difference between these two forms of energy (see on 8:12). In this verse, Jn. does not dwell on the thought of the Word’ s Life as the Light of the κόσμος , but passes at once to the spiritual creation; the Life of the Word was, at the beginning, the Light of men. Cf. 12:46, 9:5, and see especially on 8:12 for the Hebrew origins and development of this thought, which reaches its fullest expression in the majestic claim ἐγώεἰμιτὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου (8:12). Philo speaks of the sun as a παραδεῖγμα of the Divine Word (de somn. i. 15); but he does not, so far as I have noticed, connect life and light explicitly. 5. τὸφῶςἐντῇσκοτίᾳφαίνει . The guiding thought is still the story of the creation of light, which dissipated the darkness of chaos. But this is a story which ever repeats itself in the spiritual world; Jn. does not say “ the Light shone, ” but “ the Light shines.” In 1 John 2:8 he applies the thought directly to the passing of spiritual darkness because of the shining of Christ, the true light . καὶἡσκοτίααὐτὸοὐκατέλαβεν . καταλαμβάνειν generally means to “ seize” or “ apprehend,” whether physically (Numbers 21:32, Mark 9:18, [Jn.] 8:4), or intellectually (Acts 10:34, Acts 25:25, Ephesians 3:18, etc.). Thus we may translate “ the darkness apprehended it not,” i.e. did not understand or appreciate it; and so the vulg. has tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt, the note of tragedy being struck at once, which appears again, vv. 10, 11 ; see on 3:19. But καταλαμβάνειν often means also to “ overtake” (Genesis 31:23, Exodus 15:9, Ecclus. 11:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:4); Moulton-Milligan illustrate from the papyri this use of the verb, viz. of evil “ overtaking” one. This is its meaning in the only other place where it occurs in in., viz. 12:35, ἵναμὴσκοτίαὑμᾶςκαταλάβῃ , “ lest darkness overtake you.” 1 Origen (with other Greek interpreters) takes κατέλαβεν in this sense here, explaining that the thought is of darkness perpetually pursuing light, and never overtaking it.2 The meaning “ overtake in pursuit” readily passes into “ overcome” ; e.g. 2 Macc. 8:18, where it is said that God is able “ to overcome those who come upon us” . A classical parallel is cited by Field from Herod. i. 87, ὡςὥραπάνταμὲνἄνδρασβεννύντατὸπῦρ , δυναμένουςδεοὐκέτικαταλαβεῖν , i.e. “ when he saw … that they were unable to overcome the fire.” That this is the meaning of the verb in the present verse is supported by the fact that the thought of Christ’ s rejection does not appear, and could not fitly appear, until after the statement of His historical “ coming into the world” (vv. 9, 10). We have not yet come to this, and it is the spiritual interpretation of the Creation narrative that is still in view. Thus in the Hymn of Wisdom (Wis. 7:29) we have: “ Night succeeds the Light, but evil does not overcome wisdom” . The darkness did not overcome the light at the beginning, and the light still shines. This is not the note of tragedy, but the note of triumph. Good always conquers evil. “ The darkness did not overcome the light” (so R.V. marg.). Philo’ s commentary on Genesis 1:3 is in agreement with this interpretation. He says that τὸνοητὸνφῶς is the image of θεῖοςλόγος , which is the image of God. This may be called παναύγεια , “ universal brightness” (cf. 8:12). On the first day of creation this light dispelled the darkness: ἐπειδὴδὲφῶςμὲνἐγένετο , σκότοςδὲὑπεξέστηκαὶὑπεχώρησεν ,3 i.e. “ darkness yielded to it and retreated.” Jn. applies this thought to Christ as the Light of the world. There is never an eclipse of this Sun. C. J. Ball suggested4 that behind κασέλαβεν lies a confusion of two Aramaic verbs, ק ַ ב ּ י ל , “ take, receive,” and א ַ ק ב ּ י ל , “ darken.” He holds that, both here and at 12:35, the original Aramaic (which he finds behind the Greek) was ל א א ק ב ל י ה , “ obscured it not,” and that this was misread ל א ק ב ל י ה , “ received it not.” 1 This is ingenious, but, as we have seen, κατέλαβεν is good Greek for “ overcome,” so that there is no need to suppose any corruption of the original text. Explanatory Comment: John the Baptist Was Not the Light (Vv. 6-9) A feature of the style of Jn. is his habit of pausing to comment on words which he has recorded (cf. Introd., p. xxiv). Here we have a parenthetical note to explain that the Light of which the Logos hymn sings is not John the Baptist. It has been suggested that this was inserted as necessary to combat the pretensions of some Christians who exalted the Baptist unduly (cf. Acts 18:25, Acts 19:3f.); but see on v. 20 below. For Jn., as for Mk., the “ gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1), began with the preaching of the Baptist. Jn. does not stay to record stories of the Birth of Jesus, as Lk. and Mt. do. He opens his Gospel with a mystical hymn about the Logos, which reminds the reader that the true beginnings of the wonderful life are lost in the timeless and eternal Life of God. But in the Gospel Jn. is to describe the historical manifestation of the Word, and this was prepared for, and introduced by, the preaching of the Baptist. Upon this Jn. dwells more fully than any other evangelist, probably because his informant, the aged son of Zebedee, was himself one of the Baptist’ s disciples. For the use made by Jn. of Mk., see Introd., pp. xcvi, c; and the correspondences between Mar_1 and Joh_1 in regard to what they tell about the Baptist and his sayings are remarkable. Mark 1:2 introduces the Baptist by quoting Malachi 3:1, “ I send my messenger before my face” ; Jn. introduces him as a man “ sent from God.” Both Mark 1:2 and John 1:23 apply to him the prophecy of Isa 40:3.Mark 1:7 gives two utterances of the Baptist about Christ which reappear John 1:15, John 1:27, John 1:30. Mark 1:8 and John 1:26 both report the emphasis laid by the Baptist on his baptism being with water. And the allusions to the baptism of Jesus in John 1:33, John 1:34 are reminiscent of Mar 1:10, Mark 1:11. 6. ἐγένετοἄνθρωποςκτλ . (“ There arose a man,” etc.). There is no introductory particle connecting this with v. 5. It is a sentence quite distinct from the verse of the Logos Hymn which goes before. ἀπεσταλμένοςπαρὰθεοῦ . The Baptist made this claim for himself (3:28); cf. Malachi 3:1. Cf. 9:16, 33 for a similar use of παρὰθεοῦ , and see on 6:45. ὅνομααὐτῷἸωάνης . For the constr. cf. 3:1 and Revelation 6:8, Revelation 9:11. Burney urges that this is a Semitic constr.,1 and represents an Aramaic or Hebrew ש מ ו ; but it is also good Greek, e.g. Ἀριστοφῶνὅνομααὐτῷ (Demosth. contra Zenoth. 11). The spelling Ἰωάνης is preferred to Ἰωάννης by most modern editors, being almost universally found in B “ It belongs to the series of Hellenised names which treat the an of the Hebrew termination (Ioanan) as a variable inflection” (Blass, Gram. 11).2 Jn. is prone to distinguish carefully people who have the same name, e.g. Judas (6:71, 13:2, 14:22), Mary (11:2, 19:25), Joseph (19:38); in this being more scrupulous than the Synoptists. It is, perhaps, worthy of note, therefore, that Jn. never writes “ John the Baptist,” but always “ John,” as if there were no other John who could be confused with him. On this has been based an argument to prove that John the son of Zebedee is, in some sense, the author (if not the actual scribe) of the Fourth Gospel; for the one person to whom it would not occur to distinguish John the Baptist from John the son of Zebedee would be John the son of Zebedee himself. On the other hand, the Synoptists only occasionally give the full description “ John the Baptist,” “ John” being quite sufficient in most places where the name occurs. It would not be as necessary for an evangelist writing for Christian readers at the end of the first century to say explicitly “ John the Baptist,” when introducing the John who bore witness to Jesus at the beginning of His ministry, as it was for Josephus when writing for Roman readers to distinguish him as “ John who is called the Baptist” (Antt. xviii, V. 2). 7. οὗτοςἦλθενεἰςμαρτυρίαν . This was the characteristic feature of the Baptist’ s mission, “ to bear witness” to the claims of Him who was to come. The Fourth Gospel is full of the idea of “ witness” (see Introd., p. xc), the words μαρτυρία , μαρτυρεῖν , being frequent in Jn., while they occur comparatively seldom in the rest of the N.T. The cognate forms μαρτύς , μαρτύριον , are, on the other hand, not found in Jn., although they occur in the Apocalypse. ἴναμαρτυρήσῃ . ἴνα with a finite verb, in a telic sense, where in classical Greek we should expect an infinitive, is a common constr. in κοινή Greek, and is specially frequent in Joh_1 Burney2 held that this linguistic feature is due to the Aramaic origin of Jn., and that behind ἴνα is the particle ד ּ ְ or ד ּ ִ י . But the colloquial character of Jn.’ s style provides a sufficient explanation (cf. 11:50 and 18:14). περὶτοῦφωτός . John Baptist says (v. 33) that it was revealed to him that Jesus was the Coming One. ἴναπάντεςπιστεύσωσινδι ʼ αὐτοῦ (“ that all might believe through him,” i.e. through, or by means of, the testimony of John the Baptist). Ultimately the Baptist’ s mission would affect not Israel only, but all men . As the Divine Law is said to have come διὰΜωυσέως (v. 17), so there is a sense in which Christian faith came δι ʼ Ἰωάνου . Abbott (Diat. 2302 f.) inclines to the view that αὐτοῦ refers here to Christ, αὐτός throughout the Prologue being used for the Word; but Jn. never uses the expression πιστεύεινδιὰἸησοῦ (see on 3:15). Jesus, for him, is the end and object of faith, rather than the medium through which it is reached (see on 1:12). Jn. uses the verb πιστεύειν about 100 times, that is, with nine times the frequency with which it is used by the Synoptists, although the noun πίστις , common in the Synoptists, never occurs in Jn., except at 1 John 5:4.1 John 5:3 See further on v. 12. Here πιστεύειν is used absolutely, the object of faith being understood without being expressed; cf. 1:50, 4:42, 53, 5:44, 6:64, 11:15 12:39, 14:29, 19:35, 20:8, 25. 8. ἐκεῖνος is used substantially, whether as subject or obliquely, with unusual frequency in Jn., the figures for its occurrence is the four Gospels being (according to Burney4) Mat_4, Mar_3, Luk_4, Jn. 51. Jn. uses it often to express emphasis, or to mark out clearly the person who is the main subject of the sentence, as here. It is used of Christ, 1:18, 2:21, 5:11, 1 John 2:6, 1 John 2:3:5, 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:16. οὐκἦνἐκεῖνοςτὸφῶς . The Baptist was only ὁλύχνος , the lamp; cf. 5:35. ἀλλ ʼ ἵναμαρτυρήσῃπεριτοῦφωτός . This is an elliptical constr. of which somewhat similar examples occur 9:3, 13:18, 15:25, 1 John 2:19 (Abbott, Diat. 2106 f.). The meaning is, “ but he came that he might bear witness, etc. The repetition of the whole phrase ἵναμαρτυρήσῃπερὶτοῦφωτός is thoroughly Johannine. Burney suggests1 that here (as also at 5:7, 6:50, 9:36, 14:16) ἵνα is a mistranslation of an Aramaic relative, ד ּ ְ , “ who.” The rendering then is simple, “ he was not the Light, but one who was to bear witness of the Light” ; but the correction is unnecessary. 9. ἦντὸφῶςκτλ . The constr. of the sentence has been taken in different ways, and the ambiguity was noticed as far back as the time of Origen.2 (I) The Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions take ἐρχόμενον with ἄνθρωπον . The Light enlightens every man who comes into the world. But if this were the meaning, (a) we should expect παντὰτὸνἐρχόμενον rather than παντὰἄνθρωπονἐρχόμενον ; (b) these words are wholly redundant, for they do not add anything to “ every man” ; (c) the expression “ coming into the world” is not used elsewhere by Joh_3 of a man being born (16:21 is no exception). This last consideration excludes also the rendering “ every man, as he comes into the world,” apart from the fact that, although Wordsworth suggests it in his Ode, the idea of any special Divine enlightenment of infants is not Scriptural. (2) It is better to take ἐρχόμενον with φῶς (so R.V.). Jn. several times uses the phrase “ coming into the world” of the Advent of Christ (6:14, 11:27, 16:28, 18:37); and elsewhere (3:19, 12:46) in the Gospel Christ is spoken of as “ light coming into the world.” And if we render “ the Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world,” the constr. of ἦν with the present participle as used for the imperfect is one which appears frequently in Jn. (see on 1:28 below). ἦν … ἐρχόμενον means “ was in the act of coming.” Westcott, while retaining this meaning, endeavours to combine with it the conception of the Light having a permanent existence (ἦν , the verb used in v. 1). “ There was the Light, the true Light which lighteth every man; that Light was, and yet more, that Light was coming into the world.” This seems, however, to attempt to get too much out of the words, and on our view of the whole passage the meaning is simpler. We are still occupied with Jn.’ s comment (vv. 6-9) on what the Logos Hymn has said about the Light (vv. 4, 5). The Baptist was not the perfect Light, but he came to bear witness to it; and this perfect Light was then coming into the world. When Jn. wrote the First Epistle he could say, “ The true Light already shineth” (1 John 2:8), but it was only coming at the time when the Baptist’ s mission began. Jesus had come into the world, indeed; but He had not yet manifested Himself as the Light. ἀληθινόν . Christ is τὸφῶἀληθινόν , not to be interpreted as “ the true Light” (although such a rendering is convenient), for that suggests that all other lights are misleading, which is not implied; cf. 5:35. ἀληθινός is distinguished from ἀληθής as the genuine from the true. The opposite of ἀληθινός is not necessarily false, but it is imperfect, shadowy, or unsubstantial. “ The ἀληθής fulfils the promise of his lips, but the ἀληθινός the wider promise of his name. Whatever that name imports, taken in its highest, deepest, widest sense, whatever according to that he ought to be, that he is to the full” (Trench, Synonym’ s of N.T.). Thus ἀληθινός here is significant. Christ is not “ the true and only Light,” but rather “ the perfect Light,” in whose radiance all other lights seem dim, the Sun among the stars which catch their light from Him. There are indeed a few passages where ἀληθινὸς cannot be sharply distinguished from ἀληθής : thus ἀληθινός at 19:35 stands for the veracity of the witness, just as ἀληθής does at 21:24. Moreover, the fact that ἀληθής and its cognates are not found in the Apocalypse, while ἀληθινός occurs in it 10 times, might suggest that the choice of the one adjective rather than the other was only a point of style. In the same way, ψεύστης is used 7 times in Jn. for a liar, but the word in the Apocalypse is ψευδής . Nevertheless the distinction between ἀληθής and ἀληθινός in Jn. is generally well marked. We have τὸφῶςἀληθινόν here (cf. 1 John 2:8); οἱἀληθινοὶπροσκυνηταί , 4:23; ὁἄρτοςὁἀληθινός , 6:32; ὁμόνοςἀληθινὸςθεός , 17:3 (cf. 7:28, 1 John 5:20); ἡἀληθινὴκρίσις , 8:16; ἡἄμπελοςἡἀληθινή , 15:1. In all these passages the meaning “ genuine” or “ ideal” will bear to be pressed, as also in the only place where the word occurs in the Synoptists, for τὸἀληθινόν of Luke 16:11 is the genuine riches. Even at 4:37, where ἀληθινός is applied to a proverb, something more is implied than veraciousness (see note in loc.). Less clearly, but still with some plausibility, can the distinctive sense of ἀληθινός be pressed in the Apocalypse, where it is applied to God’ s ways (15:3), His judgments (16:7, 19:2), His words (19:9, 21:5, 22:6), to Himself (6:10), and to Christ (3:7, 14, 19:11). See further on 17:3. φωτίζει . This verb does not occur again in Jn., but cf. Luke 11:35, Luke 11:36. ὂφωτίζειπαντὰἄνθρωπον . That the Servant of Yahweh would be a “ light to the Gentiles” as well as to the Jews was the forecast of Deutero-Isaiah (42:6, 49:6); but this passage suggests a larger hope, for the Coming Light was to enlighten every man. It was this great conception upon which the early Quakers fixed, urging that to every man sufficient light was offered; and some of them called this passage “ the Quaker’ s text.” The Alexandrian theologians, e.g. Clement, had much to say about the active operation of the Pre-Incarnate Word upon men’ s hearts; and it is interesting to observe that they did not appeal to this text, which is in fact not relevant to their thought, as it speaks only of the universal enlightenment which was shed upon mankind after the Advent of Christ. εἰςτὸνκόσμον . The term κόσμος is used of the universe by Plato (Gorg. 508) and Aristotle (de mund. 2), Plutarch (Mor. 886 B) affirming that Pythagoras was the first to use the word thus, the order of the material world suggesting it1 This idea of a totality of the natural order is thoroughly Greek, and is without early Hebrew counterpart, ע ו ֹ ל ָ ם not being used in this meaning until the later days of Jewish literature2 In the LXX κόσμος appears in the sense of “ ornament,” and occasionally to describe the ordered host of the heavenly bodies, but it is not used for “ universe” until we reach the later Hellenistic books, e.g. Wisd. 11:17. Paul has κόσμος 46 times, and the Synoptists 14 times; but Jn. has it 100 times. Primarily, in the N.T. it is used of the material universe as distinct from God (cf. 21:25). But man is the chief inhabitant of the world as we know it, and thus κόσμος usually in Jn. includes the world of moral agents as well as the sum of physical forces. That is, it stands for mankind at large, as well as for the earth which is man’ s habitation (6:51, 7:4, 12:19). When, however, a term which was the product of Greek philosophy began to be used in connexion with the Hebrew doctrine of God and man, it inevitably gathered to itself the associations connected with Hebrew belief as to the Fall. To the Stoic, the κόσμος was perfect. This could not be held by a Jew. Inasmuch, then, as the Fall introduced disorder into that which in the beginning was “ good” (Genesis 1:31), the term κόσμος when used of the visible order frequently carries with it a suggestion of imperfection, of evil, of estrangement from the Divine. The κόσμος cannot receive the Spirit of Truth (14:17); it hates Christ (7:7); it hates His chosen (15:19, 17:14); they are forbidden to love it (1 John 2:15). The world which is aloof from God may easily pass into an attitude of hostility to God, and the phrase “ this world” (see on 8:23) calls special attention to such enmity. According to Philo (quod deus imm. 6 and de mund 7), the κόσμος is the father of time, God being the Father of the κόσμος ; a picturesque expression which brings out his view that the universe was created by God, who brought Cosmos out of Chaos, while its genesis goes back beyond the beginning of time. A striking parallel to this verse is found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi, c. 14): τὸφῶςτοῦνόμουτὸδοθὲνἐνὑμῖνεἰςφωτισμὸνπάντοςἀνθρώπου . Charles, indeed (note in loc), holds that John 1:9 is based on this passage; but the date of the Greek versions of the Testaments is by no means certain, and there is no sufficient evidence of their existence in their present form before the time of Origen.1 There are unmistakable allusions to the verse in the Christian Apocalypse known as “ The Rest of the Words of Baruch,” where Jeremiah addresses God as τὸφῶςτὸἀληθινὸντὸφωτίζονμε (9:3). In the same section the writer calls Christ τὸφῶςτῶναἰώνωνπάντων , ὁἄσβεστοςλύχνος (9:13), and speaks of Him as ἐρχόμενονεἰςτὸνκόσμονἐπὶτὸὄροςτῶνἐλαιῶν (9:18). See Introd., p. lxxii. For the citation of the verse by Basilides, as quoted by Hippolytus, see Introd., p. lxxiii. The Logos Hymn Resumed (Vv. 10, 11) 10. ἐντῷκόσμῳἦν . ἦν , as in vv. 1-4, stands for continuous existence. The Logos was immanent in the world before the Incarnation, which has not yet been mentioned in the hymn, although suggested in the evangelist’ s comment in v. 9. καὶὁκόσμοςδι ʼ αὐτοῦἐγένετο , repeated from v. 3, “ the world came into being through Him,” the creative Logos being personal all through the hymn. καὶὁκόσμοςαὐτὸνοὐκἔγνω . The paratactical constr. καὶ … καί is continued, as in vv. 1, 4, 5. At this point καί is used adversatively, “ and yet,” the world not recognising the Word although the Word was immanent in it. This use of καί for καίτοι (which Jn. never employs) is characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, e.g. 3:11, 5:43, 6:70, 7:28, 30, 8:26, 9:30, 10:25, 16:32. Burney1 claims this as a Semitic usage, but it occurs in classical Greek; e.g. Thucyd. v. 6. 1, Σταγείρῳπροσβάλλει … καὶοὐκεἷλε , and Eurip. Herakl. 508, ὁρᾶτ ʼ ἔμ ʼ ὅσπερἦνπερίβλεπτοςβροτοῖςὀνομαστὰπράσσων , καίμ ʼ ἀφείλεθ ʼ ἡτύχη . ὁκόσμοςαὐτὸνοὐκἔγνω . Primarily, the reference is to the world’ s ignorance of the Pre-Incarnate Logos, immanent continuously in nature and in man. Pfleiderer points out the similarity of this language to what Heraclitus says about the eternal Reason: τοῦδὲλόγουτοῦδ ʼ ἐόντοςαἰεὶἀξύνετοιγίνονταιἄνθρωποι … γινομένωνγὰρπάντωνκατὰτὸνλόγοντόνδεἀπείροισινἐοίκασι , i.e.. “ men are without understanding of this Logos, although it is eternal, … although everything happens in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be ignorant (of it).” 2 Heraclitus was one of those whom Justin accounted a Christian before his time, having lived μετὰλόγου ,3 and his writings were probably current in the circles where the Fourth Gospel was written. But although Jn. used similar language to Heraclitus when writing of the Word, his thought goes far beyond the impersonal Reason of the Greek sage. Even here, the meaning of “ the world knew Him not” cannot be confined to the Immanent Logos. Jn. several times comes back to the phrase, applying it to the world’ s failure to recognise the Incarnate Christ; e.g. ὁκόσμος … οὐκἔγνωαὐτόν (1 John 3:1); οὐκἔγνωσαν … ἐμέ (16:3). Cf. 14:7, 17:25, 1 Corinthians 1:21. And in the next verse (v. 11) the Incarnate Word is clearly in view, for the aorist ἦλθεν expresses a definite point of time, although the Incarnation of the Word is not explicitly asserted until v. 14. A saying about Wisdom very similar to the thought of this verse is in Enoch xlii. 1: “ Wisdom found no place where she might dwell; then a dwelling-place was assigned to her in the heavens. Wisdom came to make her dwelling among the children of men and found no dwelling-place; then Wisdom returned to her place and took her seat among the angels.” What the Jewish apocalyptist says of Wisdom, the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel repeats of the Logos. 11. εἰςτὰἴδιαἦλθεν . This (see on 19:27) is literally “ He came to His own home.” And the following words, “ His own received Him not,” would well describe His rejection by His own kinsfolk and neighbours in Galilee, according to the saying that a prophet has no honour in his own country (Mark 6:4, Matthew 13:57, Luke 4:24; cf. John 4:44). But the thought of this verse is larger. The world did not know Him, did not recognise Him for what He was (v. 10). But when He came in the flesh, He came to “ the holy land” (2 Macc. 1:7, Wisd. 12:3), to the land and the people which peculiarly belonged to Yahweh and were His own (Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 7:6). In coming to Palestine, rather than to Greece, the Word of God came to His own home on earth. Israel were the chosen people; they formed, as it were, an inner circle in the world of men; they were, peculiarly, “ His own.” He was “ not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). “ His own” intimate disciples did indeed receive him , but the thought here is of His own people, Israel. The Fourth Gospel is the Gospel of the Rejection; and this appears thus early in the Prologue (cf. 3:11, 5:43). It is not said that Israel did not “ know” Him, as is said of the “ world” (v. 10); but Israel did not receive Him in welcome . Like the Wicked Husbandmen in the parable (Mark 12:1, Matthew 21:33, Luke 20:9), Israel knew the Heir and killed Him. Comment to Avoid Misunderstanding of V. 11 (Vv. 12, 13) 12. “ His own received Him not” might suggest that no Jew welcomed Him for what He was. Accordingly (cf. Introd., p. cxlv), the evangelist notes that there were some of whom this could not be said. ὅσοιδέκτλ . = but (δέ must be given its full adversative force), at the same time, as many as received Him (and this would include Jews as well as Greeks) were endowed with the capacity and privilege of becoming children of God. For λαμβάνειν used of “ receiving” Christ, cf. 5:43, 13:20. ὅσοιδὲἔλαβοναὐτόν , ἔδωκεναὐτοιςκτλ . This is the first appearance of a constr. which is very frequent in Jn., viz. the reinforcement of a casus pendens by a pronoun. It is a common, if inelegant, form of anacoluthon, more often met with in colloquial than in literary Greek. Jn. employs it 27 times (as against 21 occurrences in all three Synoptists). Burney suggests that this is due to the Aramaic original which he finds behind Jn., the cases pendens being a favourite Semitic idiom.1 The Jews rejected Christ; but His message was addressed to all mankind. He gave to “ as many as received Him” the right to become children of God. ἐξουσία occurs again 5:27, 10:18, 17:2, 19:10, 11; it stands for authority rather than power. The privilege and right of those who “ receive” Christ, i.e. those who “ believe on His Name,” is that they may become τέκναθεοῦ ; but this (Jn. suggests) is not an inherent human capacity. The conception of the faithful as “ children of God” has its roots deep in Jewish thought. Israel conceived of herself as in covenant with Yahweh (see on 3:29), and the prophets speak of her as Yahweh’ s wife (Hosea 1:2). “ Thy sons whom thou hast borne to me” are words ascribed to Yahweh when addressing the nation (Ezekiel 16:20). Thus the Jews were accustomed to think of themselves as peculiarly the children of God (see on 8:41). But the teaching of Jesus did not encourage any such exclusive claim of Judaism. He taught the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God as having a more catholic range. To enter the kingdom of God is to become the child of God and the possessor of eternal life (for all these phrases mean the same thing; cf. 3:3f.), and the gate of the kingdom is the gate of faith in Christ. This is the message of the Fourth Gospel (20:30), and it is addressed to all who will hear it. We have here (in vv. 12, 13) a summary of the teaching of c. 3 about the New Birth and Eternal Life. The phrase τέκναθεοῦ is not placed either by Synoptists or by Jn. in the mouth of Jesus Himself: He is represented as speaking of υἱοὶθεοῦ (Matthew 5:9); and this is also the title for believers generally used by Paul (Galatians 3:26), who employs the notion of adoption, as recognised by Roman law, to bring out the relation of God to the faithful.2 But τέκναθεοῦ is thoroughly Johannine (cf. 11:52 and 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:2, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 3:5:2), and the phrase implies a community of life between God the Father and His children, which is described in v. 13 as due to the fact that they are “ begotten” of God (cf. 3:3f.). τέκνον is from the root τεκ — ,“ to beget.” The “ children of God” are all who “ believe in the Name” of Christ. The idea of the Fatherhood of God as extending to all mankind alike, heathen or Jewish, prior to belief in Christ, is not explicit in the Gospels (cf. Acts 17:28), however close it may be to such a pronouncement as that of the Love of God for the world at large (3:16). But for Jn., the “ children” are those who “ believe.” τοῖςπιστεύουσινεἰςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ . The frequency of the verb πιστεύειν in Jn. has been already noted (1:7). Here we have to mark the form πιστεύεινεἰς … The phrase “ to believe in Christ,” in Him as distinct from believing His words or being convinced of certain facts about Him, is, with one exception (Matthew 18:6), not found in the Synoptists; but in Jn. we find πιστεύεινεἰς … 35 times,1 always referring to God or Christ, except εἰςτὴνμαρτυρίαν (1 John 5:10). The phrase πιστεύεινεἰςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ occurs again 2:23, 3:18 (cf. 1 John 5:13), but not in the speeches of Jesus Himself. In the O.T. the “ Name” of Yahweh is often used as equivalent to His Character or Person, as He manifests Himself to men (cf. 2 Samuel 7:13, Isaiah 18:7; see on 5:43 below). It is possible that this usage of ὄνομα in the N.T. is an Aramaism. We have it several times in the expression βαπτίζεινεἰςτὸὄνομάτινος (cf. Matthew 28:19).2 But, whether it is Aramaic or no, to believe in “ the Name” of Jesus for Jn. is to believe “ in Him” as the Son of God and the Christ. 13. For οἳ … ἐγεννήθησαν , the O.L. version in b gives qui natus est, the verse being thus a reference to the Virgin Birth of Christ. Irenæ us (adv. Haer. iii. xvii. 1 and xx. 2), and possibly Justin (Tryph. 61; cf. Apol. i. 32, 63 and ii. 6), bear witness to the existence of this (Western) reading. Tertullian (de carne Christi, 19) adopts it formally, adducing arguments against the common text “ who were born,” which he says is an invention of the Valentinians. In recent years the reference of the verse to Christ, and the reading qui natus est, have been approved by Resch (Aussercanonische Paralleltexte, iv. 57) and by Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 234).3 But the MS. evidence is overwhelming for ἐγεννήθησαν , which moreover, as we shall see, is in accordance with the characteristic teaching of Jn. The children of God are “ begotten” by Him by spiritual generation, as contrasted with the ordinary process of physical generation. οὐκἐξαἱμάτωνκτλ . It was a current doctrine in Greek physiology that the human embryo is made from the seed of the father, and the blood of the mother. Thus Wisd. 7:2, “ In the womb of a mother was I moulded into flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted in blood of the seed of man and pleasure that came with sleep.” Cf. 4 Macc. 13:20 and Philo (de opif. mundi 45). 1 The plural αἱμάτων is unexpected, but Brä ckner quoted the parallel ἄλλωντραφεὶςἀφ ʼ αἱμάτων (Eurip. Ion, 693). Augustine (Serm. cxxi. 4) explains αἱμάτων , “ mixtis sanguinibus, masculi et feminae, commixtione carnis masculi et feminae,” which may be right; but more probably the plural is used to indicate drops of blood. οὐδὲἐκθελήματοςσαρκός , “ nor yet of the will of the flesh,” i.e. of sexual desire. θέλημα is used once or twice in the LXX in the sense of delectatio, e.g. Isaiah 62:4 and Ecclesiastes 12:1. Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 9) has the phrase ἐξαἱμάτωνκαὶἐπιθυμίαςσαρκικῆς , καθάπερκαὶοἱλοιποὶ , γεγεννημένος , which is apparently a reminiscence of this verse, of which at any rate it gives the meaning, identifying θέλημα with ἐπιθυμία (cf. 1 John 2:16). The passage is also recalled by Justin (Tryph. 63), ὡςτοῦαἵματοςαὐτοῦοὐκἐξἀνθρωπείουσπέρματοςγεγεννημένουἀλλ ʼ ἐκθελήματοςθεοῦ . οὐδὲἐκθελήματοςἀνδρός , “ nor yet of the will of a man,” i.e. a male, for so ἀνήρ is always used in Jn., as distinct from ἄνθρωπος . The threefold negation emphasises the point that the “ begetting” of the children of God has nothing to do with the normal begetting of children. ἀλλ ʼ ἐκθεοῦ (God being the immediate cause of the new spiritual life which begins in the believer). The metaphor of God as “ begetting” children is strange to a modern ear, but it is frequent in Jn. Cf. also 1 Peter 1:3, ὁ … ἀναγεννήσαςἡμᾶςεἰςἐλπίδαζῶσαν , and see J. B. Mayor on James 1:18. The verb γεννᾶν in the active voice generally means “ to beget,” and is used of the father, e.g. ἈβραὰμἐγέννησετὸνἸσαάκ (Matthew 1:2). Sometimes this is followed by ἐκ and the mother’ s name, e.g. ἐγέννησαἐξαὐτῆςΤωβίαν (Tobit 1:9). γεννᾶν is also, but rarely, used of the “ bearing” of children by a woman, e.g. μίαμήτηρἐγέννησενἡμᾶςδιδύμους (Acta Philippi, 115). In Jn. the verb (with one exception, 1 John 5:1) is only found in the passive γεννᾶσθαι Sometimes this means “ to be born,” e.g. 9:2f., 16:21, 18:37; cf. Μαρίας , ἐξἧςἐγεννήθηἸησοῦς (Matthew 1:16). But usually in Jn. γεννᾶσθαι means “ to be begotten,” and the phrase “ to be begotten by God” is thoroughly Johannine. Jn. does not shrink from drawing out the metaphor, e.g. πᾶςὁγεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦθεοῦἁμαρτιανοὐποιεῖ , ὅτισπέρμαοὐτοῦἐναὐτῷμένει (1 John 3:9). Gods σπέρμα is in the man, who is thus (the phrase occurs in the next verse, 1 John 3:10) τέκνονθεοῦ . An even closer parallel to vv. 12, 13, is πᾶςὁπιστεύωνὅτιἸησοῦςἐστὶνὁΧριστὸςἐκτοῦθεοῦγεγέννηται (1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:4), where it is again said that those who believe in Christ are “ begotten of God.” Cf. also 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, 1 John 5:18. This mystical language goes back to Psalms 2:7, where Yahweh says of the king of His favour, ἐγὼσήμερονγεγέννηκάσε . Indeed, to say that believers are “ begotten of God” is only to stretch a little farther the metaphor involved in the words, “ Our Father which art in heaven.” See on v. 12. The rendering of ἐγεννήθησαν here by nati sunt in the Latin versions cannot be taken to exclude the translation “ were begotten” ; for in the several passages in 1 Jn. where we have the phrase γεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦθεοῦ (2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 18), and where it must bear the meaning “ begotten by God” (see especially 1 John 3:9), the Latin versions similarly have natus. The Incarnation (V. 14) 14. καὶὁλόγοςσὰρξἐγένετο . The repeated καὶ introducing the next three clauses should be noticed. Here we have the climax of the Johannine doctrine of Christ as the Word. That the Son of God became man is unmistakably taught by Paul (Romans 1:3, Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4, Philippians 2:7, Philippians 2:8): He was “ manifested in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). So, also, according to Hebrews 2:14, He partook of our flesh and blood. But the contribution of Jn. to this exalted Christology is that he expressly identifies Christ with the “ Word of God,” vaguely spoken of in the Wisdom literature of the Hebrews and also in the teaching of Philo and his Greek predecessors. The Logos of philosophy is, Jn. declares, the Jesus of history (cf. v. 11); and this is now stated in terms which cannot be misunderstood. That “ the Word became flesh” must have seemed a paradox to many of those who read the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel when it was first made public; but the form of the proposition is deliberate. It would have been impossible for Philo (see Introd., p. cxli). The heresy of Docetism was always present to the mind of Jn. (while it is most plainly in view in the First Epistle); the idea of Christ as a mere phantasm, without human flesh and blood, was to him destructive of the Gospel. “ Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God” (1 John 4:2). But it is the deceiver and the antichrist who “ confess not that He is come in the flesh” (2 John 1:7). The lofty teaching of the Prologue identifies Jesus with the Word, and the explicit declaration that the Word became flesh was necessary to exclude Docetic teaching.1 A characteristic feature of the Fourth Gospel is its frequent insistence on the true humanity of Jesus. He is represented as tired and thirsty (4:6, 7; cf. 19:28). His emotion of spirit is expressed in His voice (see on 11:33). He wept (11:35). His spirit was troubled in the anticipation of His Passion (12:27, 13:21). And the emphasis laid by Jn. on His “ flesh” and “ blood” (6:53), as well as on the “ blood and water” of the Crucifixion scene, shows that Jn. writes thus of set purpose. Cf. also 20:27. At one point (8:40) Jn. attributes to Jesus the use of the word ἄνθρωπος as applied to Himself. ὁλόγοςσὰρξἐγένετο . Here σάρξ signifies man’ s nature as a whole, including his rational soul (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23). Thus the rendering here in the Old Syriac (although not in the Peshitta) of σάρξ by pagar,2 sc. “ the Word became a body” — a rendering known to Ephraim3 and Aphrahat4— is inadequate and might mislead. The Logos did not became “ a man,” but He became “ man” in the fullest sense; the Divine Person assuming human nature in its completeness. To explain the exact significance of ἐγένετο in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter. καὶἐσκήνωσενἐνἡμῖν . This sentence has generally in modern times been understood to mean “ and He pitched His tent among us,” or dwelt among us, ἡμῖν referring to those who witnessed the public ministry of Jesus, and more particularly to those who associated with Him in daily intercourse. ἐνἡμῖν , on this rendering, would be equivalent to apud nos or inter nos, a use of ἐν with the dative which may be defended by 10:19, 11:54. A σκήνη or tent is a temporary habitation, and ἐσκήνωσεν might thus indicate the sojourn on earth for a brief season of the Eternal Word. In the N.T., however, the verb does not connote temporary sojourning in any other place where it is found. Origen5 and Chrysostom6 understand the clause differently, For them, it is parallel to the preceding clause, “ the Word became flesh,” and is another statement of the Incarnation.1 The Word took humanity as His tabernacle, ὥσπερὁναὸςδόξανεἶχεθεοῦκατασκηνοῦσανἐναὐτῷ (Origen, l.c. 202). This would be in harmony with Paul’ s great phrase ναὸςθεοῦἐστέ (1 Corinthians 3:16), and gives its proper force to ἐνἡμῖν . Cf. Ecclus. 24:8 ἐνἸακὼβκατασκήνωσον , as addressed to Wisdom. In the N.T. the verb only occurs again Revelation 7:15, Revelation 12:12, Revelation 13:6 and 21:3, where it is said that in the New Jerusalem God σκηνώσειμετ ʼ αὐτῶν . So the prophets had foretold, e.g. κατασκηνώσωἐνμέσῳσου , λέγεικύριος (Zechariah 2:10); ἔσταιἡκατασκήνωσίςμουἐναὐτοῖς (Ezekiel 37:27). Cf. Leviticus 26:11, Ezekiel 43:7. Such language goes back to the thought of the σκήνη or tabernacle in the desert (Exodus 25:8, Exodus 25:9), where Yahweh dwelt with Israel. The verb σκηνοῦν would always recall this to a Jew. Philo says that the sacred σκήνη was a symbol of God’ s intention to send down to earth from heaven the perfection of His Divine virtue (Quis div. hœ r. 23). The language of this verse recalls Psalms 85:9, Psalms 85:10: His salvation is nigh them that fear Him, That glory may dwell in our land: Mercy and truth have met together, Righteousness and peace have kissed each other. The connexion of δόξα and the verb σκηνοῦν will presently be examined more closely. ἐθεασάμεθατὴνδόξαναὐτοῦ . θεᾶσθαι is never used in the N.T. of spiritual vision, while it is used 22 times of “ seeing” with the bodily eyes. Cf. 1:32, 38, 4:35, 6:5, 11:45, 1 John 4:12, 1 John 4:14 , and 1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:2 ὃἑωράκαμεντοῖςὀφθαλμοῖςἡμῶν , ὃἐθεασάμεθακτλ . Neither here nor at 1 John 1:1 is there any question of a supersensuous, mystical perception of spiritual facts, in both passages the claim being that the author has “ seen” with his eyes (the aorist points to a definite moment in the historic past) the manifested glory of the Incarnate Word. The use of the first person plural when speaking of his Christian experience is characteristic of Jn., and runs all through the First Epistle (cf. 1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:3:2, 14, 1 John 1:5:15, 19, 20) He speaks not only for himself but for his fellow-believers (cf. 3:11); and in this passage for such of these (whether living or departed) as had been eye-witnesses of the public ministry of Jesus. (Cf. also 2 Peter 1:17, and see Introd., p. lx). δόξα , δοξάζειν are favourite words with Jn. (although they are not found in the Johannine Epistles). Certain shades of meaning must be distinguished. As in Greek authors generally, δόξα often means no more than “ honour,” and δοξάζειν means “ to honour greatly” ; e.g. 5:41, 7:18, 8:50, 54, 9:24, 11:4, 12:43, 14:13, 15:8, 16:14, 17:1, 4, 10, 21:19 (See on 4:44). But Jn. uses these words sometimes with special reference to that δόξα which belongs to God alone, e.g. 17:5 recalls the glory of the Eternal Word. According to one interpretation (see above) of ἐσκήνωσενἐνἡμῖν , δόξα here (cf. 2:11, 11:40) stands for the Divine glory exhibited in the earthly life of Jesus which was perceived by those who companied with Him, and this must in any case be part of the meaning of ἐθεασάμεθατὴνδόξαναὐτοῦ . The crisis of this “ glorification” in Jn. is the Passion (7:39, 12:16, 23) consummated in the Risen Life (13:32). See especially on 13:32. We must, at this point, recall the later Jewish doctrine of the Shekinah or visible dwelling of Yahweh with His people. The word ש ׁ ְ כ ִ י נ ָ ה , “ that which dwells,” is appropriated in later Judaism to the Divine presence. When in the O.T. Yahweh is said to dwell in a place, the Targums, to avoid anthropomorphism, preferred to say that He “ caused His Shekinah to dwell.” The Shekinah was the form of His manifestation, which was glorious; but the glory is distinct from the Shekinah, which is used as equivalent to the Divine Being Himself. Thus the Targum of Isa 60:2 is: “ In thee the Shekinah of Yahweh shall dwell, and His glory shall be revealed upon thee.” Again, Leviticus 26:12, “ I will walk among you and be your God,” becomes in the Targum “ I will place the glory of my Shekinah among you, and my Memra shall be with you.” Or again, Isaiah 6:1, “ I saw the Lord,” becomes in the Targum “ I saw the glory of the Lord” (see on 12:41).1 Now by bilingual Jews the representation of Shekinah by σκήνη was natural, and when σκηνοῦν or κατασκηνοῦν is used in the later books of the LXX or the Apocalypse of the dwelling of God with men, the allusion is generally to the doctrine of the Shekinah (cf. Revelation 7:15). Accordingly, ἐσκήνωσενἐνὑμῖνκαὶἐθεασάμεθατὴνδόξαναὐτοῦ also carries a probable allusion to the glory of the Shekinah which was the manifestation on earth of God Himself.2 δόξανὡςμονογενοῦςπαρὰπατρός . The glory of the Word is described as “ a glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father.” Neither Son nor Father has yet been mentioned, and the sentence is a parenthesis explanatory of the δόξα of the Word. We may connect παρὰπατρός either (a) with μονογενοῦς or (b) with δόξαν . If (a) be adopted, then we have the parallels 6:46, 7:29, 16:27, 17:8, in all of which passages Jesus says of Himself that He is παρὰθεοῦ or the like, a phrase which means more when applied to Him thus than it means in 1:6, where John Baptist has been described as ἀπεσταλμένοςπαρὰθεοῦ , or in 9:16, 33, where the Pharisees say that Jesus was not παρὰθεοῦ . But μονογενὴςπαρά would be an unusual combination, especially in Jn., who always has ἐκθεοῦ , not παρὰθεοῦ , when he wishes to say “ begotten of God” 1 (cf. 1 John 2:29, 1 John 2:3:9, 1 John 2:4:7, 1 John 2:5:1, 1 John 2:4, 1 John 2:18). It is true, indeed, that the distinctions between παρά , ἀπό , and ἐκ were being gradually obliterated in the first century, and that we cannot always distinguish παρά from ἐκ (see on 6:46), but the point is that Jn. never uses παρά with γεννᾶσθαι . (b) If we connect δόξαν with παρὰπατρός , the meaning is “ the glory such as the only Son receives from his Father.” Cf. 5:41, 44 for δόξανπαρὰτοῦμόνουθεοῦ . “ No image but the relation of a μονογενής to a father can express the twofold character of the glory as at once derivative and on a level with its source.” 2 The manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son. Cf. 8:54 ἔστινὁπατήρμουὁδοξάζωνμε , where see note. The word μονογενής is generally used of an only child (e.g. Judges 11:34, Tob. 3:15, 6:10, 14, Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, Hebrews 11:17), the emphasis being on μονο — rather than on γενής . Thus Plato speaks of μονογενὴςοὐρανός (Tim. 31); and Clement of Rome (§ 25) describes the legendary bird, the phæ nix, as μονογενές , sc. it is the only one of its kind, unique (cf. the LXX of Psa 25:16). Some of the O.L. texts (a e q) render μονογενής here by unicus, which is the original meaning, rather than by unigenitus, which became the accepted Latin rendering so soon as controversies arose about the Person and Nature of Christ. An only child is specially dear to its parents; and μονογενής is used to translate י ָ ת ִ י ד in Psalms 22:20,3 35:17, where we should expect ἀγαπητός . Conversely ἀγαπητός is used for an only son, Genesis 22:2; cf. Amos 8:10.Amos 8:1 And in every place where Jn. has μονογενής (except perhaps in this verse), viz. 1:18, 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9, we might substitute, as Kattenbusch has pointed out, ἀγαπητός for it, without affecting the sense materially.2 At this point, however, the meaning is clear. The glory of the Incarnate Word was such glory as the only Son of the Eternal Father would derive from Him and so could exhibit to the faithful. πλήρηςχάριτοςκαὶἀληθείας . If καὶἐθεασάμεθα … πατρός is parenthetical, as we take it to be, then πλήρης is in apposition to λόγος at the beginning of the verse, and the construction is regular and simple. If the adj. πλήρης were always treated as declinable (as it is, e.g., Mark 8:19, Matthew 14:20, Matthew 15:37, Acts 6:3), this would be the only possible construction of the passage. πλήρης , however, is often treated as indeclinable by scribes, in the N.T., the LXX, and the papyri;3 and it is possible, therefore, to take it in the present passage (the only place where it occurs in Jn.) as in apposition either to δόξαν or to αὐτοῦ or μονογενοῦς in the previous line. For πλήρης here D reads πλήρη , which apparently was meant by the scribe to be taken with δόξαν . Turner has shown4 that Irenæ us, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and later Greek Fathers did not connect πλήρης with ὁλόγος , but (generally) with δόξαν . And the Curetonian Syriac (Syr. sin. is deficient at this point) will not permit πλήρης to be taken with λόγος .5 On the contrary, Origen seems to favour the connexion of πλήρης with λόγος or μονογενής .6 The O.L. (followed by vulg.) has plenum in apposition with uerbum; and internal evidence seems to favour this construction, despite the authority of most Greek Fathers. For to speak of the glory of Christ as being “ full of grace and truth” is not as intelligible as to speak of Christ Himself being πλήρηςχάριτοςκαὶἀληθείας ; cf. Acts 6:8, Στέφανοςπλήρηςχάριτοςκαὶδυνάμεως , and for this constr. of πλήρης as descriptive of a man’ s quality, see Acts 6:3, Acts 6:5, Acts 6:7:55, Acts 6:11:24. Further, in v. 16 the πλήρωμα from which Christians receive grace is that of Christ Himself, which shows that πλήρης here refers to Him. The problem is one of grammar rather than of exegesis, for on any rendering grace and truth are specified as characteristic attributes of the Incarnate Word, or of His manifestation of Himself in the world. These two words χάρις and ἀλήθεια must now be examined. The characteristically Christian word χάρις does not appear in Jn. except at 1:14, 16, 17, in the Prologue. It is never placed in the mouth of Jesus by any evangelist (except in the sense of thanks, Luke 6:32, Luke 6:34, Luke 6:17:9), and is not used at all by Mk. or Mt. In Lk. it is applied occasionally to the special favour of God to individuals (1:30, 2:40, 52), as it is several times in the LXX (e.g. Genesis 6:8). But its Christian use as grace is derived from Paul,1 who habitually employs it to designate the condescending love of God in redemption, as contrasted with the legalism of the Mosaic economy (Romans 5:21, Romans 6:14 and passim); and the influence of Paul’ s terminology appears in Acts , Hebrews 10:29, 1 Peter 1:13, etc. So we have χάρις in the specially Christian sense in Barnabas, § 5, and Ignatius (Magn. 8), and thenceforth in all Christian writers. But Jn. never uses χάρις except here and vv. 16, 17, and this is an indication of the faithfulness with which the primitive Christian phraseology is preserved in the Fourth Gospel. He does not even speak of the grace of God, when he writes ἠγάπησενὁθεὸςτὸνκόσμον (3:16), although what Paul meant by χάρις is behind his thought. On the other hand, ἀλήθεια is one of the keywords of the Fourth Gospel. The question of Pilate, “ What is truth?” (18:38) has received its answer. It was the purpose of Christ’ s mission that He should “ bear witness to the truth” (18:37; cf. 5:33). The Word of the Father which He came to proclaim is truth (17:8). He emphasises the truth of His pronouncements to His disciples (16:7) and to the multitude (8:45). He is “ a man that hath told you the truth” (8:40). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ The First Sign: The Marriage at Cana (2:1-12) 2:1. Cana of Galilee, to which the narrative now brings us, is named twice again in Jn. (4:46, 21:2), but nowhere else in the N.T. It is mentioned by Josephus (Vita, § 16) κώμητῆςΓαλιλαίαςἣπροσαγορεύεταιΚανά , and is not to be confounded with another Cana in Cœ lo-Syria. Its exact situation is not certain. The traditional site is Kefr Kenna, 3 1/2 miles N.E. of Nazareth; but ˓ Ain Kâ nâ , a little nearer Nazareth, and Khirbet Kâ nâ , 8 miles N. of Nazareth, have also been suggested. τῇἡμέρᾳτῇτρίτῃ . So א ALΔ W, but BΘ and fam. 13 have τῇτρίτῃἡμέρᾳ . Jesus reached Cana on the third day after the call of Philip and Nathanael (1:43), when a start was made from the neighbourhood of Bethabara for Galilee. This is a journey that would occupy two days (1:28), and no incident is recorded of the last day of travel. It has been pointed out (on 1:19) that we have in the first section of the Gospel (1:19 to 2:11) a record of six or (more probably) of seven eventful days at the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus. Which of these days was the Sabbath? Most probably it was the day of the call of Andrew and John, who “ abode with Him that day” (1:39). There was no travelling, such as there was on the days of the journey from Bethany to Cana. If this be so, we reach an interesting coincidence, for then the day of the Marriage at Cana would be the fourth day of the week; and a Talmudical direction ordained that the marriage of a virgin should be on the fourth day,1 or our Wednesday. Marriage feasts in Palestine were, and are, generally held in the afternoon or evening. ἡμήτηρτοῦἸη . Jn. never gives her name (cf. 2:12, 6:42, 19:25), just as he does not mention the name of John the son of Zebedee or that of James his brother. Mary, who had apparently some special interest in the wedding (2:3, 5), had come over to Cana from the neighbouring village, Nazareth, or from Capernaum (see 2:12). Perhaps it was the wedding of a relative, which would account for Jesus being invited to attend. Joseph is not mentioned, and it is probable that he was dead at this time. In a Sahidic apocryphal fragment edited by Forbes Robinson,1 Mary is said to be the sister of the bridegroom’ s parents. The fragment (which seems to be part of a ermon on the Marriage at Cana) adds that the parents told Mary that the wine was failing, and asked her to use her influence with Jesus, who replied to her “ in a kindly voice, Woman, what wilt thou with me?” (see on v. 4 below). According to this account, the waterpots were prepared that the guests might wash before the meal (see on v. 6). The Monarchian Preface to the Gospel (see Introd., p. lvii) begins: “ Hic est Iohannes euangelista unus ex discipulis dei, qui uirgo electus a deo est, quem de nuptiis uolentem nubere uocauit deus, etc.” This legend that the bridegroom was John the son of Zebedee (whose mother Salome was sister of Mary) had much currency in later times. That Jesus had dissuaded John from marriage is told in the second-century Gnostic Acts of John (§ 113). 2. μαθηταί . In all the Gospels the followers of Jesus are so described, the title sometimes indicating members of the apostolic Twelve or all of them, sometimes being used in a wider sense. Thus in Mark 2:15, Mark 3:7, Matthew 8:21, Luke 6:13, John 6:60, John 6:61, John 6:66, John 6:20:30, μαθηταί is not restricted to the Twelve. At first the followers of Jesus were called of οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ , thus distinguishing them from the disciples of other Rabbis (cf. on 1:35); but as time went on they began to be described absolutely as of οἰμαθηταί , “ the disciples” being a Christian phrase which no one would mistake. The earlier description is found in Mk., as is natural, much oftener than the later, and the same habit of phrase is found in Joh_2 Thus of οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ stands for the general body of the apostles in 6:3, 8, 12, 16, 22, 24, 12:4, 16, 13:23, 16:17, 29, 18:1, 19, 25, 20:26, and perhaps 21:2. The phrase is used in a wider sense at 2:17, 22, 4:2, 6:60, 61, 66, and perhaps 3:22. At 4:8, 27, 9:2 it is not clear which or how many of οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ were present, and the same is true of the present verse. The later phrase, οἱμαθηταὶ , used absolutely, is only applied once in Jn. to the collected Twelve (13:5, followed consequentiallyby 13:22). It often stands for the disciples already mentioned, e.g. 20:10 (two), 21:4, 12 (seven), 20:19, 20 (ten). At 4:31, 33 and 11:7, 8, 12, 54 (and perhaps 20:18), in like manner, οἱμαθηταί indicates only the disciples present on the occasion, whose number is not specified. οἱμαθηταί is used in the widest sense at 20:30, as including all the eye-witnesses of Jesus’ works. It is plain from a comparison of these passages that not only does Jn. follow the earlier rather than the later phrase when speaking of the Twelve, but that μαθηταί is often used by him when the Twelve are not in the picture. Jn. tells nothing of the selection of the Twelve, although he has οἱδώδεκα as a distinctive description of them (6:67, 70, 71, 20:24; cf. 6:13). He never gives the title ἀπόστολοι to the Twelve, the word ἀπόστολος only occurring 13:16 in its general sense of “ one that is sent” ; cf. 20:21. There is nothing to indicate that of οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ in this verse is meant to include all the new disciples, five in number, that have been named in the preceding chapter. Jesus asked Philip (1:43) to accompany Him to Galilee, and Nathanael was himself of Cana. These two may be assumed to have been present. Perhaps, also, John the son of Zebedee, whom we have identified with the unnamed disciple of 1:37, was there; for there are hints that the narrative goes back to an eye-witness (see on v. 6). But there is nothing to suggest that the brothers Andrew and Peter were present. And the absence of any mention of this incident in Mk., which is based on Peter’ s reminiscences, would be natural if Peter was not a witness of it. In any case, as Jesus had not yet declared Himself for what He was, and as the “ disciples” had been attracted only during the previous week, it is not likely that they were invited to the wedding in their capacity as His disciples. They were probably present as friends of the bride and bridegroom. Nothing in the narrative supports the suggestion of some commentators that they were unexpected guests, and that the failure of the wine was due to this sudden addition to the wedding party. ἐκλήθη is perhaps to be rendered “ there had been bidden,” as if it were a pluperfect. 3. For ὑστερήσαντοςοἵνου א aABLWΔΘ is found in א a b ff2 a Western paraphrase, οἶνονοὐκεἶχον , ὅτισυνετελέσθηὁοἶνοςτοῦγάμου , εἶτα … For οἶνονοὐκἕχουσιν at the end of the verse, א has accordingly substituted οἶνοςοὐκἕστιν . Wine was always provided on occasions of rejoicing (cf. Genesis 14:18); and there was a Jewish saying, “ Without wine there is no joy” (Pesachim, 109a). That there should not be enough for the guests would be deemed unfortunate; and Mary, who is represented as having some kind of authority in the house, or at any rate as sufficiently intimate to give orders to the servants (v. 5), calls the attention of Jesus to the deficiency. That she should tell Him of this, rather than the host or the “ governor of the feast,” suggests at least that she had unbounded trust in His resourcefulness. But probably something more is meant. Jesus had now for the first time gathered disciples round Him, and Mary may well have thought that the time had come for Him to show Himself for what she knew Him to be. γέγει … πρὸςαὐτόν . The more usual constr. λέγειαὐτῇ occurs in the next line. The constr. πρόςτινα after λέγειν is not found in Mk., Mt., the Apocalypse, or the Johannine Epistles, but it is often found in Jn. (3:4, 4:15, 48, 49, 6:5, 7:50, 8:31) as well as in Lk. 4. τίἐμοὶκαὶσοί ; is a phrase, translated from the Hebrew, occurring several times in the Greek Bible, and always suggestive of diversity of opinion or interest. Thus in Judges 11:12 Jephthah says τίἐμοὶκαὶσοί ; in hostile challenge to the King of the Ammonites. David (2 Samuel 16:10) says τίἐμοὶκαὶὑμῖν ; to the sons of Zeruiah, meaning that he does not agree with their advice. The Woman of Sarepta (1 Kings 17:18) reproaches Elijah with the same phrase. Elisha uses it in declining to help King Jehoram (2 Kings 3:13). Neco, King of Egypt, says to Josiah, τίἐμοὶκαὶσοι ; meaning, “ Why should we fight? I am not marching against you” (2 Chronicles 35:21). And in Mark 5:7 the man with the unclean spirit says the same thing to Jesus, “ Why do you concern yourself with me? Let me alone” (cf. Mark 1:24, Matthew 8:29). The phrase does not always imply reproach, but it suggests it. Here it seems to be a gentle suggestion of misunderstanding: “ I shall see to that; it will be better that you should leave it to me.” This is the view of Irenaeus: “ Dominus repellens eius intempestivam festinationem, dixit, etc.” (Hæ r. iii. 17. 7). γύναι , as a vocative, does not convey any idea of rebuke or reproach, as is clear from the tender γύναι , ἴδεὁυἱόςσου of 19:26. It was thus that Augustus addressed Cleopatra (Dio, Leviticus 12:5) and Ulysses addressed Penelope (Odyssey, 19. 555). But, nevertheless, that Jesus should call His mother γύναι , and not μήτερ , as would be natural, indicates that the time is past for the exercise of any maternal authority on her part. οὔπωἥκειἡὥραμου means primarily, in this context, that the moment had not come for Jesus to intervene; that He was conscious of the failure of the wine, and did not need to be reminded of it. At the proper moment, He would act, if necessary. The evangelist, however, means something more by the record of this saying of Jesus. He places similar words in His mouth more than once. ὁκαιρὸςὁἐμὸςοὔπωπάρεστιν (7:6, 8) means that the time had not come for the public manifestation of Himself as Messiah. At 12:23 Jesus says that the hour of His Death has come: ἐλήλυθευἡὥραἵναδοξασθῇὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου (cf. 12:27); and, again, Πάτερ , ἐλήλυθενἡὥρα (17:1; cf. 13:1). Jn. in his own person speaks similarly of the appointed hour of the manifestation and death of Jesus, e.g. οὔπωἐληλύθειἡὥρααὐτοῦ (7:30; cf. 8:20). Twice in Mt.’ s account of the Passion, similar phrases are used, viz. ὁκαιρόςμουἐγγύςἐστι (Matthew 26:18) and ἤγγικενἡὥρα (Matthew 26:45, Mark 14:41); and Jesus frequently in the Synoptic narrative predicts death as the conclusion of His public ministry. But the Fourth Gospel is written from beginning to end sub specie æ ternitatis; the predestined end is foreseen from the beginning. (See on 3:14 for Jn.’ s use of δεῖ .) It is as inevitable as is the hour of a woman’ s travail (16:21). Bearing this in mind, it is probable that Jn. meant his readers to understand by the words “ Mine hour is not yet come” spoken at the Marriage Feast at Cana, that the moment had not yet come for the public manifestation by Jesus of Himself as Messiah, the first sign of this Epiphany being the miracle of the water turned into wine. 5. Mary did not take amiss the words of Jesus. She has been assured that He is aware of all the facts, and that is enough for her. So she bids the servants to execute promptly any order that He gives, for she feels certain that He will intervene, when the time has come. She is represented in the story as expectant of some “ sign” that will show Jesus for what He is. ποιήσατε . In Jn., the aorist imperative often occurs, as “ more authoritative than the pres. imper., which may denote continuous action.” 1 Cf. vv. 7, 8 γεμίσατε … ἀντλήσατε , and also 2:16, 19, 4:16, 35, 6:10, 7:24, 9:7, 11:39, 12:27, 13:27, 15:9, 21:10. 6. ἦσανδὲἐκεῖκτλ . Jn. often uses δέ to introduce a new point: “ Now there were six waterpots, etc.” Cf. 6:10, 18:40. χωροῦσαιἀνὰμετρητάςκτλ ., “ containing two or three firkins apiece.” ἀνά does not occur again in Jn.; cf. Revelation 4:8. For this classical use of χωρεῖν (see on 8:37) cf. 2 Chronicles 4:5 χωροῦσανμετρητὰςτρισχιλίους . ὑδρίαι . It was customary to have large water-jars of stone in or near the room where a feast was being held, in order that water might be available for the ceremonial washing of hands prescribed before and after meals. The water was carried from the jars in pitchers or basins, and was poured over the fingers, so that it ran down to the wrist (cf. Mark 7:3); and it was a special duty of one’ s servant to see to this (cf. 2 Kings 3:11, where Elisha is described as he “ who poured water on the hands of Elijah,” i.e. as his servant). A “ firkin” or bath (μετρητής ; cf. 2 Chronicles 4:5) was about 81/2 gallons, so that the huge water-pots of the narrative (quite distinct from wine vessels) contained about 20 gallons each. A smaller sized ὑδρία was used for carrying water from a well (cf. 4:28). κατὰτὸνκαθαρισμὸντῶνἸουδαίων (cf. 3:25). The Fourth Gospel was written for Greek, not for Jewish, readers; and so, as at many other points, an explanatory note of this kind is added (cf. v. 13). The Jewish customs as to ceremonial washings were common to Galilee, as to the rest of Palestine; and no special emphasis should be laid here on the term “ Jews” as distinguished from Galilæ ans. See above on 1:19, and cf. 2:13, 6:41. 7. εὥςἄνω , “ up to the brim” . This is mentioned to show that no room was left for adding anything to the water in the jars. 8. ἀντλήσατενῦνκτλ . “ Draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast.” The ἀρχιτρίκλινος is called the ἡγούμενος in Ecclus. 32:1. It was customary for one of the principal guests to preside as arbiter bibendi (Horace, Od. ii. 7) or συμποσίαρχος , and it is this person who is indicated here by ἀρχιτρίκλινος , a word which elsewhere means a butler who arranged the triclinium, or three couches, each for three, at the table. ἀντλήσατενῦν has been generally taken to mean that the servants were bidden to draw water from the great jars and convey it in pitchers to the ruler of the feast. Westcott argues that ἀντλήσατενῦν means rather “ draw out now from the well,” whence water had previously been taker to fill the jars “ up to the brim” ; and that no miracle was wrought upon the water in the jars, but only upon water freshly drawn from the well in response to the command of Jesus. It is true that ἀντλεῖν is naturally used of drawing water from a well (cf. 4:7 and Genesis 24:20, Exodus 2:19, Isaiah 12:3). But the difficulties of this interpretation are considerable: (1) If Westcott’ s view be taken, the act (v. 7) of filling the large jars with water was quite otiose and has nothing to do with the story. There was no reason to mention the waterpots at all, if the miracle consisted in the conversion to wine of water freshly drawn from the well in pitchers1 and brought direct to the ἀρχιτρίκλινος . (2) ἀντλεῖν can quite properly be used of drawing or pouring a liquid from a large vessel into a smaller one; and in its compounds ἐξαντλεῖν , καταντλεῖν , it means “ to pour out,” “ to pour over.” The drawing from the large hydriæ in the story would have been done by ladles .2 (3) That ἀντλεῖν could be used of drawing wine appears from a passage in the comic poet Pherecrates (see D.C.G. ii. 815); and that a hydria was sometimes used to hold wine can be shown from Pollux, Onomasticon, x. § 74, … ἔφηὙδρίανδανείζεινπεντέχουνἢμείζονα , ὥστ ʼ οὐμόνονὕδατοςἀλλὰκαὶοἴνουἂνεἴηἀγγεῖονἡὑδρία . This last quotation shows that the ἀρχιτρίκλινος would have had no reason for being surprised at wine being brought from the waterpots. Jn. clearly means his readers to believe that what was served to the ruler of the feast was drawn from the water— jars; and that it was then served as a beverage. Had it been brought by the attendants for the purpose of pouring it on the hands of the ἀρχιτρίκλινος , it would have been brought in a different kind of vessel, and he would not have proceeded to taste it. We must further notice that Jn. does not say that either the ruler of the feast, or the wedding guests generally, found anything miraculous in the wine that was served at the end. It was the disciples only who are said to have “ believed” in Jesus, in consequence of this “ sign.” See Introd., p. clxxxii. 9. ὡςδὲἐγεύσατοὁἀρχιτρ . κτλ ., the aorist being used like a pluperfect: “ when the ruler of the feast had tasted, etc.” Cf. 7:10. τὸὕδωροἶνονγεγενημένον . The words have been generally understood to imply that all the water in the six waterpots, amounting to about 120 gallons (see on v. 6), had been turned into wine. Jn. may have meant this; but if so, the new supply would have been a large over-provision for the needs of the guests at the end of the feast, when they had already consumed what had been provided by the host. In the story of Bel and the Dragon, six firkins, or 50 gallons of wine, offered daily to the idol are regarded as sufficient for 70 priests with their wives and families. A hundred and twenty gallons would be so unnecessarily large a supply that the residue of the twelve baskets left after the Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:13) does not furnish any analogy. Here there would have been a prodigality, not indeed inconceivable in the case of One whom the narrator describes as the Agent of creation (1:3), but without parallel in the record of the other “ signs” of Christ. The difficulty arising from the quantity of wine that would have been left over perhaps affects modern readers more than it would have affected contemporaries. Wine might be abused, and drunkenness was always blameworthy; but the idea that it is wrong to use wine in moderation, like any other gift of God, would have been foreign to primitive Christianity or to Judaism.1 The modern notion that “ wine” in the N.T. means unfermented, non-intoxicating wine is without foundation.2 Indeed, it was just because Jesus did not condemn the use of wine that He was reproached as a “ winebibber” (Matthew 11:9, Luke 7:34 by those who wished to disparage Him. Unlike John the Baptist, Jesus was not an ascetic. It must, however, be observed that Jn. does not say explicitly that the entire contents of the water-jars were turned into wine. “ The water which had become wine” was that which was served to the ruler of the feast, and Jn. says nothing of any other. Nor is it clear that he means us to understand that the servants had noticed any change in the beverage which they served. They knew that they had taken it from the waterpots (or from one of them); that is all. To change one pitcher of water into wine is no less “ super-natural” than to change 120 gallons; and we do not escape difficulty by refusing to exaggerate the story as it stands. Jn. certainly implies that some objective change took place in the water served for drinking purposes (cf. 4:46). To reduce the powers of Christ to human standards was no part of his design. It has been thought, indeed, by some that a suggestion made by Jesus that the water had become wine may have wrought so powerfully on the minds of those present that they were convinced that it was even so. The belief of the ἀρχιτρίκλινος that he had been drinking wine, when he had only been drinking water, may have been an illusion due to the magnetic and compelling force of the words of Jesus. But we cannot tell precisely what happened, and must be content here with the endeavour to discover what Jn. meant his readers to believe. The indirect manner in which the statement of the miracle is made should be observed. “ When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that had become wine.” The story is not told for the first time. It is recorded as if the facts were well known. The ἀρχιτρίκλινος on tasting the beverage served to him, not knowing anything of its source, says, “ It is very good, even better than that which was served first.” It is this observation of the ruler of the feast that is emphasised by the narrator, rather than the extraordinary character of the “ sign” which he records. Another feature of this story is that it does not lead up to any great saying of Jesus or to any discourse like that which Jn. appends to the Feeding of the Five Thousand. Nor does the evangelist draw any moral from it. He notes it as the first of the “ signs” of Jesus by which He exhibited His glory (v. 11), but he says no more. In short, the way in which the story is told goes far to support the view that it is a genuine reminiscence, or tradition, of an actual occurrence, although it is impossible now to discern exactly what took place. See Additional Note p. 81, and cf. Introd., p. clxxxii. 10. τὸνἐλάσσω . The rec. text, with א cANΓΔΘ , prefixes τότε , but om. א *BLTbW. The ἀρχιτρίκλινος speaks of a common practice at feasts as he knew them; viz. that when men’ s palates had become dull by drinking— cum inebriati fuerint (vg.), “ when men be dronke,” as Tyndale and Cranmer translate— inferior wine was served. Schlatter quotes a Rabbinical tradition as to the wine drunk on the occasion of a boy’ s circumcision: the father says to the guests as he offers it, “ Drink from this good wine; from this I will give you to drink also at his wedding.” In the present case, the surprise of the ruler of the feast was due, not to good wine being served, but to its being served last. It was kept ἕωςἄρτι (cf. 5:17, 16:24 and 1 John 2:9 for this phrase). For the adj. καλός , see further on 10:11. καλός is used of wine, as here, in a fourth-century papyrus quoted by Moulton-Milligan, s.v. τὸνκαλὸνοἶνοντίθησιν . This suggests that the wine was placed on the table, as is our modern custom. 11. ταύτηνἐποίησενἀρχὴντῶνσημείων . We have now passed from the “ witness” of the Baptist to the “ witness” of the works of Jesus (see on 1:7). The Miracle of Cana was the first of the “ signs” which Jesus wrought during His earthly ministry. By them, according to Jn., “ He made manifest His glory” (see on 1:14). They were not merely wonders or prodigies , but “ signs” by which men might learn that He was the Christ (20:31) and “ believe on Him.” (For the phrase πιστεύεινεἱςαὐτόν , see on 1:12.) The highest faith is that which can believe without a sign (20:29), but signs have a useful function as bearing their witness to the glory of Jesus. This aspect of His signs is asserted by Jesus Himself (5:36). When the tidings reached the disciples that Lazarus was dead, He said that it was well, for the miracle of his recovery would be all the greater (11:15). He rebuked the multitudes, because they followed Him for what they might get, and not because of His signs (6:26). Cf. 10:38, 14:11. And the same aspect of miracles appears in the Synoptists (Mark 2:10, Matthew 11:20, etc.).1 See on 4:48 and 10:25. The “ disciples” who are here said to have “ believed on Him” as a consequence of what they saw at Cana, or rather whose new faith was thus confirmed, were, as yet, few in number, Philip and Nathanael and John being among them (see on v. 2). Additional Note on the Miracle at Cana Some exegetes have supposed that this incident foreshadowed (or was intended by the evangelist to indicate) the replacement of the inferior dispensation by the superior, the Law by the Gospel. Such a view of Jn.’ s literary method has been discussed in the Introduction (p. lxxxv); but it may be pointed out that the arguments assembled to prove that this particular narrative is an invention of the evangelist, designed to teach spiritual truth in an allegorical way, seem peculiarly weak. (1) Six, it is said, is a significant number— the perfect number— and so there are 6 waterpots. But there is no number from 1 to 10 which could not be given a mystical interpretation; and the idea that 6 represents the 6 days of creation, which is the best that Origen1 can do with the waterpots, is not very convincing. Origen also suggests that the “ two or three firkins” in each waterpot of purification intimate that the Jews are purified by the word of Scripture, receiving sometimes “ two firkins,” i.e. the psychical and spiritual sense of the Bible, and sometimes “ three firkins,” i.e. the psychical, spiritual, and corporeal senses. That is, he thinks that on occasion the literal or corporeal sense is not edifying, although it generally is (see Introd., p. lxxxv). But Origen does not say that he abandons the literal or historical sense of Joh 2:1-11, and it is probable that he did not mean this, while he found allegorical meanings in some details of the story.2 In the same way, Gregory of Nyssa is not to be taken as questioning the historicity of the narrative when he says that “ the Jewish waterpots which were filled with the water of heresy, He filled with genuine wine, changing its nature by the power of His faith.” 3 That an incident can be treated by a commentator in an allegorical manner does not prove that he regards it as unhistorical, and still less that the narrator had invented it to serve a spiritual purpose. For example, there must be few preachers who have not drawn out lessons of a spiritual sort from the incident of the wine that was served at the end of the wedding feast being the best. It is a law of nature, and therefore a law of God, that the best comes last, being that for which all that goes before has prepared. So it is, to take the illustration suggested by the story, in a happy marriage. The best wine of life comes last. The fruits of autumn are richer than the flowers of spring. So perhaps it will be in the next life: “ … the best is yet to be, The last of life for which the first was made.” Such reflexions are legitimate. But there is nothing to show that they were in the mind of the evangelist, or that the story of the Marriage at Cana was invented to teach them. (2) A modern attempt to explain the story of the Sign at Cana as merely a parable of edification is that of E. A. Abbott.4 He finds the germ of the story in the account of Melchizedek given by Philo, as bringing forth “ wine instead of water” (Leg. Alleg. iii. 26); and he explains that “ the six waterpots represent the inferior dispensation of the weekdays, i.e. the Law, preparing the way for the perfect dispensation of the Sabbath, i.e. the Gospel, of which the wedding feast at Cana is a type.” He adds a Philonic quotation about the number 6 “ being composed of 2 × 3, having the odd as male and the even as female, whence originate those things which are according to the fixed laws of nature. … What the number 6 generated, that the number 7 exhibited in full perfection” (de septen. 6). Moffatt1 favours yet a third Philonic explanation of the number 6, suggesting that the six ὑδρίαι correspond to Philo’ s principle that six is the “ most productive” of numbers (decal. 30). These are desperate expedients of exegesis, and if Jn. really had any such notions in his mind when he said there were six waterpots prepared for the use of the wedding guests, he wrote more obscurely than is his wont. The truth is that mention of this unusually large number of ὑδρίαι is more reasonably to be referred to the observation of an eye-witness, who happened to remember the circumstance, than to elaborate symbolism of the narrative. (3) The case for treatment of the whole story as due to a misunderstanding of some figurative saying can be put more plausibly. Wendt2 puts it thus: “ It is quite possible that an utterance which the apostle originally made in a figurative sense— Jesus turned the water of legal purification into the wine of marriage joy— was afterwards interpreted by the circle of Johannine disciples as recording an actual conversion of such water of purification into wine for a marriage.” This is not to say that Jn. did not mean to narrate the incident as historical; it is to say, on the contrary, that he was mistaken in doing so, and that the story, in all its intimate detail, has been built up from vague hearsay. Quite different is such a theory from that which would regard the narrative as invented in order to teach that the wine of the Gospel, which Jesus provides, is better than the unsatisfying water of the Law; but it has its own difficulties. See Introd., p. clxxxii. Interlude at Capernaum (V. 12) 12. μετὰτοῦτο . This phrase does not occur in the Synoptists, but appears 4 times in Jn. (cf. 11:17, 11, 19:28), and always connotes strict chronological sequence, as distinct from the vaguer μετὰταῦτα (see Introd., p. cviii). μετὰταῦτα is read here in the fourth century Pap. Oxy. 847 and also in M 124* with b f ff2 q. κατέβηεἰςΚαφαρναούμ (this is the best attested spelling). Jesus “ went down” to Capernaum, Cana being on higher ground: Jn. uses the same phrase again (4:47) for the journey from Cana to Capernaum. The distance by road is about 20 miles. To assume that the party walked by way of Nazareth (which is in a different direction), and that this journey to Capernaum is to be identified with that mentioned Matthew 4:13, lacks evidence. Capernaum is to be located at Tell Hum (more properly, Telhum); or, less probably, at Khan Minyeh.1 These places are about 3 miles apart, both on the N. shore of the Sea of Galilee. Nothing is told about this short visit to Capernaum, so that mention of it has no allegorical significance. V. 12 is merely an historical note. It will be noticed that the mother and “ brethren” of Jesus were with Him now, on the return of the wedding guests from Cana; but thenceforth they do not travel about with Him. His public mission has begun. They stayed at Capernaum “ not many days” , the note of time being characteristic (see Introd., p. cii) of the Fourth Gospel. After ἀδελφοί , BLTbW, with Pap. Oxy. 847, omit αὐτοῦ , but ins. א ANΓΔΘ , and most vss. א a b e ff2 l q, with some cursives and the Coptic Q, Omit καὶοἰμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ . Additional Note on the Brethren of Jesus The mother and “ brethren” of Jesus accompanied Him on this journey. The “ brethren” are always (except in John 7:3f.) mentioned in the Gospels in connexion with Mary (cf. Mark 3:31, Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19 and Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55); and it is not unlikely that she shared their home until (see 19:27) she was entrusted to the care of her nephew, John the son of Zebedee. The evangelists consistently represent them as incredulous of the claims of Jesus (see reff. above), and as regarding Him as out of His mind (Mark 3:21, for “ His friends” here are apparently to be identified with “ His mother and His brethren” in v. 31). Their names were James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude (some of the commonest names in Palestine), and they had sisters (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3). James, “ the Lord’ s brother,” became a believer after the Resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:14); St. Paul reports that the Risen Lord appeared to him (1 Corinthians 15:7); and he was the first bishop of Jerusalem (see Acts 12:17, Acts 15:13). Grandsons of Jude (who probably also confessed Christ afterwards, Acts 1:14) were leaders of the Church in the time of Domitian (Eus. H.E. iii. 19, 20, 32). The ancient problem as to the “ brethren of the Lord” cannot be fully discussed here. (1) The theory known as the Hieronymian, because it was started by Jerome, is that they were the sons of Alphæ us, who is identified with Clopas, and Mary, who is regarded as the Virgin’ s sister (but see on 19:25 as to both these equations). Thus they were maternal cousins of Jesus, and were loosely called His “ brethren.” This would involve the identification of “ James the Lord’ s brother” with James the son of Alphæ us, who was one of the Twelve. But the Lord’ s brethren remained incredulous throughout His public ministry, and could not therefore have been numbered among the Twelve (see on 7:5). That James the Lord’ s brother is called an “ apostle” at Galatians 1:19 is nothing to the point, for the circle of “ apostles” was much larger than the circle of the Twelve. Further, despite the vague use of ἀδελφός in a few passages in the LXX, where a cousin is addressed or indicated (cf. 2 Samuel 20:9, 1 Chronicles 23:21, 1 Chronicles 23:22, Tobit 7:2, 4), we cannot equate ἀδελφός and ἀνεψιός or give any reason for the evangelists’ use of the word “ brethren” when “ cousins” would have been more literally exact. (2) The Helvidian theory, against which Jerome’ s polemic was addressed, is that these “ brethren” were sons of Joseph and Mary, born later than Jesus, and appeal is made by its advocates to the phrasing of Mat 1:25 as indicating that Mary did not remain a virgin. But it is difficult to understand how the doctrine of the Virginity of Mary could have grown up early in the second century if her four acknowledged sons were prominent Christians, and one of them bishop of Jerusalem. (3) The most probable, as it is the most ancient, view is that expounded by Epiphanius, viz. that the “ brethren of the Lord” were sons of Joseph by a former wife. Thus they were really the stepsons of Mary, and might naturally be called the “ brothers” of Jesus; the fact, too, that Mary shared their home would be accounted for. Hegesippus (fl.150; cf. Eus. H.E. iii. II, iv. 22) stated that Clopas (John 19:25) was a brother of Joseph, a view which Epiphanius adopted. It thus appears that we have to distinguish three groups of persons bearing the same names, viz.: i. James the son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphæ us; Simon Peter, Simon Zelotes; Judas the son of another James, also called Thaddæ us, and Judas Iscariot, were all of the Twelve (Matthew 10:2f., Mark 3:16f., Luke 6:14f.). ii. James called the just, the first bishop of Jerusalem, Simon, Judas, and Joseph, the Lord’ s brethren, were sons of Joseph by his first wife (Mk. Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55). iii. James the Little , of whom we know nothing more, and Joses were sons of Clopas and another Mary (Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:56; see on John 19:25). They had another brother, Symeon, who was second bishop of Jerusalem, and was appointed to that office, according to Hegesippus, because he was the Lord’ s “ cousin” (Eus. H.E. iii. II, iv. 22). This phrase is used because Clopas was brother of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. Hence it would seem that James, Joses, and Symeon in Group 3. were first cousins of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas in Group ii.1 The Cleansing of the Temple (Vv. 13-22) 13 ff. This incident is placed in the traditional text of Jn. at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus (2:13-17), while the Synoptists place it at the end (Mark 11:15-17, Matthew 21:12, Matthew 21:13, Luke 19:45, Luke 19:46). Before examining this discrepancy, we must review the differences between the Synoptic and Johannine narratives, and also come to some conclusion as to the significance of the action of Jesus on this occasion. The Synoptic tradition is based on Mk.; Mt. and Lk. having no details that are not in Mk., and omitting some of his. It is convenient, then, to begin by comparing Jn. with Mk.; and it appears at once that Jn. (as often elsewhere2) knows Mk.’ s narrative, which he amplifies and alters in some details. Both evangelists tell of the upsetting of the tables of the moneychangers. Jn. omits, as do Mt. and Lk., a point preserved by Mk., viz. that Jesus forbade the carrying of goods or implements through the Temple courts, a practice probably due to the desire to make a short cut between the city and the Mount of Olives (Mark 11:16). Jn. alone states that sheep and oxen were being sold in the precincts , the sale of pigeons only being mentioned by Mk. Jn. adds that Jesus used a whip to drive out the beasts, while he ordered their owners to take the pigeons away, with the rebuke, “ Make not my Father’ s house a house of business.” The rebuke in Mk. is different, being made up of quotations from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11, “ My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations, but you have made it a den of thieves.” That is to say, Mk. represents Jesus as denouncing the dishonesty of the traffic which was carried on within the Temple precincts; while from Jn. it would seem as if the traffic itself, apart from its honesty or dishonesty, were condemned. The Scripture which the burning zeal of Jesus recalls to Jn. is Psalms 69:9; and he notes that the Jews asked for a sign of His authority, to which Jesus replied by saying, “ Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days” — enigmatical words which (according to Jn.) the Jews misinterpreted. None of this is in Mk., who adds, however, that the chief priests and scribes began to seek the death of Jesus, fearing Him and being alarmed at the effect of His words upon the people. What was the meaning of the action of Jesus in “ cleansing” the Temple? It does not seem to have been suggested by any special incident. According to all the accounts, it was quite spontaneous. Perhaps the best answer is that the action of Jesus was a protest against the whole sacrificial system of the Temple.1 The killing of beasts, which was a continual feature of Jewish worship, was a disgusting and useless practice. The court of slaughter must have been like a shambles, especially at Passover time. And Jesus, by His bold action, directed public attention not only to the impropriety of buying and selling cattle in the sacred precincts, with the accompanying roguery which made the Temple a den of thieves, but also to the futility of animal sacrifices. He had declared Himself against Jewish Sabbatarianism. He now attacks the Temple system. This it was which set the temple officials against Him. The cry, “ Thou that destroyest the temple,” disclosed the cause of their bitter enmity. There is, indeed, no hint that Jesus interfered directly with the work of the priests.2 He quoted a prophetic passage (Hosea 6:6) which deprecated the offering of animal victims (Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:7), but not on this occasion. Nor is He said to have prevented any animal from being led to sacrifice. What He interfered with was a market, not held in the court where the altars were, but in the outer Court of the Gentiles. Yet some such market was necessary, if animal sacrifices were to go on. It was inevitable that oxen and sheep and pigeons should be available for purchase, in or near the precincts of the Temple, by the pilgrims who came up to worship at the great feasts, and particularly at the Passover. If this practice were stopped, the whole system of sacrificial worship would disappear. It may therefore have been the purpose of Jesus, by His action of “ cleansing the Temple,” to aim a blow at the Temple system in general (cf. 4:21). But if so, it was not immediately perceived to be His purpose by His own disciples, who continued to attend the Temple worship after His Passion and Resurrection (Acts 2:46, Acts 2:3:1; cf. 6:7). Whether this be the true explanation of the drastic action of Jesus, or whether we should attach a lesser significance to it by supposing that His purpose was merely to rebuke those who profaned the Temple courts by chaffering and bargaining, it is not possible to decide with certainty. We pass on to consider whether it is more probable that the incident occurred at the beginning or at the end of His ministry. Mk. (followed by Mt. and Lk.) places it at the end; Jn. seems to place it at the beginning. Which is more likely? It is true that Mk. only tells of one visit of Jesus to Jerusalem; and so, if he mentioned the Cleansing of the Temple at all, he had to put it at the end of the ministry. Nor is the Marcan dating of events in the last week always to be accepted as accurate. As to the date of the Day of the Crucifixion, e.g., Jn. is to be preferred to Mk. (see Introd., p. cvi). So that it is not to be taken for granted that, in a matter of this sort, Mk. must be right and Jn. wrong. But if we reflect how deep must have been the indignation aroused by such an act as that recorded in John 2:15, how the vested interests of the cattle-dealers must have been affected by it, how little disposed men are to yield to opposition which will bring them financial loss, we shall find it hard to believe that Jesus was a comparatively unknown person in Jerusalem when He “ cleansed” the Temple. The one moment at which such an action could have been carried through without instant retaliation was, apparently, the moment after His triumphal entry, when even the Pharisees began to despair of diverting the crowds from following Him (12:19). On psychological grounds, the incident is hardly credible, if it is to be put at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. At that time the Temple officials would have made short work of any one who attempted to stop the business of the Temple courts by violence. Our conclusion accordingly is that there is some mistake (which cannot now be explained) in that account of the Cleansing of the Temple which places it immediately after the miracle of Cana, as the traditional text of Jn. places it.1 Some expositors have postulated two cleansings, one at the beginning, the other at the close of Jesus’ ministry; but, apart from the fact that this duplication of similar incidents is improbable, we find it difficult to suppose that this particular incident, or anything like it, could have happened at so early a stage in the ministry of Jesus as is suggested by the traditional order of the chapters in the Fourth Gospel.2 13. ἐγγὺςἦντὸπάσχατῶνἸουδαίων . ἐγγύς is used again 6:4, 7:2, 11:55 of the approach of a feast; elsewhere in the Gospel it is used of proximity in space, not time. τὸπάσχατῶνἸουδαίων . Jn. is accustomed to describe the Passover festivals which he mentions as “ of the Jews” (cf. 5:1, 6:4, 11:55), and he speaks in the same way of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2). The Synoptists never speak thus. Westcott suggested that the qualifying phrase “ of the Jews” implies the existence at the time of writing of a recognised Christian Passover, from which Jn. wishes to distinguish those which he records. But this explanation will not cover the language of 7:2, for there was no Christian Feast of Tabernacles. It is simpler to say that Jn. is writing for Greek readers, and that the qualifying clause is explanatory for them (cf. v. 6 and 19:40). Paul. was proud of being a Jew, but he speaks nevertheless of Ἰουδαϊσμός (Galatians 1:13) as something quite foreign to his present religious convictions; and so there is nothing in the addition “ of the Jews” inconsistent with the nationality of John the son of Zebedee, even if we were to suppose that he wrote these words with his own hand, at the end of a long Christian life, lived for the most part out of Palestine, during which he had dissociated himself from his Jewish past. ἀνέβηεἰςἹεροσόλυμα . ἀναβαίνειν is the verb regularly used of “ going up” to Jerusalem for the feasts (5:1, 7:8, 11:55, 12:20). In this context it does not connote the idea of ascending from lower to higher ground (as in v. 12), but of journeying to the metropolis. 14, 15. The ἱερόν , or sacred precinct, must be distinguished from the ναός , or Temple itself. Here, the ἱερόν is the Outer Court, or Court of the Gentiles, where the animals needed for sacrifice or offering were bought. To those coming from a distance, as well as to Jews of Jerusalem, it was a convenience to be able to buy on the spot the oxen or sheep or pigeons (Leviticus 5:7, Leviticus 5:15:14, 29, Leviticus 5:17:3, etc.) that were required for sacrifice or for offerings of purification. So, too, the trade of the moneychangers was a necessary one, because Roman money could not be paid into the Temple treasury. The capitation tax or “ atonement money” of half a shekel (see Exodus 30:13, Nehemiah 10:32, Matthew 17:24) had to be tendered in the orthodox coinage. κέρμα signifies a small coin, and hence we have κερματιστής , “ a moneychanger.” So too, κόλλυβος , κολλυβιστής , with like meanings (v. 15). Lightfoot quotes1 a Talmudic rule: “ It is necessary that every one should have half a shekel to pay for himself. Therefore, when he comes to the exchange to change a shekel for two half-shekels he is obliged to allow him some gain, which is called ק ו ל ב ו ן or κόλλυβος .” That is, the κόλλυβος was the discount charged by the moneychanger for exchanging a shekel into two half-shekels. For τὰκέρματα (BLTbW 33, with Pap. Oxy. 847) the rec. has τὸκέρμα with א AND&Θ , apparently treating it as a collective noun: “ He poured out the coin (pecuniam) of the moneychangers.” For ἀνέτρεψεν (BWΘ , with Pap. Oxy. 847) the rec. has ἀνέστρεψεν with א LND, א fam. 13 having κατέστρεψεν (from Mark 11:15). ἀναστρέφειν is not used in the N.T. in the sense of “ upsetting” ; for ἀνατρέπειν , cf. 2 Timothy 2:18. τράπεζα is classical for a moneychanger’ s table, and we have τὴντράπεζανἀνατρέπειν “ to upset the table” in Demosthenes (403.7). For the redundant ἐκβάλλεινἐκ , see on 6:37. σχοινιά means “ a bunch of rushes,” while σχοινίον is a “ cord” ; and some have thought that the scourge or whip used by Jesus was made from the rushes used for bedding for the cattle. It may have been so, but φραγέλλιονἐκσχοινίων is adequately translated by “ a whip of small cords.” The whip is not mentioned by the Synoptists, and the detail is suggestive of the recollections of an eye-witness. πάνταςἐξέβαλεν … τάτεπρόβατακαὶτοὺςβόας . It would seem that the whip was used on the owners of the cattle as well as on the sheep and oxen. πάταςἐξέβαλιν in the Synoptist accounts (Matthew 21:12; cf. Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45) certainly applies to the men; the Synoptists do not mention the driving out of the cattle. Jerome (in Matthew 21:15) says that the cattle-dealers did not resist Jesus: “ a certain fiery and starry light shone from His eyes and the majesty of Godhead gleamed in His face.” 1 16. The doves or pigeons could not be driven out as the cattle were; but the order to those who sold them is peremptory: ἄρατεταῦταἐντεῦθεν , “ take them hence.” For the aor. imper. ἄρατε , see on v. 5. The reason given for this action is different from that given by the Synoptists. They represent Jesus as indignant at the dishonesty of the traffic pursued in the Temple: “ Ye have made it a den of thieves.” According to Jn., Jesus seems to object to the traffic in itself, honest or dishonest, as secular business that ought not to be transacted in a sacred place: “ Make not my Father’ s house a house of merchandise” (but see above, at p. 87). The remarkable phrase “ my Father” — not “ our Father” — is not found in Mk., but it occurs 4 times in Lk., 16 times in Mt., and 27 times in Jn. We have thus the authority of Mt. and Lk., as well as that of Jn., for regarding it as a phrase which Jesus used habitually. It indicates a peculiar relationship between Him and God, the Father of all, which is not shared by the sons of men (cf. John 20:17). ὁοἶκοςτοῦΠατρόςμου is the earthly Temple. So the Lord is represented by Lk. (2:49) as saying, “ Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’ s house?” . But ἡοἰκίατοῦΠατρόςμου (14:2), “ the Dwelling Place of my Father,” in which are many mansions, is the heavenly temple, the Eternal and Changeless Home of the Eternal. The Temple is often described in the O.T. as “ the house of God,” and Jesus so described it (Mark 2:26, Matthew 12:4, Luke 6:4). It was to make an unmistakable claim for Himself to substitute for this familiar expression the words “ the house of My Father.” Here is an express assertion that He was Messiah, the Son of God, as Nathanael had already perceived Him to be (1:49). Cf. 5:17. 17. οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ , sc. who were present (see on 2:2). They saw in the action of Jesus in purifying the Temple courts an illustration of that burning zeal of which the Psalmist had sung, “ The zeal of thy house hath consumed me” (Psalms 69:9). No Psalm is so frequently quoted in the N.T. as this. The rest of v. 9, “ The reproaches of them that reproach thee are fallen upon me,” is applied by Paul to the Christ (Romans 15:3). Jn. represents Jesus as citing v. 4, “ They hated me without a cause,” as fulfilled in His own experience (15:25), and as saying, “ I thirst,” on the Cross in fulfilment of v. 21.1 It appears, then, that Psa_69 was regarded as prophetic of Messiah, and the disciples, as they watched Jesus, seem to have regarded His Cleansing of the Temple as a Messianic action (cf. Malachi 3:1-5). They foresee that the fiery energy which He displays will wear Him out at last, and they substitute for the past tense of the Psalmist, “ hath consumed me” , the future καταφάγεται , “ will consume me.” The rec. text here has , but the uncials give καταφάγεται . The true text of the LXX at Psalms 69:10 seems to be κατέφαγε (following the Hebrew), but B reads καταφάγεται . Other citations from Psa_69 are found, Acts 1:20 (v. 25), Romans 11:9, Romans 11:10 (vv. 22, 23). Cf. also Matthew 27:34, Matthew 27:48. The Synoptists always have γέγραπται for citations from the O.T.; Jn. prefers γεγραμμένονἐστίν (as here and at 6:31, 45, 10:34, 12:14; but see 8:17 and critical note there). 18. The Jews (see on 1:19, 5:10) did not view the action of Jesus as His disciples did. They wished to know by what authority He had taken upon Himself the rô le of a reformer (cf. Mark 11:28, Matthew 21:23, Luke 20:2). If He had authority, what “ sign” could He perform in proof of it? It has always been true of uneducated people that “ except they see signs and wonders, they will not believe” (4:48). And even the educated Pharisees and scribes asked Jesus for “ signs,” although, probably, they asked because they did not think that He could gratify their request (cf. Mark 8:11, Matthew 16:1). See on v. 11 for the value of the witness of such signs. Jesus gave no sign such as the crowds asked for. His words (see on v. 19) did not provide anything more than a fresh assertion of His power. This is quite consistent with the Synoptic reports of His refusal to work “ signs” for Herod (Luke 23:8) or for the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 12:39). 19. λύσατετὸνναὸντοῦτονκτλ . We must distinguish this saying of Jesus from the interpretation which the evangelist puts upon it in v. 21. That it is an authentic saying is plain from the fact that, perhaps in a distorted form, it was made a topic of accusation against Jesus at His trial before the high priest (Mark 14:58, Matthew 26:61; cf. Mark 15:29, Acts 6:14). That by the ναός which would be destroyed Jesus was understood to mean Herod’ s Temple is certain from the retort of the Jews (see on v. 20). But the precise form of words is uncertain, nor were the witnesses at the trial agreed about this. According to Mk., the witnesses falsely reported the saying in the form, “ I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands” (Mark 14:58). This is softened down by Mt., according to whom the witnesses alleged that Jesus said, “ I can destroy the temple of God and build it in three days” (Matthew 26:61). According to Jn. in the present passage, Jesus only said that if the Jews destroyed the Temple, in three days He would raise it up. It is a question whether any of these reports precisely reproduces the words of Jesus at the Cleansing of the Temple. On another occasion He is reported by the Synoptists (Mark 13:2, Matthew 24:2, Luke 21:6) to have predicted the downfall of the Temple, and this is undoubtedly authentic. But it is not probable that He should have declared that He would rebuild it or raise it up again.1 A rebuilding of the Temple would mean the restoration of the old Jewish system of ritual and sacrifice, and we know that this was not the purpose of Jesus (see above, pp. 87, 88). He told the Samaritan woman that He did not accept the principle which she attributed to Him, that Jerusalem was the special place where men ought to worship (4:20, 21). The worship of the future was to be of a spiritual sort, and not to be confined to any one centre. To the vision of the seer of the Apocalypse, there was no temple in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22). That Jesus should have said that He would rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem if it were destroyed, is not credible. The Temple was, indeed, the chief obstacle to the acceptance of His gospel by the Jews. But the Marcan version of His words, or rather the Marcan version of the witnesses’ report of His words (Mark 14:58), has no such improbability. It lays stress on the contrast between the temple made with hands and the temple made without hands (cf. Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24, Hebrews 9:11), between the temple built by Herod, which was the centre of Jewish worship, and the “ spiritual house” of Christian believers, which was to offer up “ spiritual sacrifices” (1 Peter 2:5; cf. 2 Corinthians 6:16). That Jesus foresaw the passing of the Temple, and its replacement by a less exclusive and less formal worship is certain, however we try to explain His prescience. Next, we observe that it is common to all the reports of this saying of His that He asserted that the replacement of the old by the new would be “ in three days.” Salmon suggested1 that Jesus may have had in His thoughts the words of the prophet about reconstruction after apparent destruction “ After two days will He revive us: on the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live before Him” (Hosea 6:2). The Synoptists, however, tell again and again that Jesus predicted that His Death would be followed by His Resurrection “ on the third day” (Mark 8:31, Matthew 16:21, Luke 9:22; Mark 9:31, Matthew 17:23; Mark 10:34, Matthew 20:19, Luke 18:33; cf. also Matthew 27:63). It is more natural to bring the “ three days” of Mark 14:58, Matthew 26:61, John 2:19 into connexion with these passages than to presuppose a reminiscence of Hos 6:2— a prophetic text which, it is curious to note, is never quoted of the Resurrection in the Apostolic age.2 We conclude, then, that Jesus at the Cleansing of the Temple declared (1) that the Temple, the pride and glory of Jerusalem, would be destroyed at no distant date, and that the Temple worship would pass away; (2) that He would Himself replace it by a spiritual temple; and (3) that the transition from the old order to the new would occupy no more than “ three days.” His hearers were at once indignant and incredulous, for they understood His words as a threat, and that the rebuilding of which He spoke was a literal rebuilding with stones and mortar. The Epistle of Barnabas (§ 16) states explicitly that the spiritual temple then being built up was the company of Christian believers: “ I will tell you concerning the temple how these wretched ones [i.e. the Jews] being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as if it were the house of God.” He quotes Isaiah 49:17 and Enoch lxxxix. 56 as predictive of the destruction of the Temple, and proceeds, “ Let us inquire whether there be any temple of God.” He concludes that there is, quoting words of Enoch (91:13), “ When the week is being accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously.” He goes on, “ Before we believed in God, the abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by hands” ; but the temple of the Lord is now built gloriously, for “ having received the remission of sins and having set our hope on the Name, we became new, being created again from the beginning, wherefore God truly dwelleth in our habitation within us. … This is a spiritual temple built for the Lord.” The allusion to “ the temple made with hands” is reminiscent of Mar 14:58, and the whole passage shows that the antithesis between the Jewish temple of stone and the Christian temple of faithful hearts was familiar to the sub-Apostolic age. We have it again in Justin (Tryph. 86), who says that Jesus made His disciples to be “ a house of prayer and worship” . The idea probably goes back to sayings of Jesus such as Mark 14:58 and the present passage, although it is not suggested here that Barnabas knew the Fourth Gospel. “ In three days I will raise it up.” The Agent of the revival is to be Jesus Himself. This suggests at once that it was not to His own bodily Resurrection that Jesus referred here. For by the N.T. writers God the Father is always designated as the Agent of Christ’ s Resurrection (Acts 2:24, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:10, Acts 10:40, Acts 13:30, Romans 4:24, Romans 4:8:11, Romans 4:10:9, 1 Corinthians 6:14, 1 Corinthians 6:15:15, 2 Corinthians 4:14, Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:20, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, Hebrews 13:20, 1 Peter 1:21). Jesus is not represented as raising Himself. Hence we have a confirmation of the conclusion already reached, that it was not the resuscitation of the Body of Jesus from the tomb that was in His thought here, but rather the passing of the old (and material) temple and the beginning of the new (and spiritual) temple of Christian believers. See on v. 21, and note the passive ἠγέρθη at v. 22; but cf. also 10:18 20. Jn. relates several conversations of Jesus, cast in somewhat similar form to this. That is, there is first a difficult saying of His. It is misunderstood and its spiritual significance is not discerned, a too material interpretation being given to it by His hearers. Then either He Himself, or the evangelist, adds an explanatory statement. Cf., for instances of this, 3:4, 4:11, 33, 6:42, 51f. See Introd., p. cxi ἐντρισὶνἡμέραις , “ within three days,” not “ after three days,” the preposition perhaps being significant.1 τεσσεράκοντακαὶἓξἔτεσοινκτλ . Abbott (Diat. 2021-4) would refer these words to the original building of the Temple in the time of Ezra. If, with the LXX, we omit the words “ of Babylon” after “ Cyrus the king” at Ezra 5:13, and assume that “ Cyrus king of Persia” (Ezra 1:1) is intended, we may take the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, i.e. 559 b.c., for the year in which the edict to build the Temple was issued. But according to Josephus (Antt. xi.i.1), it was completed in 513 b.c., i.e. forty-six years after; and so it is stated in the chronology of Eusebius. This is a summary of Abbott’ s argument, which seems, however, to depend on too many subsidiary hypotheses to be satisfactory. Heracleon refers the words to Solomon’ s Temple,1 which Origen refutes, but gives no satisfactory explanation of his own. It seems more likely, as has generally been held by modern editors, that Herod’ s building is the subject of the allusion in this verse. τεσσεράκοντακαὶἓξἔτεσινοἰκοδομήθηκτλ . The aor. οἰκοδομήθη does not imply that the building was completed, as may be seen from a parallel sentence in Ezra 5:16 (appositely cited by Alford) describing the building of Ezra’ s Temple, ἀπὸτότεἓωςτοῦνῦνᾠκοδομήθηκαὶοὐκἐτελέσθη : it only implies that building operations had been in progress for forty-six years. In fact, Herod’ s Temple was not completed until 64 a.d. in the time of Herod Agrippa. According to Josephus, Herod the Great began to repair and rebuild the Temple in the eighteenth year of his reign (Antt. xv.xi.1), i.e. 20-19 b.c. This would give either 27 a.d. or 28 a.d. as the year of the Passover indicated in these verses.2 The year of the Crucifixion is not certain, but it was probably 29 a.d. or 30 a.d. It is not possible to draw exact chronological inferences from the “ forty and six years” of this verse, but the phrase agrees well enough with the probable date, as gathered from other considerations. It is difficult to account for the attribution of so definite a statement of time to the Jewish objectors if it did not embody a reminiscence of fact. As to the fact itself, the Jews must have been well informed. As at other points in the Gospel (v. 6, 5:5, 21:11), some critics have supposed that the number mentioned here is to be interpreted in an esoteric fashion, after the methods of Gematria. The name Ἀδάμ has 46 as its numerical equivalent, and thus the occult reference3 in “ forty-six years hath this Temple been in building” would be to some contrast between the first and second Adam. It is unnecessary to dwell upon such extravagances.4 Hardly less fanciful is it to suppose, as Loisy does, that the forty-six years refer to the actual age of Jesus at the time, He being taken for a man forty-nine years old (8:57), near the end of His ministry. 21. ἐκεῖνοςδὲἔλεγενκτλ ., “ but He was speaking about the temple of His body.” ἐκεῖνος is emphatic, “ but He, on the contrary … ” See on 1:8, 19:35. For Jn.’ s habit of commenting on sayings of Jesus, cf. Introd., p. xxxiv. This comment seems to convey that by the words “ Destroy this temple,” Jesus meant “ Destroy this body of mine.” But this is hardly possible (see on v. 19). Had He meant that, He would have spoken with less ambiguity. He plainly meant Herod’ s Temple, and was so understood. Christian believers are, indeed, spoken of as the “ Temple of God” (2 Corinthians 6:16), but not Christ Himself. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ The Discourse with Nicodemus (3:1-15) 3:1. Nicodemus appears three times in the Fourth Gospel (see on 7:50, 19:39), but is not mentioned by any other evangelist, unless we may equate him with the ἄρχων of Luke 18:18 (see below on v. 3). The attempt to identify him with Joseph of Arimathæ a has no plausibility (see on 19:39); and the suggestion that he is a fictitious character invented by Jn. to serve a literary purpose is arbitrary and improbable (see Introd., p. lxxxiii f.). Νικόδημος is a Greek name borrowed by the Jews, and appears in Josephus (Antt. xiv. iii. 2) as that of an ambassador from Aristobulus to Pompey. In the Talmud (Taanith, 20. 1) mention is made of one Bunai, commonly called Nicodemus ben Gorion, and it is possible (but there is no evidence) that he was the Nicodemus of Jn. He lived until the destruction of Jerusalem, which would accord very well with the idea that Jn. has the “ young ruler” of Luke 18:18 in his mind, although in that case γέρων of v. 4 must not be taken to indicate that the person in question was really “ old” at the time of speaking. All that can be said with certainty of the Nicodemus of the text is that he was a Pharisee, and a member of the Sanhedrim (7:50), and apparently a wealthy man (19:39). He seems to have been constitutionally cautious and timid (see on 7:50). Some points in the narrative of 3:1-15 would suggest that the incident here recorded did not happen (as the traditional text gives it) at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. First, at v. 2, mention is made of σημεῖα at Jerusalem which had attracted the attention of Nicodemus; but we have already noted on 2:23 that no σημεῖον in that city has yet been recorded. On the other hand, the “ signs” which had been wrought at Jerusalem during the weeks before the end had excited much curiosity. That Nicodemus should have come secretly during the later period would have been natural, for the hostility of the Sanhedrim to Jesus had already been aroused (7:50); but that there should have been any danger in conversing with the new Teacher in the early days of His ministry does not appear. Again, at v. 14 (where see note), Jesus predicts His Passion; but if this prediction be placed in the early days of His ministry, we are in conflict with the Synoptists,who place the first announcement of His Death after the Confession of Peter. No doubt, Jn. is often in disagreement with the earlier Gospels, but upon a point so significant as this we should expect his record to agree with theirs. However, there is not sufficient evidence to justify us in transposing the text here; and we leave the story of Nicodemus in its traditional position, although with a suspicion that the original author of the Gospel did not intend it to come so early.1 For the constr. Νικόδημοςὄνομααὐτῷ , see on 1:6. 2. For the rec. τὸνἸησοῦν (N),א ABLTbWΘ have αὐτόν . οὗτοςἤλθενπρὸςαὐτὸννυκτός . This was the feature of the visit of Nicodemus which attracted attention: he came by night. Cf. 7:50, 19:39. He was impressed by what he had heard, and he gradually became a disciple; cf. 12:42. The form into which the conversation is thrown is similar to that in c. 4.2 There is a mysterious saying of Jesus (3:3, 4:10), at which the interlocutor expresses astonishment (3:4, 4:11, l2), whereupon the saying is repeated (3:5f, 4:13, 14), but still in a form difficult to understand. That, in both cases, there was an actual conversation is highly probable; but the report, as we have it, cannot in either case be taken to represent the ipsissima verba. Nothing is said in c. 3 of any one being present at the interview between Jesus and Nicodemus; but, on the other hand, there is nothing to exclude the presence of a disciple, and hence the account of the interview may be based, in part, on his recollections. καὶεἶπεναὐτῷΡ̓αββεί . See on 1:38. Nicodemus was ready to address Jesus as Rabbi, because he recognised in Him a divinely sent διδάσκαλος . This was not to recognise Him as Messiah; but Nicodemus and others of his class (note the plural οἴδαμεν , “ we all know,” as at 9:31 and Mark 12:14),1 like the blind man of 9:33, were convinced by the signs which Jesus did that He had come ἀπὸθεοῦ (cf. 13:3, 16:30). That “ signs” are a mark of Divine assistance and favour was a universal belief in the first century; and Jn. repeatedly tells that this aspect of His signs was asserted by Jesus Himself (see on 2:11 above, and cf. Introd., p. xcii). The declaration of Nicodemus that no one could do the miracles which Jesus did, ἐὰνμὴᾖδθεὸςμετ ʼ αὐτοῦ , however foreign to modern habits of thought, expressed the general belief of Judaism. That Jesus went about doing good and healing, ὅτιὁθεὸςἦνμετ ʼ αὐτοῦ is the declaration ascribed to Peter in Acts 10:38. The σημεῖα to which Nicodemus referred were those mentioned 2:23 as having inspired faith at Jerusalem. See note in loc. 3. For the phrase ἀπεκρίθηἸησοῦςκαὶεἶπεν , see on 1:50. א ΔΘ AN read ὁἸησοῦς , but BLTbW Omit ὁ : see on 1:29. For “ Verily, verily,” see on 1:51. Jesus answers the thought of Nicodemus, rather than his words. Nicodemus was prepared to accept Him as a prophet and a forerunner of the Messianic kingdom; but he misunderstood the true nature of that kingdom. It was a spiritual kingdom, “ not of this world,” as it is described in the only other place in Jn. where it is mentioned (18:36). It did not come “ with observation” (Luke 17:20, Luke 17:21), and no appreciation of signs or miracles would bring a man any nearer the understanding of it. A new faculty of spiritual vision must be acquired before it can be seen. The answer of Jesus is startling and decisive: ἀμὴνἀμὴν (see on 1:51) λέγωσοι (the saying is of general application, but it is personally addressed to Nicodemus), ἐὰνμήτιςγεννηθῇἅνωθεν , οὐδύναταιἰδεῖντὴνβασιλείαντοῦθεοῦ . This saying is the Johannine counterpart of Mar 10:15 ἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν , ὃςἐὰνμὴδέξηταιτὴνβασιλείαντοῦθεοῦὡςπαιδίον , οὐμὴεἰσέλθῃεἰς · αὐτήν (cf. the parallels Matthew 18:3, Luke 18:17). It is to be observed that this saying in Mk. and Lk. comes immediately before the colloquy with the rich young man, whom Lk. describes as a “ ruler,” and it is not impossible that this “ ruler” is to be identified with Nicodemus (see on v. 1).1 In any case, “ the kingdom of God” or “ the kingdom of heaven” is a main topic in the teaching of Jesus as reported by the Synoptists; and it is noteworthy that in this passage (the only passage where Jn. reproduces the phrase in full) the saying which introduces it is terse and epigrammatic, quite in the Synoptic manner. That we have here a genuine saying of Jesus is certain, given in another shape at Mark 10:15. It is repeated in an altered form at v. 5 (cf. v. 7), and reason is given in the note there for regarding the form in v. 3 as the more original of the two. For the repetitions in Jn., see further on 3:16. ἄνωθεν , in the Synoptists (generally) and always in the other passages (3:31, 19:11, 23) where it occurs in Jn., means “ from above,” desuper; so also in James 1:17, James 1:3:15, James 1:17. This is its meaning here, the point being not that spiritual birth is a repetition, but that it is being born into a higher life. To be begotten ἄνωθεν means to be begotten from heaven, “ of the Spirit.” 2 No doubt, to render ἄνωθεν by denuo, “ anew,” “ again,” as at Galatians 4:9, gives a tolerable sense, and this rendering may be defended by Greek usage outside the N.T. Wetstein quotes Artemidorus, Oniroer. i. 13, where a man dreams that he is being born, which portends that his wife is to have a son like himself: οὕτωγὰρἄνωθεναὐτὸςδόξειεγεννᾶσθαι . So Josephus, Antt. 1. xviii. 3, φιλίανἄνωθενποιεῖταιπρὸςαὐτόν , “ he made friends with him again.” But desuper suits the context in the present passage better than denuo. οὐδύναταιἰδεῖντὴνβασιλείαντοῦθεοῦ “ To see” the kingdom of God is to participate in it, to have experience of it, as at Luke 9:27. For this use of ἰδεῖν , cf. Acts 2:27 “ to see corruption,” Luke 2:26 and John 8:51 “ to see death (cf. Psalms 89:48, Hebrews 11:5), Revelation 18:7 “ to see mourning,” 1 Macc. 13:3 “ to see distresses,” Ecclesiastes 9:9 “ to see (that is, to enjoy) life.” 1 No doubt, a distinction may be drawn linguistically between “ seeing the kingdom of God” and “ entering into the kingdom of God,” which is the phrase used in v. 5. Thus in Hermas, Sim. ix. 15, the wicked and foolish women see the kingdom while they do not enter it. But no such distinction can be drawn here; v. 5 restates v. 3, but it is not in contrast with it. “ Seeing the kingdom of God” in Jn.’ s phraseology is “ entering into it” ; it is identical with the “ seeing” of “ life” in v. 36, where see note.2 4. λέγειπρὸςαὐτὸνὁΝ . For this constr. Of λέγειν , see on 2:3. Nicodemus is represented as challenging the idea of rebirth. From one point of view this is easy to understand. He was probably familiar with the Jewish description of a proselyte as “ one newly born” (see Introd., p. clxiii). But for Jews a Gentile was an alien, outside the sheltering providence of Yahweh. Certainly, he must begin his spiritual life anew, if he would be one of the chosen people. But it was incredible that any such spiritual revolution should be demanded of an orthodox Jew. Yet this is not the objection which Nicodemus is represented as urging. The words placed in his mouth rather suggest that he took the metaphor of a new birth to mean literally a physical rebirth. “ How can a man be born again, when he is old?” (as may have been his own case, but see on vv. 1, 3). “ Can he enter a second time into his mother’ s womb?” This would have been a stupid misunderstanding of what Jesus had said, but yet it is to this misunderstanding that the reply of Jesus is directed. It is not a fleshly rebirth that is in question, but a spiritual rebirth, which is a different thing. Nicodemus says δεύτερον , where Jesus had said ἅνωθεν , thus mistakenly understanding by ἅνωθεν , denuo rather than desuper; see on v. 3 above. πῶςδύναταικτλ .; This is a favourite turn of phrase in Jn. Cf. 3:9, 5:44, 6:52, 9:16. 5. ὁ must be omitted before Ἰησοῦς , as in v. 3. See on 1:29. For γεννηθῇ nearly all the Latin versions have renatus (f alone has natus), which may point to a Western reading ἀναγεννηθῇ . But probably the Latin rendering is of the nature of an interpretation (with a reminiscence of γεννηθῇἄνωθεν in v. 3), the verb ἀναγεννάω occurring in N.T. only at 1 Peter 1:3, 1 Peter 1:23. Another Western variant1 is τὴνβασιλείαντῶνοὐραῶν , for the rec. τὴνβας .τοῦθεοῦ , which is supported by א cABLNWΓΔΘ . א * 511 e m support τῶνοὐρανῶν , which is also read in Justin (Apol. i. 61), Hippolytus (Ref. viii. 10), Irenæ us (Frag. xxxiii., ed. Harvey), and ps.— Cyprian de Rebaptismate 3. Tertullian has in regnum caelorum (de Bapt. 13); but in another place in regnum dei (de Anima 39). Origen’ s witness is alike uncertain, his Latin translation giving both caelorum (Hom. xiv. in Lucam, and Comm. in Rom. ii. 7) and dei (Hom. v. in Exod.). Perhaps, as Hort says, the Western reading was suggested by the greater frequency of the phrase εἰσέρχεσθαιεἰςτὴνβασιλείαντῶνοὐρανῶν in Mt. The seal of the baptismal waters is thrice mentioned by Hermas (Sim. ix. 15, 16) as a pre-requisite to entering the kingdom of God; and in 2 Clem. 6 (before 140 a.d.) we have “ if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, with what confidence shall we enter into the kingdom of God?” It is possible that here we have reminiscences of the language of v. 5. See Introd., p. lxxvi. The reference in the word ὕδατος is clearly to Christian baptism (see Introd., p. clxiv). But, so far as Nicodemus was concerned, this would have been an irrelevant reference; the argument being darkened by the presence of ὕδατοςκαὶ before πνεύματος . Jesus explains that Nicodemus must be “ begotten from above” before he can enter the kingdom of God, i.e. that a spiritual change must pass upon him, which is described in v. 6 as being “ begotten of the Spirit.” The words ὕδατοςκαί have been inserted in v. 8 by א a b e, etc. (see note in loc.), although they form no part of the true text; and it has been suggested that, in like manner, in the verse before us they are only an interpretative gloss.2 There is, however, no MS. evidence for their omission here (although the Sinai Syriac transposes the order of words and testifies to a reading “ begotten of Spirit and of water” ), nor is there extant any patristic citation of the verse which speaks of “ being begotten of the Spirit” and does not mention the water. The passage from Justin (Apol. i. 61) by which Lake supports his argument is as follows: ἔπειταἄγονταιὑφ ʼ ἡμῶνἔνθαὕδωρἐστί , καὶτρόπονἀναγεννήσεως , ὃνκαὶἡμεῖςαὐτοὶἀνεγεννήθημεν , ἀναγεννῶνται … καὶγὰρὁΧριστὸςεἶπεν , Ἂνμὴἀναγεννηθῆτε , οὐμὴεἰσέλθητεεἰςτὴνβασιλείαντῶνοὐρανῶν . Justin is quoting loosely (after his manner), and it is not certain whether it is John 3:3 or John 3:5 that he has in his mind. But there is nothing to suggest that the reading before him was ἐὰνμήτιςγεννηθῇἐκΠνεύματοςκτλ . Indeed, in another place (Tryph. 138) he has the phrase τοῦἀναγεννηθέτοςὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦδι ʼ ὕδατοςκαὶπίστεωςκαὶξύλου . We conclude that the words ὕδατοςκαί cannot be extruded from the text of Jn., but that they are not to be regarded as representing precisely the saying of Jesus. They are due to a restatement by Jn. of the original saying of v. 3, and are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation.1 ἐὰνμήτιςγεννηθῇκτλ . We have seen (on 1:13) that those who believe on the name of Christ are described as “ begotten of God,” ἐκθεοῦγεγεννημένοι , and the references given in the note show that this is a characteristic Johannine phrase. It is necessary to interpret the words ὁγεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦπνεύματος (vv. 5, 6, 8) in similar fashion, and to understand them as describing the man who “ is begotten of the Spirit.” “ God is Spirit” (4:24), and the phrases “ begotten of God” and “ begotten of the Spirit” mean the same thing. At 1 John 3:9 we have πᾶςὁγεγεννημένοςἐκτοῦθεοῦἀμαρτίανοὐποιεῖ , ὅτισπέρμααὐτοῦἐναὐτῷμένει , but a few verses later (1 John 3:24) it is said of those who keep God’ s commandments γινώσκομενὅτιμένειἐνἡμῖν , ἐκτοῦπνεύματοςοὖἡμῖνἔδωκεν . The “ seed of God” is the “ Spirit,” whereof believers are made partakers by a spiritual begetting. That is to say, the words ἐκτοῦΠνεύματος in this verse point to the Spirit as the Begetter of believers. To translate “ born of the Spirit” suggests that the image is of the Spirit as the female parent of the spiritual child, whereas Johannine usage (and O.T. usage also, as we have seen on 1:13) shows that the image is that of the Spirit as the Begetter. It has been pointed out already (on 1:13) that the Latin rendering natus must not be taken as excluding the meaning begotten. In Semitic languages the Spirit, Ruḥ , is feminine; e.g. the Old Syriac of 14:26 runs, “ The Spirit, the Paraclete, she shall teach you all things.” Thus the phrase “ begotten of the Spirit,” which we have found reason for accepting as Johannine, would be inconsistent with the Aramaic origin of the Fourth Gospel. If, as Burney held, Jn. were originally written in Aramaic, then the original behind τὸγεγεννημένονἐκτοῦΠνεύματος must have meant “ born of the Spirit.” But this does not harmonise with 1:13 or 1 John 3:9. 6. After σάρξἐστιν , 161 Syr. cur. and some O.L. texts add the explanatory gloss on ὅτιἐκτῆςσαρκὸςἐγεννήθη . After πνεῦμάἐστιν , a similar group with Syr. sin. add ὅτιἐκτοῦπνεύματόςἐστιν . Flesh and Spirit are distinct, and must not be confused. They are contrasted with each other in 6:63, where the property of “ quickening” is ascribed to spirit, while flesh has no such quality, where eternal life is in question. Both are constituent elements of man’ s nature, and so of the nature of Christ (Mark 14:38, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 Peter 4:6). They represent the two different orders of being, the lower and the higher, with which man is in touch. Flesh can only beget flesh, while spirit only can beget spirit. 7. μὴθαυμάσῃςκτλ . “ Marvel not that I said to thee, You must be begotten from above.” The aphorism is repeated in the original form (v. 3), which we have shown reason for supposing to have been amplified in v. 5. ὑμᾶς , includes all men, and not Nicodemus only; observe that it is not ἡμᾶς , for Jesus Himself did not need re-birth. Of His natural birth it could be said τὸγὰρἐναὐτῇγεννηθὲνἐκπνεύματόςἐστινἁγίου (Matthew 1:20). μὴθαυμάσῃς : cf. 5:28, 1 John 3:13. θαυμάζειν in Jn. generally indicates unintelligent wonder. δεῖὑμᾶς … See on 3:14 (cf. 2:4, 4:24) for the thought of the Divine necessity involved in Jn.’ s use of δεῖ . 8. ἐκτοῦπνεύματος . א a b eff2 m Syr. sin. and Syr. cur. give ἐκτοῦὕδατοςκαὶτοῦπνεύματος , an expansion of the true text from v. 5. τὸπνεῦμαὅπουθέλειπνεῖ , καὶτὴνφωνὴναὐτοῦἀκούεις . πνεῦμα may be translated either “ wind” or “ Spirit.” It is true that elsewhere in the N.T. πνεῦμα never has its primitive meaning “ wind” (except in the quotation of Psa 104:4, in Hebrews 1:7; cf. 2 Ezr 8:22); but this meaning is often found in the LXX, e.g. Genesis 8:1, 1 Kings 18:45, 1 Kings 18:19:11, 2 Kings 3:17, Isaiah 7:2, Isaiah 11:15, Psalms 148:8, Ecclus. 43:17, Wisd. 5:23. The verb πνεῖν occurs 5 times elsewhere in the N.T. and is always applied to the blowing of the wind (cf. 6:18). In the LXX it is found 5 times with the same application, there always being in the context some allusion to the Divine action. Cf. Bar. 6:61 τὸδαὐτὸκαὶπνεῦ̀μαἐνπάσῃχώρᾳπνεῖ , and esp Psalms 147:18 πνεύσειτὸπνεῦμααὐτοῦκαὶῥυήσεταιὕδατα . φωνή is properly articulate speech, but is often equivalent to “ sound.” In the LXX “ the Voice of God” is a common form of expression, and φωνή is often used of thunder as God’ s Voice in nature (Exodus 9:23, 1 Samuel 7:10, Psalms 18:13, etc.). It is twice used of the sound of wind, in Psalms 29:8 (of a tempest, as the Voice of Yahweh) and 1 Kings 19:12 (φωνήαὔραςλεπτῆς , “ the still small voice” which Elijah heard). In Jn. it is always used of a Divine or heavenly voice (except 10:5 where the “ voice” of strangers is contrasted with the “ voice” of the Good Shepherd). There is no etymological objection to translating “ The wind blows where it will, and thou hearest its sound” ; but we may equally well translate “ The Spirit breathes where He will, and thou hearest His Voice.” There is a like ambiguity in Ecclesiastes 11:5, ἐνοἷςοὐκἔστινγινώσκωντιςἡὁδὸςτοῦπνεύματος , where the “ way” which is unknown by man may be the “ way of the Spirit” or the “ way of the wind.” To the Hebrew mind the wind, invisible yet powerful, represented in nature the action of the Divine Spirit, as is indicated in Genesis 1:2 and often in the O.T.; and so in some places the precise rendering of πνεῦμα may be doubtful. That, however, it never stands for “ wind” in the N.T. elsewhere is a weighty consideration for the translator of the verse before us. φωνή may mean, as we have seen, “ the sound” of wind; but it is also to be remembered that the φωνή from heaven of Rev 14:13 was the Voice of the Spirit. The ἦχος from heaven on the Day of Pentecost was said to be like a “ rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2). The context, however, seems to remove all ambiguity in the present passage. Πνεῦμα at the beginning of the verse must refer to the same subject as πνεύματος at its close, and in vv. 5, 6. The argument is that, as the Divine Spirit operates as He will, and you cannot tell whence or whither , so it is with every one begotten of the Spirit. That which is begotten of the Spirit shares in the quality of spirit (v. 6). Thus Christ, who was preeminently ὁγεννηθεὶςἐκπνεύματος (Matthew 1:20), said of Himself, in words identical with those of this verse, ὑμεῖςοὐκοἶδατεπόθενἔρχομαι , ἤποῦὑπάγω (8:14; cf. 9:29). So it is in his measure of every child of God who is begotten of the Spirit (cf. 1:13). Not only do the laws of physical generation not govern spiritual generation (for natural law does not always hold in the spiritual world), but you cannot standardise or reduce to law the manifestations of spiritual life. It is the teaching of Jn. (8:32), just as clearly as of Paul, that “ where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17). The rendering of πνεῦμα as Spirit rather than wind is supported by the Latin versions,1 which have “ spiritus ubi uult spirat” ; and it is noteworthy that the earliest patristic allusion to the passage, viz. Ign. Philad. 7, is decisive for it. Ignatius says: “ Even though certain persons desired to deceive me after the flesh yet the Spirit is not deceived, being from God, οἶδενγὰρπόθενἔρχεταικαὶποῦὑπάγει , ” the last phrase being an exact quotation from the verse before us.2 Other early authorities for the same view are Origen (Fragm. in loc., ed. Brooke, ii. 252), and the author of the third-century treatise de rebaptismate, 15, 18. It is not until we reach the later Fathers that the interpretation “ the wind blows where it lists” makes its appearance. For the use of ὑπάγειν in Jn., see on 7:33, 16:7. τὴνφωνὴναὐτοῦἀκούεις . The construction of ἀκούειν in Jn. is remarkable. When it governs the acc., as here (cf. 5:37, 8:43, etc.), it means merely “ to perceive by hearing” ; but when it takes the gen. it generally means “ to hearken to,” i.e. to hear and appreciate (cf. 1:37, 5:25, 28, 6:60, 9:31, 10:3, 16, 20, 18:37).3 In the present passage “ thou hearest His voice” does not connote obedience to the Spirit’ s teaching. See on 1:40 for the constr. ἀκούεινπαράτινος 9. πῶςδύναταιταῦταγενέσθαὶ Here is no repetition of the former question (v. 4). Nicodemus is puzzled by the teaching of vv. 6-8 about the spiritual birth and the freedom and unexpectedness of the spiritual life in one who has been “ begotten of the Spirit.” 10. א N 69 read ὁἸησοῦς , but om. ὁ ABLΔΘ W. ὁδιδάσκαλοςτοῦἸσραήλ . Both articles are significant: “ Art thou the authorised (or, the well-known) teacher of the Israel of God?” καῖταῦταοὐγινώσκεις ; He might have been expected to recognise, when he was told it, the doctrine of the various manifestations of the Spirit in man’ s life. 11. For the introductory ἀμὴνἀμήν , see on 1:51. With this verse v. 32 is closely parallel: ὃἐώρακενκαὶἤκουσεν , τοῦτομαρτυρεῖ · καὶτὴνμαρτυρίαναὐτοῦοὐδεὶςλαμβάνει . We should expect καίτοι rather than καί in the second member of the sentence in both cases, but Jn. never uses καίτοι . See on 1:10. ὃοἴδαμενλαλοῦμεν . Cf. 8:38, 12:50, 16:18. The verb λαλεῖν is used with special frequency in Jn. It occurs nearly 6o times in the Gospel; and 30 times it is placed in the mouth of Jesus in the first person singular, the only Synoptic instance of this latter use being Luke 24:44. The general distinction between λέγειν and λαλεῖν , viz. that λέγειν relates to the substance of what is said, while λαλεῖν has to do with the fact and the manner of utterance, holds good to a certain extent in Jn., as it does in classical Greek. But in Jn. the two verbs cannot always be distinguished in their usage and meaning, any more than “ say” and “ speak” can always be distinguished in English. Here ὃοἴδαμενλαλοῦμεν should be rendered “ we speak of what we know,” the words spoken not being given; but then ταῦτατὰῥήματαἐλάλησεν (8:20) means, “ He spoke these words,” viz. the very words that have just been cited (cf. 16:25, 17:1, 13, etc.). See, in particular, 10:6, 14:10, 12:49, 16:18, in which passages the verb λαλεῖν is used exactly as λέγειν might be; cf. 8:43. If there is any special tinge of meaning in λαλεῖν as compared with λέγειν in Jn., it is that λαλεῖν suggests frankness or openness of speech. Jn. “ assigns it to Christ 33 times in the first person, whereas it is never thus used by the Synoptists, except at Luke 24:44 after the Resurrection” (Abbott, Diat. 2251b). See on 18:20. The plural forms οἴδαμεν , λαλοῦμεν , etc., arrest attention. The verse is introduced by the solemn ἀμὴνἀμήν , and so is represented by Jn. as spoken by Jesus. Now the plural of majesty is not ascribed to Jesus anywhere, and in v. 12 He employs the singular εἶπον . Abbott (Diat. 2428) suggests that the plurals here associate the Father’ s witness with that of the Son (cf. 5:32, 37); but this would be foreign to the context. Further, v. 32, ὃἑώρακενκαὶἥκουσεν , τοῦτομαρτυρεῖ is clearly a repetition of what is said in this verse. The plurals οἴδαμεν are, therefore, explained (cf. 4:22) by some exegetes (e.g. Godet, Westcott) as associating His disciples with Jesus in the testimony with which He confronts Nicodemus. “ We,” i.e. my disciples and I, “ speak of what we know.” But this is markedly unlike the authoritative tone of the rest of the discourse. Nor is there any other instance of the disciples’ testimony being mentioned in the same breath as His own testimony. They bore witness, indeed, because they had been with Him from the beginning (15:27), but He did not rely on this while He was in the flesh. Even if we adopt the reading ἢμᾶς for ἐμέ at 9:4 (where see note), we do not get a true parallel to ὃἐωράκαμενμαρτυροῦμεν of the present verse. The similarity of the language used here to that which Jn., in other passages, uses to associate his own witness with that of his fellow-disciples is very close: e.g. ὃἀκηκόαμεν , ὃἐωράκαμεν … ὃἐθεασάμεθα … ἀπαγγέλλομενὑμῖν (1 Jn. 1f.; cf. 1 John 4:14), or ἐθεασάμεθατὴνδόξαναὐτοῦ (1:14), or the use of οἴδαμεν in 1 John 3:2, 1 John 3:14, 1 John 3:5:15, 1 John 3:19, 1 John 3:20. And, having regard to the way in which commentary and free narrative are intermingled in this chapter (see on v. 16), we seem to be driven to the conclusion that in v. 11 Jn. is not reproducing the actual words of Jesus so much as the profound conviction of the Apostolic age that the Church’ s teaching rested on the testimony of eye-witnesses (cf. 1 John 4:14). He has turned the singular ἑώρακα (see v. 32) into the plural ἑωράκαμεν (v. 11), just as in v. 5 he has added ἐξὕδατος to the original saying of the Lord about the need of spiritual birth. καὶτὴνμαρτυρίανἡμῶνοὐλαμβάνετε . This is repeated (v. 32), and is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel. Cf. 1:11, 5:43, 12:37. 12. The contrast between τὰἐπίγεια and τὰἐπουράνια appears again, 1 Corinthians 15:40, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Philippians 2:10, Philippians 3:19, James 3:15; the word ἐπἱγειος appearing in these passages only in the Greek Bible. The thought of this verse is like Wisd. 9:16, 17, “ Hardly do we divine the things that are on earth, and the things that are close at hand we find with labour; but the things that are in the heavens who ever yet traced out … except thou gavest wisdom and sentest thy Holy Spirit from on high?” The ἐπίγεια or “ earthly things” as to which Jesus has already spoken include the doctrine of the kingdom of God, which was to be set up on earth, and accordingly of the New Birth which Nicodemus found it difficult to accept. Such matters are wonderful in the telling, although ἐπίγεια all the time, in contradistinction to the deep secrets of the Divine nature and purpose , of which no one could tell except “ He that cometh from heaven” (v. 32). πιστεύσετε . So א ABL. πιστεύσητε is read by ΓΔΘ W fam. 13, etc. 13. οὐδεὶςἀναβέβηκενεἰςτὸνοὐρανόνκτλ . The argument is that none can speak with authority of τὰἐπουράνια , except one who has been ἐνοὐρανῷ , and has come down from thence. And of no one can this be said but the “ Son of Man” (see Introd., p. cxxx), for no man has ever ascended thither. To the question of Pro 30:4 τίςἀνέβηεἰςτὸνοὐρανονκαὶκατέβη ; the suggested answer is “ God alone” (cf. Deuteronomy 30:12 and the reference thereto in Romans 10:6). So too in Bar. 3:29, “ Who hath ascended to heaven and taken her (sc. Wisdom), and brought her down from the clouds?” the answer is “ No one.” There is a Talmudic saying which taught this explicitly: “ R. Abbahu said: If a man says to thee, I ascend to heaven, he will not prove it,” 1 i.e. the thing is impossible. This was the accepted Jewish doctrine. On the other hand, the Jewish apocalypses have legends of saints being transported to heaven that they might be informed of spiritual truth, e.g. Enoch (Enoch lxx. 1, etc.), Abraham (in the Testament of Abraham), Isaiah (Ascension of Isaiah, 7), etc.2 But of such legends the Fourth Gospel has no trace. “ No one has ascended into heaven, save He who descended from heaven, viz. the Son of Man.” There is no reference to the Ascension of Christ in this passage (cf. 6:62, 20:17), which merely states that no man has gone up into heaven to learn heavenly secrets. It is only the Son of Man who came down from heaven, which is His home, who can speak of it and of τὰἐπουράνια with the authority of knowledge.3 The phrase καταβαίνεινἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦ is used again of Christ’ s coming in the flesh at 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58, but in that sense nowhere else in the N.T. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16 κατ . ἐξοὐρανοῦ is used of the Advent of Christ in glory, and in 1:32 above of the Descent of the Spirit at the Baptism of Jesus. καταβαίνειν is also used Ephesians 4:9 of the Descent into Hades. The phrase here, however, undoubtedly refers to the Descent of Christ to earth in His Incarnation, and the use of the title “ the Son of Man” in this context has no Synoptic parallel (see Introd., p. cxxx). It may be added that the pre-existence of the Son of Man in heaven is a tenet of the Book of Enoch: “ That Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits and His name before the Head of days. And before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits” (xlviii. 2, 3). See on 6:62. ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου . So א BLTbW 33, but the clause ὁὢνἐντῷοὐρανῷ is added by ANΓΔΘ , with the Lat. and some Syr. vss. (not Diatessaron). If the clause were part of the original text, it is not easy to account for its omission. It does not contain any doctrine different from that of the Prologue as to the pre-existence of the Son; cf. ὁὢνεἰςτὸνκόλποντοῦπατρός (1:18). Nor does it add anything to the argument, which is complete in itself, if the verse ends with ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου . Indeed, it makes the argument more difficult to follow. The point is that the Incarnate Son of Man is the only person on earth who can speak with authority of heavenly things, and that because He has come down from heaven itself. If we retain ὁὢνἐντῷοὐρανῷ we must interpret the phrase of the timeless existence of the Son in the heavenly places, while yet He is manifested on earth. But this thought suggests later developments of Christology. The clause is probably an interpretative gloss, added at an early period, possibly in the second century.1 It may be doubted whether vv. 13-15 really belong to the discourse of Jesus to Nicodemus, or whether they should not ather be taken as part of the commentary which Jn. subjoins (see on v. 16 below). If the latter alternative be accepted, the report of the discourse ends quite naturally with the question of v. 12. But the title “ the Son of Man” is never used in the Gospels in narrative, or in evangelistic comment, being found only in the report of words of Jesus Himself.2 This consideration is conclusive for taking the comment of Jn. as beginning with v. 16, and not with v. 13. 14. καθὼςΜωϋσῆςὕψωσεντὸνὄφινκτλ . ὑψοῦν means “ to lift up,” either literally or figuratively, when it is equivalent to “ exalt.” In Acts 2:33 and Acts 5:31 it is used of the exaltation by God of Jesus to His right hand, i.e. of the Ascension. Cf. Philippians 2:9 and Isaiah 52:13, where it is said of the Servant of Yahweh ὑψωθήσεταικαὶδοξασθήσεταισφόδρα . But the word is not used thus in the Fourth Gospel, where it is always applied to the “ lifting up” of Jesus on the Cross, and is always found in connexion with the title “ Son of Man” (see Introd., p. cxxxii). Jesus said to the incredulous Jews (8:28) ὅτανὑψώσητετὸνυἰὸντοῦἀνθρώπου , τότεγνώσεσθεὅτιἐγώεἰμι , “ When ye shall have lifted up the Son of Man, then ye shall know, etc.” This “ lifting up” is to be the act of the Jews, not of God (as in Acts 2:33, Acts 5:31), and it is therefore clear that it does not refer to the Ascension, but to the Crucifixion. Again in 12:32 we have ἐὰνὑψωθῶἐκτῆςγῆς , πάταςἐλκύσωπρὸςἐμαυτόν , on which Jn.’ s comment is, “ this He said, signifying by what death He should die.” And that the people understood the word thus appears from their rejoinder (12:34); while they knew that the Christ “ abides for ever,” they were puzzled by the saying that the “ Son of Man” was to be “ lifted up.” If ὑψωθῆναι were to be understood merely as “ exaltation” (as the Ascension was) they would have had no difficulty in admitting δεῖὑψωθῆναιτὸνυἱὸντοῦἀνθρώπου (see note in loc.). In the present passage, there can in like manner be no reference to the Ascension of Jesus, as in that case the type of the brazen serpent would not be applicable. In the story in Numbers 21:9f., Moses set his brazen serpent “ upon the standard,” or, as the LXX turns it, ἔστησεναὐτὸνἐπὶσημεὶου , so that those who had been bitten by the poisonous serpents might look upon it and live. As the story is explained in Wisd. 16:6, 7, the brazen serpent was a σύμβολονσωτηρίας : “ he that turned towards it was not saved because of that which was beheld, but because of thee, the Saviour of all .” The word ὑψοῦν is not used anywhere in the LXX of the act of Moses in “ lifting up” the serpent and exposing it to the gaze of the people, nor is the word used anywhere in the N.T. outside Jn. of the “ lifting up” of Jesus on the Cross. But this is undoubtedly the parallel which is drawn in the words of Jesus in 3:14. Those who looked in faith upon the brazen serpent uplifted before them were delivered from death by poison; those who look in faith upon the Crucified, lifted up on the Cross, shall be delivered from the death of sin. The early Greek interpreters are quite unanimous about this. Thus Barnabas (§ 12) says that Moses made a brazen serpent, the τύπος of Jesus, that he set it up conspicuously , and bade any man that had been bitten “ come to the serpent which is placed on the tree and let him hope in faith that the serpent being himself dead can yet make him alive , and straightway he shall be saved.” This is but an elaboration of the idea in John 3:14, going beyond what is there said, for Barnabas emphasises the point that the brazen serpent is a type of Jesus, while all that is said in John 3:14 is that as the first was “ lifted up,” so must the Son of Man be “ lifted up.” Origen , and Cyprian (Test. ii. 20) apply John 3:14 to the Crucifixion of Jesus; cf. Justin, Tryph. 94. Claudius Apollinaris (about 171 a.d.) writes of Jesus as ὑψωθεὶςἐπὶκεράτωνμονοκέρωτος , where ὑψοῦν evidently means to lift up on the Cross; Cf. Psalms 22:21 (Routh, Reliq. Sacr., i. 161). See also the passage from Artemidorus quoted on 21:18, 19 below, for the connexion between the ideas of ὕψος and of crucifixion. We have then here a prediction placed in the mouth of Jesus, not only of His death, but of the manner of that death. The Synoptists represent Jesus as more than once foretelling His death by violence (Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33 and parallels), but only in Matthew 20:19 is death by crucifixion specified; cf. Luke 24:7. But by the use of the word ὑψοῦν (cf. also 8:28 and 12:32) Jn. consistently represents Jesus as predicting that He would be crucified, which would carry with it the prediction that He would suffer at the hands of the Roman authorities, and not by the Jews (cf. John 18:31, John 18:32). It is not consistent with the Synoptic tradition (cf. Mark 8:31, Matthew 16:21, Luke 9:22) to represent Jesus as foretelling His Passion so early in His Ministry. We should expect not to find any indication of this until after the Confession of Peter (6:68, 69). And if vv. 11-15 are intended by the evangelist to be taken as words of Jesus, rather than as reflexions of his own (see on v. 13), then it is probable that they are recorded here out of their historical context. See on v. 1 above. It has been suggested, however (e.g. by Westcott and E. A. Abbott) that we must see a deeper significance in the word ὑψοῦν as placed in the lips of Jesus. Abbott holds1 that the Aramaic word which is rendered by ὑψοῦν was ז ְ ק ַ ף , and that this actually has the double meaning (1) to exalt, (2) to crucify. But Burkitt has shown that this cannot be accepted because ז ִ ק ַ ף could not be used of a “ lifting up” such as the Ascension was.2 In short, (a) Jn. clearly states his own view of what Jesus meant by the words which he ascribes to Him here; (b) all the early Greek exegetes agree with him; (c) if we try to get back to the Aramaic word lying behind ὑψοῦν , we cannot find one which has this special ambiguity. א ר י ם will fit ὑψοῦν in the sense of “ exalt,” but not in that of “ crucify.” ז ק ף will fit ὑψοῦν in the sense of “ crucify,” but not in that of “ exalt.” We cannot therefore accept Westcott’ s view that “ the lifting up includes death and the victory over death.” There does not seem to be any hint of this in any of the passages in which ὑψοῦν occurs in Jn. The Jewish commentators on Numbers 21:9f. give little help as to the significance of the brazen serpent, being perplexed by the inconsistency of the story with the general prohibition of all images in the religion of Israel. Indeed, Hezekiah found it necessary to destroy “ the brazen serpent that Moses had made” (2 Kings 18:4) because it had led to idolatrous practices. Philo (Legg. All. ii. 19) allegorises the narrative after his manner. As the poisonous serpents signify the pleasure which is dangerous to the soul, so the brazen serpent signifies temperance ; then the man who sees psychically the beauty of σωφροσύνη , καὶδιὰτούτὸντὸνθεὸναὐτόν , ζήσεται . Jesus, however, explicitly takes this story as a type of His Cross, which must have fulfilment: δεῖ , “ it is necessary” that so “ the Son of Man shall be lifted up,” as Jn. reports His words here. Something has already been said (see note on 2:4) of what may be called the Predestinarian Doctrine of Jn.; see also Introd., p. clii, where Jn.’ s use of the phrase “ that it might be fulfilled” is examined. A similar Divine necessity is indicated several times elsewhere in this Gospel by the word δεῖ . The evangelst uses it, when writing in his own person, of the inevitableness of the Resurrection of Christ. But he also ascribes the employment of this way of speech to Jesus Himself. “ I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day” (9:4); “ Other sheep I must bring” (10:16); and again at 12:34 the people charge Jesus with saying, as here, δεῖὑψωθῆναιτὸνυἱὸντοῦἀνθρώπου . Cf. also 3:30. There is nothing peculiar to the Fourth Gospel in this.1 The Synoptists and Paul alike share the belief that it is not Fate but Providence that rules the world, that God foreknows each event because He has predetermined it, and that therefore it must come to pass. To reconcile this profound doctrine with human free will was the problem of a later age. See note on 12:32. 15. Before ἔχῃ the rec. text interpolates μὴἀπόληταιἀλλ ʼ (from v. 16) with א ΓΔΘ , but the words are omitted here by א BLTb 33 fam. 1, etc. The rec. has εἰςαὐτὸν after πιστεύων (a common constr in Jn.; see on 1:12) with א ΓΔΘ ; but recent editors have generally followed BTbW in reading ἐναὐτῷ Yet the constr. πιστεύεινἔντινι never appears in Jn., so that if we read ἐναὐτῷ , πιστεύων must be taken in an absolute sense (see on 1:7 for this usage), and we must translate, with the R.V., “ Whosoever believeth may in Him have eternal life.” (Cf. for the constr. 1:4.) The thought of the believer being “ in Christ” is thoroughly Johannine (15:4, 1 John 5:20) as well as Pauline. But we prefer the reading εἰςαὐτόν , which has good MS. support. See on v. 16. The connexion between faith and eternal life runs through the Gospel, the purpose of its composition being ἵναπιστεύοντεςζωὴνἔχητεἐντῷὀνόματιαὐτοῦ (20:31). Cf. 6:47 ὁπιστεύωνἔχειζωὴναἰώνιον and 3:36 ὁπιστεύωνεἰςτὸνυἱὸνἔχειζω . αἰώ , where see note. The adj. αἰώνιος is always associated in Jn. with ζωή , the expression ζωὴαἰώνιος occurring 17 times in the Gospel and 6 times in 1 Jn. (in the form ἡζωὴἡαἰώνιος in 1 John 1:2, 1 John 2:25). ζωὴαἰώνιος as the portion of the righteous is mentioned Daniel 12:2, and thereafter the expression is found in the Psalter of Solomon (iii. 16) and in Enoch.1 It occurs frequently in the Synoptists and in Paul, and always in the sense of the future life after death (but see on 12:50). This significance it has also in Jn. many times; e.g. in the present passage this is the primary meaning. Cf. esp. 12:25, and see note on 4:14. But for Jn, and for him alone among N.T. writers (although cf. 1 Timothy 6:19), ζωὴαἰώνιος may be a present possession of the believer (3:36, 5:24, 6:47, 1 John 5:13), which continues and abides after the shock of death (6:54). “ To have eternal life” means more than “ to live for ever” ; the stress is not so much upon the duration of the life, as upon its quality. To have eternal life is to share in the life of God (5:26) and of Christ (l:4), which is unfettered by the conditions of time. And so it is defined as the knowledge of God and of Christ (17:3), for true knowledge cannot be without affinity. Thus ὁἔχωντὸνυἱὸνἔχειτὴνζωήν (1 John 5:12). See Introd., p. clx. The Evangelist’ s Comment on the Preceding Discourse (Vv. 16-21, 31-36) 16. This “ comfortable word” is described in the Anglican Liturgy as one of those which “ our Saviour Christ saith.” But it would seem that Jn. does not mean to place vv. 16-21 in the mouth of Jesus; these verses are rather reflexions and comments by the evangelist on the words which he has already ascribed to Jesus in His discourse with Nicodemus. The dialogue framework is dropped; past tenses, ἔδωκεν , ἀπέστειλεν , ἐλήλυθεν , are used, as would be natural if the writer is meditating on the great events of the past; the word μονογενής , which occurs twice, vv. 16, 18, is not elsewhere placed on the lips of Jesus, while it is thoroughly Johannine (see 1:14, 1:18 and 1 John 4:9). Indeed v. 16 is repeated almost verbatim 1 John 4:9: ἐντούτῳἐφανερώθηἡἀγάπητοῦθεοῦἐνἡμῖν , ὅτιτὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦτὸνμονογενῆἀπέσταλκενὁθεὸςεἰςτὸνκόσμονἵναζήσωμενδι ʼ αὐτοῦ . The passage vv. 16-21 is introduced by οὕτωςγάρ … , which is quite in Jn.’ s style when he is making a comment: cf. αὐτὸςγάρ … (2:25), οἱγὰρμαθηταί (4:8), ὁγὰρἸησοῦς . (5:13), ὁγὰρπατήρ (5:20), αὐτὸςγὰρᾔδει … (6:6), ᾔδειγάρ … (6:64, 13:11), οὔπωγὰρἦν … (7:39), οὐδέπωγὰρᾔδεισαν … (20:9). Further, it is to be observed that ὥστε does not occur again in Jn., and that the constr. οὕτως … ὥστε with indicative, although classical, does not appear elsewhere in the N.T. (see Abbott, Diat. 2203, 2697). No new theme is introduced at v. 16, but the teaching of the discourse with Nicodemus is recapitulated, the opening sentence being a summary of the “ Gospel according to St. John.” It is the constant teaching of Jn. that in the order of redemption God’ s Love precedes the movement of man’ s soul to him. “ We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19; cf. 1 John 4:10). Cf. “ Ye did not choose me, but I chose you” (15:16) and also 13:18. See Romans 5:8. In this verse the Love of God is represented as prior to the faith of man. Indeed, God is Love (1 John 4:8). The verb ἀγαπάω is generally used by the Synoptists for the love which man has for man or for God (Mark 12:30); and Jn. in like manner uses it of the love of man for his fellows (13:34, 15:12, 17), or for Jesus (8:42, 14:15, 21, 23, 21:15) or for God (1 John 4:10). It is used once in the Synoptists for the love of Jesus for man (Mark 10:21), and this is frequent in Jn. (11:5, 13:1, 23, 34, 14:21, 15:9, 12, 21:7, 20). ἀγαπάω is never used in the Synoptists of the Love of God for man, although this central fact is behind many of the parables; but Jn. employs it thus, not only here but at 14:23, 17:23, 1 John 3:1, 1 John 4:10 (cf. Romans 5:8, Ephesians 2:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:16). The mutual love of God and Christ is implicit in the Synoptists (cf. ὁυἱόςμουὁἀγαπητός , Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Luke 3:22), but Jn. is explicit in using ἀγαπάω to describe it, e.g. 3:35, 10:17, 15:9, 17:23, 24, 26, and 14:31. See, further, Additional Note on 21:15 on ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν . Here the Love of God for man is an all-embracing love: ἠγάπησενὁθεὸςτὸνκόσμον (for κόσμος see on 1:9). It was manifested by His giving “ His only begotten Son” (for μονογενής see on 1:14), “ His Beloved Son,” ὁυἱὸςὁἀγαπτός (Matthew 3:17). The language is perhaps reminiscent of Gen 22:16, where it was said to Abraham οὐκἐφείσωτοῦυἱοῦσουτοῦἀγαπητοῦ , the simple ἔδωκεν conveying the sense of a complete “ giving up” ; cf. Romans 8:32. τὸνυἱὸνμονογενῆ . So א BW, but א CALTbΘ add αὐτοῦ after υἱόν . ἵναπᾶςὁπιστ . κτλ . This was the motive of the Gift, that all men might have eternal life (see on v. 15) through faith in Christ. For the phrase πιστεύωνεἰςαὐτόν , as see on 1:12. “ To perish” is contrasted again with “ to have eternal life” at 10:28 (cf. 17:12). It is the word used for “ losing” one’ s soul; and it refers here to a man’ s final destiny . Hence ζωὴαἰώνιος in this verse must be interpreted of the future (see on 3:15) rather than of the present, although it includes this. The repetition of the phrase ἵναπᾶςὁπιστεύωνεἰςαὐτὸνἔχῃζωὴναἰώνιον from v. 15, with a slight change , is a feature of Johannine style.1 Jn. frequently repeats phrases or themes of special import, often with slight verbal changes, as if they were a refrain. Cf., e.g., 3:3, 5, 4:23, 24, 6:35, 41, 48, 51, 6:39, 40, 8:24, 10:8, 9, 11, 15, 15:1, 5, 16:14, 15. 17. ἀπέστειλενὁθεὸςτὸνυἱόνκτλ . The “ sending” of Jesus by God is a conception common to the Synoptists, to Paul, and to Jn. Two verbs are used, πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω , the former being more frequent in Jn., and the latter in the Synoptists, no distinction of meaning between them being traceable (cf. 17:18 and 20:21). Paul has πέμπω only (Romans 8:3); Lk. has πέμπω once (Luke 20:13), but the parallels Mark 12:6, Matthew 21:37 have ἀποστέλλω . Elsewhere the Synoptists always have ἀποστέλλω of God sending His Son, e.g. Mark 9:37, Matthew 10:4O, 15:24, Luke 4:43, Luke 9:48, Luke 10:16. It may be added that πέμπω is infrequent in the LXX, which generally has ἀποστέλλω . There is a fine passage in the Ep. to Diognetus (§ 7) about God “ sending” His Son, in which both verbs are used.1 Westcott attempts to distinguish Jn.’ s usage of πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω (see his Additional Note on 20:21), and so does Abbott (Diat. 1723d-g), who reverses the meanings that Westcott proposes. No distinction can safely be drawn. For ἀποστέλλω in Jn. in similar contexts to the present (i.e. of God sending His Son), cf. 3:34, 5:36, 38, 6:29, 57, 7:29, 8:42, 10:38, 11:42, 17:8, 18, 21, 23, 25, 20:21 and 1 John 4:9, 1 John 4:10, 1 John 4:14. For πέμπω cf. 4:34, 5:23, 24, 30, 6:38, 39, 44, 7:16, 28, 33, 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 9:4, 12:44, 45, 49, 13:20, 14:24, 15:21, 16:5. τὸνυἱόν . The rec. text adds αὐτοῦ , with AΓΔΘ , but om. א BLTbW fam. 1. This usage of ὁυἱός absolutely, as contrasted with ὁπατήρ , is common to all the evangelists, and by all of them is attributed to Jesus when speaking of Himself. See Mark 13:32, Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, and John 5:19, John 6:40, John 8:36, John 14:13, John 17:1, besides John 3:36, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:14, where the evangelist thus describes Jesus. He uses ὁυἱός absolutely, at this point for the first time. Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:28. This verse is in close connexion with v. 16. The Divine purpose in redemption embraces all humanity. It is not confined to Jews only, or to elect nations or individuals, but embraces the whole world. This Divine intention may be thwarted by man’ s abuse of his free will, but none the less it is directed to all mankind (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4, Titus 2:11). But in the current Jewish eschatology2 Messiah was to come as the Judge of mankind, and so Jesus taught, both according to the Synoptists (Matthew 25:31f.) and to Jn.: cf. John 5:27, where we have the Son given “ authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man,” the context showing that the Last Judgment is indicated. So, again, in 9:39 we have εἰςκρίμαἐγὼεἰςτὸνκόσμοντοῦτουἦλθον , the reference being indeed to a present rather than a future judging, but still the coming of Jesus being represented as εἰςκρίμα , as issuing in judgment. See further on 8:15. How, then, is this to be reconciled with the universal purpose of love in the mission of Christ? Jn. is quick to supply the answer. The purpose of this mission in the mind of God was that every one who believed in Christ should have eternal life. Christ, as the Son of Man, is to be the Judge of mankind; he does not question that, and later on he says it explicitly (5:27). But His primary office is that of Saviour, and it was to save that He was sent. That some should reject Him is no part of the Father’ s will; but if they do reject Him, they bring judgment on themselves. And so Jn. declares οὐγὰρἀπέστειλενὁθεὸςτὸνυἱὸνεἰςτὸνκόσμονἵνακρίνῃτὸνκόσμον , ἀλλ ʼ ἵνασωθῇὁκόσμοςδι ʼ αὐτοῦ . This is repeated 12:47, where Jesus is represented as saying οὐγὰρἦλθονἴνακρίνωτὸνκόσμον , ἀλλ ʼ ἵνασώσωτὸνκόσμον . ἵνασωσω , not ἵνακρίνω (as Jewish-Apocalyptic believed), expresses the final cause of the mission of the Son of Man. Cf. Zechariah 9:9 ὁβασιλεύςσουἔρχεταίσοιδίκαιοςκαὶσώζων . For the universality of this redemptive purpose, see 4:42 ὁσωτὴρτοῦκόσμου , and the note there. It was one of the last prayers of Jesus that the world should come to recognise at last that God loved it, and that therefore He had sent His Son (17:23). σωθῇ . σώζειν occurs only 6 times in Jn., σωτηρία once (4:22), and σωτήρ twice (4:42, where see note, and 1 John 4:14). In the LXX it generally represents י ש ע , which primarily means “ enlargement” and hence “ deliverance,” י ש ו ע ה being, at last, almost equivalent to “ victory,” and often used in the O.T. of the final Messianic Deliverance. In the N.T. σώζειν sometimes stands for deliverance from bodily sickness, or healing (see 11:12 and cf. Mark 5:28, Mark 6:56, Mark 10:52 etc.); frequently it carries with it the idea of rescue from physical death (e.g. 12:27, Mark 3:4, Mark 15:30); and in other passages the thought is of spiritual deliverance (e.g. 5:34, 10:9, 12:47, Mark 10:26, Mark 13:13), i.e. of the transition from death to life, conceived of either as present or as future (in an eschatological reference), wrought by the life-giving power of Christ, and applied to the individual soul by an act of faith. This, the deepest meaning of σωτηρία , is constantly present to the mind of Jn. See on 4:42 for σωτήρ . 18. To the thought of Jn., ζωὴαἰώνιος begins in the present, and is not only a hope of the future (see on 3:15 above); so also the κρίσις , or the inevitable distinction between man and man, determined by the use or abuse of his free will, begins in the present life. Here for Jn. is the supreme test of the human spirit, whether the man “ believes in” Christ or does not believe. ὁπιστεύωνεἰςαὐτὸνοὐκρίνεται , or, as it is expressed later on, εἰςκρίσινοὐκἔρχεται , ἀλλὰμεταβέβηκενἐκτοῦθανάτουεἰςτὴνζωήν (5:24). The believer has eternal life in Christ; he has passed into life. There is no uncertainty as to the final judgment for him. But there is also the man who is not willing to come to Christ that he may have life (5:40), i.e. not willing to “ believe.” Of him Jn. says ὁμὴπιστεύωνἤδηκέκριται , “ he has been judged already” by his unfaith, the present judgment being anticipatory of the future. This is, indeed, the judgment which will declare itself at the Last Day (12:48). But that the judgment will be manifested at the Last Day is not inconsistent with its having been already determined in the present life by the unbelief and blindness and disobedience of the man. So it is said of the prince of evil that he “ has been judged” (16:11), although the exhibition of this tremendous judgment is not yet. The rec. text has ὁδὲμὴπιστ . κτλ . with ALTbΓΔΘ ; but א BW ff2 l om. δέ . The two sentences ὁπιστεύων … and ὁμὴπιστεύων are co-ordinate and complementary; and it is quite in the Johannine manner to place them side by side without any adversative or connecting particle. Jn. uses μή with a pres. part. over 20 times. ὅτιμὴπεπίστευκεν … , “ because he has not believed,” a continuing movement of unbelief being indicated by the pft. tense. Abbott (Diat. 2187) compares with ὁμὴπιστεύων … ὅτιμὴπεπίστεύων … of this verse, the passage 1 John 5:10 … ὁμὴπιστεύων … ὅτιοὐπεπίστευκεν … “ In the latter ὅτιοὐ states the fact objectively; in the former ὄτιμή states it subjectively, as the judgment pronounced by the Judge.” ὅτιμή is a very unusual construction (see Diat. 2695), and demands some such explanation here.1 For the phrase πιστεύεινεἰςτὸὄνομα , see on 1:12. For μονογενής , see on 1:14. It is possible that the repetition of the adjective here is intended to mark, not only the greatness of the Father’ s love (as in v. 16), but also the uniqueness of Jesus as a Saviour. There is no other (cf. Acts 4:12). 19. αὕτηδέἐστινἡκρίσις . The form of the sentence, introducing an explanation, is thoroughly Johannine; cf. 1 John 1:5, 1 John 1:5:11, 14. “ This is the judging,” sc. not the sentence of judgment , but the way in which the judgment is accomplished. It is no arbitrary sentence, but the working out of a moral law. The root of unbelief in Christ is the refusal to turn to His Light, because the man’ s conduct will not bear scrutiny. Jn. traces unbelief to moral causes. “ The Light came into the world” ; so he has already in the Prologue described the Advent of Christ (1:4, 5, 9); “ and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for evil were their works” (see on 1:9). The comparison of wickedness to darkness and of virtue to light is, of course, found elsewhere, e.g. Philo, Quaest. in Gen. ii. 22, and Test. of XII. Patr., Naph. ii. 10, “ neither while ye are in darkness can ye do the works of light.” So Job says of the wicked that they “ are of them that rebel against the light” (Job 24:13). The image occurs with special frequency in Jn., e.g. 8:12, 12:35, 46, 1 John 1:6, 1 John 1:2:8, 1 John 1:9, 11; that Jesus is τὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου (8:12) is one of his central thoughts. With ἦνγὰραὐτῶνπονηρὰτὰἔργα cf. 7:7, where Jesus is represented as saying that the κόσμος hated Him, ὅτιτὰἔργααὐτοῦπονηράἐστιν . The same phrase appears in 1 John 3:12, of the deeds of Cain. Jn. always takes the darkest view of the world apart from Christ; cf. ὁκόσμοςὅλοςἐντῷπονηρῷκεῖται (1 John 5:19). Cf. also Colossians 1:21, 2 Timothy 4:18, for τὰἔργατὰπονηρά . 20. Jn. proceeds to explain the psychology of this shrinking of the world from Christ the Light. πᾶςγὰρὁφαῦλαπράσσωνκτλ ., “ for every one who practises base things hates the Light.” Both in this passage and at 5:29 , we have φαῦλαπράσσειν , but ἀγαθά (τὴνἀλήθειαν , v. 21) ποιεῖν . πράσσειν does not carry with it the idea of anything accomplished, or abiding as the result of action, whereas ποιεῖν is to make as well as to do; and perhaps some such difference is intended by Jn., although in Romans 7:15, Romans 7:19 the verbs cannot be distinguished. The base liver does not come to the Light, lest his works be reproved. We have ἐλέγχειν again 8:46, 16:8; cf. Ephesians 5:13 τὰδὲπάνταἐλεγχόμεναὑπὸτοῦφωτὸςφανεροῦται . We should expect μήποτε for ἵναμή , but μήποτε never occurs in Jn., who employs the constr. ἵναμή 18 times. Burney points out1 that ἵναμή corresponds exactly with the Aramaic ד ּ ְ ל ָ א . 21. א * omits from ὁδὲποιῶν to τὰἔργα , because of the homoioteleuton τὰἔργααὐτοῦ v. 20 and v. 21 . ὁδὲποιῶντὴνἀλήθειαν (cf. 1 John 1:6) ἔρχεταιπρὸςτὸφῶς This is a universal saying, not to be confined to those who are already believers in Christ. As Christ Himself said: πᾶςὁὢνἐκτῆςἀληθείαςἀκούειμουτῆςφωνῆς (18:37). Jn. states that every honest doer of the truth comes into the light, and (as Christ is the Light) he therefore approaches Christ; he does so “ that his works may be made manifest” (cf. 9:3). See on 8:34. ὅτιἐνθεῷἐστινεἰργασμένα . ὅτι may mean “ because” or “ that.” The latter rendering seems preferable. The honest man (“ in whom is no guile,” 1:47) comes to the light that it may be made plain that his deeds have been done ἐνθεῷ , a remarkable expression for which there is no exact parallel; cf. κοπιώσαςἐνκυρίῳ (Romans 16:12). See Psalms 139:23, Psalms 139:24 for the prayer of the righteous man, who does not shrink from the closest scrutiny of his life. The Evangelist’ s Commentary Continued (Vv. 31-36) 31-36. Reasons have been given in the Introduction (p. xxiii) for taking these verses in sequence to vv. 16-21, vv. 22-30 having been displaced from their original position. The argument of this paragraph is as follows: He that is of the earth can testify only to earthly things (v. 31; cf. v. 12). Christ, who is from heaven, in testifying of heavenly things, testifies to that which He has seen and heard, but His witness is not accepted (v. 32; cf. v. 11). Nevertheless, he who does accept it, agrees that Jesus was the promised Messenger of God (v. 33; cf. v. 17). He speaks the message of God, and thereby shows that He was sent by God (v. 34). He speaks this message in its completeness, for the Spirit is not granted to Him in part only (v. 34); He is the Beloved Son (v. 35; cf. v. 16). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ Jesus Leaves Judaea for Galilee by Way of Samaria (4:1-4) 4:1. ὁκυριος . This is read by ABCLTbW, but the Western reading (א DΘ fam. 1, with a b c e ff2 l Syr. cur.) is ὁἸησοῦς . It is plain that the text has been tampered with. The verse is clumsily expressed and seems to have been rewritten, ὁκύριος having probably been inserted in the later draft to remove any ambiguity as to the subject of the sentence. It has been pointed out (on 1:38) that His disciples were accustomed to address Jesus either as Rabbi (Teacher) or as Mari (Lord). And in His absence, according to the Synoptists, they used both terms, either saying ὁδιδάσκαλος (as Jesus bade them do, Mark 14:14) or ὁκύριος (Mark 11:3), an appellation which He approved (Mark 5:19). In Jn., Martha says ὁδιδάσκαλος (11:28); Mary Magdalene says ὁκύριος (20:2, 18), and so do the disciples (20:25, 21:7). In direct narrative, when the evangelists are using their own words and not reporting the words of others, a distinction must be made. In Lk. (7:13, 10:1, 11:39, 12:42, 17:5, 22:61), “ the Lord” is often used by the evangelist. So in the Marcan Appendix (16:19, 20) we have “ the Lord” twice. This also is the usage of the Gospel of Peter. But Mk. (followed by Mt.) never writes “ the Lord,” but always “ Jesus.” The primitive narratives, that is, took the form “ Jesus said … ,” “ Jesus did … ” The form “ the Lord said” is later. Now in the direct narrative of the Fourth Gospel we find “ Jesus” as in Mk., and not “ the Lord” as in Lk., with five exceptions which are instructive. In 4:1, 6:23, 11:2, ὁκύριος is the true reading; but these verses are all explanatory glosses, not from the hand of Jn., but written after the first draft of the story had been completed. In 20:20, 21:12, where we have ὁκύριος , we are in the middle of the post-Resurrection narrative, and it is not unnatural that special reverence should be exhibited in writing of Him who had risen. Soon after the Resurrection, the title began to imply that larger and deeper meaning of ὁκύριος as the representative of י ְ ה ו ֹ ָ ה which is frequent in Paul and is found in the Acts (2:36, 9:11).That “ Jesus is Lord” (1 Corinthians 12:3; cf. Philippians 2:11) has become the central thought of the Christian profession; but now the predicate means more than “ Master,” for it expresses the doctrine of the Incarnation. Perhaps we may say that the passage from the lower to the higher sense begins with the citation of Psa 110:1 by the Master Himself (Mark 12:36). Thus the use by Jn. of the form of narrative in which the central figure is designated as “ Jesus” (save in the exceptional passages cited) rather than as “ the Lord,” illustrates well the primitive characteristics which the Fourth Gospel exhibits. Probably some time had elapsed since Jesus had begun His ministry in Judæ a (cf. διέτριβεν , 3:22); and it is possible that His departure was subsequent to John’ s imprisonment (cf. 3:24). The Pharisees (see on 1:24) had begun to take notice of Him, being perhaps even more suspicious of Him than they had been of John (1:24), because they had heard that (ὅτι recitantis) “ Jesus is making more disciples than John” ; and so He moved to another place (cf. 7:1, 10:39). At this stage He was anxious to avoid open collision with the Pharisees. It will be noticed that we have the “ making of disciples” and “ baptizing” associated closely thus early, long before the charge is said to have been given to the apostles μαθητεύσατε … βαπτίζοντεςαὐτούς (Matthew 28:19). The art. is omitted before Ἰησοῦςπλείοναςμαθ . ποιεῖ , contrary to the general usage of Jn., who prefers to write ὁἸησοῖς (see on 1:29). We have the same omission at 4:47, 6:24, and for the same reason as here, viz. that ὅτι introduces the words which were actually spoken: the construction is not oblique, but that of ὅτι recitantis. 2. If this verse is part of the original draft of the Gospel, it is a parenthetical comment or correction by Jn., and is quite in his manner (see on 2:21). He wishes to prevent his readers from making any mistake; the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was baptizing disciples in large numbers, but Jn. pauses to explain that the report which reached them was inaccurate in so far as it suggested that Jesus baptized in person. And it may be that this correction of ἐβάπτιζεν in 3:22 (where see note) is well founded. But it is probable that the verse 4:2 is not from the hand of Jn.,1 but was added at a revision of the text, because of the idea that it would detract from the dignity of Jesus to perform the ministry of baptism, which even Paul was accustomed as a rule to leave to others. There are slight indications, too, that the style of the verse is not Johannine. καίτοιγε does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., and Jn. is apt to use καί where another would use καίτοι (see on 1:11. Again, Ἰησοῦς is not preceded by the def. article, as is the general usage of Jn. (see on 1:29). For οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ , see on 2:2. 3. ἀφῆκεντὴνἸουδαίαν , “ He forsook Judæ a.” ἀφίημι is an unusual word to use of leaving a place, but cf. 16:28. DΘ fam. 13 with Latin texts read τὴνἸουδαίανγῆν (cf. 3:22). καὶἀπῆλθενπάλινεἰςτὴνΓαλιλαίαν , “ He departed again into Galilee,” the first ministry in Galilee having been already described (1:43-2:12); see on 3:24. We should not have expected the aor. ἀπῆλθεν , as the journey is not yet completed, and the Samaritan episode comes next. But it is quite good Greek, εἰς meaning “ towards.” “ He left again for Galilee,” is the exact rendering. πάλιν is a favourite word with Jn., as with Mk. It is used of going back to a place, as it is here, 4:46, 6:15, 10:40, 11:7, 18:33, 38, 19:4, 9, 20:10. AB*Γ D omit πάλιν , but ins.א B2CDLTbWΘ fam. 13 with the O.L. and Old Syriac vss. 4. ἔδειδὲαὐτὸνκτλ ., sc. “ He had to go through Samaria,” unless He wished to make a detour. Josephus mentions (Antt. xx. 6. 1) that it was the habit of the Galilæ ans going to Jerusalem to pass through Samaria, this being the direct route (cf. Luke 9:51, Luke 9:52). But apparently Jesus did not start from Jerusalem, but from Jericho (cf. 3:22); and the road that He took was probably the north-western road from thence to Ai and Bethel, where He would strike the great northern road used by caravans. ἔδει does not stand here for any Divine necessity, although Jn. often uses it thus (see on 2:4, 3:14). Discourse at the Well with the Samaritan Woman (Vv. 5-26) 5. Συχάρ . “ Near to the plot of ground (χωρίον ; cf. Matthew 26:36) that Jacob gave to Joseph,” i.e. to the E. of Shechem (Genesis 33:18, Genesis 48:22), the modern Nabliû s. Some have thought that Sychar and Shechem are identical, but they have been distinguished since Eusebius. Sychar is probably to be identified with the village ˒ Askar (ע having displaced א , a linguistic change which is also observable in the Arabic form of Ascalon). ˒ Askar is situated about five furlongs N.E. of Jacob’ s Well.1 E. A. Abbott finds Sychar in the root ש ׁ כ ר “ drunkenness” ; i.e. it is an opprobrious name for Shechem (cf. Isaiah 28:1: this, he suggests, is suitable to the moral of the dialogue, which has to do with drinking.2 But there is no need to find such subtle and obscure allegory in a place-name. 6. κεκοπιακώς . The verb is used again by Jn. only at v. 38. ὁδοιπορία appears elsewhere in the N.T. only at 2 Corinthians 11:26. ἐκαθέζετο , “ He was seated” ; cf. 11:20, 20:12. καθέζομαι in the N.T. is always used in a durative sense. Tw has the unique variant ἐκάθισαν . οὕτως may mean “ just as He was,” sc. without waiting to select a place deliberately; but more probably it refers to κεκοπιακὼςἐκτῆςὁδοιπορίας “ tired with His journey, He was seated by the well.” Cf. 1 Kings 2:7 for a somewhat similar use of οὕτως . οὕτως is omitted here in some cursives and in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic vss. For κεκοπιακώς , see on 1:14 for Jn.’ s emphasis on the true humanity of Jesus. He saw nothing in speaking of Jesus as “ tired” which was inconsistent with His oneness with Him of whom the prophet wrote, “ The Everlasting God, the Lord, fainteth not, neither is weary” (Isaiah 40:28). “ Jacob’ s Well” 3 is at a fork in the northern road to Samaria; one branch, the ancient caravan road, going N.E. to Scythopolis, the other going W. by Nablus and thence N. to Engannim. The well is about 100 feet deep, and at the bottom the water collects, probably by infiltration. The double title πηγή (v. 6) and φρέαρ (vv. 11, 12) is thus explicable. Why any one should have taken pains to sink a deep pit, when there is abundance of water both at Nabl̂ us and ˒ Askar, we cannot tell; any more than we can explain why a woman should come half a mile from ˒ Askar to draw water which she could have got in the village. But, at any rate, the well is there, and probably has been there since the days of Jacob. In the absence of knowledge of the exact position of the woman’ s house, it would be idle to speculate as to the motive which drew her to this, which was even then a sacred well, rather than to the ˓ Ain at ˓ Askar. “ It was about the sixth hour,” that is, about noon (see on 1:39), the natural time to rest while the sun was at its height. The account given by Josephus of Moses resting by a well in. Midian (Exodus 2:15) provides a striking parallel: καθεσθείςἐπίτινοςφρέατοςἐκτοῦκόπουκαὶτῆςταλαιπωρίαςἠρέμειμεσημβρίαςοὕσηςοὐπόρρωτῆπόλεως (Antt. ii. xi. 1). As in the Gospel story, Moses was sitting by the well at midday, weary with his journey, when the women came to draw water for their flocks. No doubt, the usual time for this was in the evening, but there is no improbability in water being drawn sometimes at noon, as Josephus represents it, and as Jn. says that the woman came to do. 7. “ A woman of Samaria” (ἐκτῆςΣαμαρίας : cf. 1:44). In later days she was commemorated as St. Photina, on March 20. For ἀντλεῖν , the regular word for drawing water from a well, see on 2:8, 9 above. δόςμοιπεῖν . So א BC*DL the rec. has πιεῖν . This is a common Greek constr.; cf. Xen. Cyrop. vii. i. 1, τῷδὲΚύρῳ … προσήνεγκανἐμφαγεῖνκαὶπιεῖν , and see v. 33. 8. οἰγὰρμαθηταὶαὐτοῦκτλ ., “ For His disciples had gone into the city (sc. Sychar, vv. 5, 39) to buy food.” Had they been with Him, they would have been the natural persons to draw water for their Master, and He would not have had need to ask of a stranger. Probably they carried with them an ἅντλημα , or skin-bucket, as part of their travelling equipment, in which water could be drawn. The woman notices that Jesus has no ἄντλημα (v. 11). We do not know which of His disciples were with Jesus on this journey (see on 2:2), or how many there were. See further on v. 18. Syr. sin. places this clause in its chronological order after πηγῇ (v. 6), a rearrangement of the text made for the sake of clearness;1 but the use of parenthesis is quite in Jn.’ s style (see, e.g., 2:6). τροφάς , victuals, only here in pl. number. That the disciples should buy victuals in a Samaritan town shows that the barrier between Jew and Samaritan was not impassable. The rule as to food seems to have varied from time to time. One Rabbinical precept is, “ Let no man eat the bread of the Cuthæ ans, for he that eateth their bread is as he that eateth swine’ s flesh” (M. Shebhiith, viii. 10), and Samaritan wine was forbidden to a Jew. But, on the other hand, “ the victuals of the Cuthæ ans are permitted if not mixed with wine or vinegar” (Jesus. Ab. Zar. v. 4), and their unleavened bread was allowed (Bab. Kidd. 76a).1 There was continuous traffic of Jews through Samaria— from Galilee to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Galilee— and it is unlikely, except at moments of intense theological excitement, that a hungry traveller would have scrupled to buy bread in a Samaritan village, or that a Samaritan villager would have scrupled to sell it. 9. ΠῶςσὺἸουδαῖοςὢνκτλ . The Samaritan woman affects surprise— for her words are ironical— that a Jew should ask her for water. There was nothing strange in asking a woman for water, as it was women who generally drew it from the wells; cf. Genesis 24:17. However bitter the feeling between Jew and Samaritan, we cannot suppose that a draught of cold water in the noontide heat would be likely to be refused by either to other. It was counted the mark of a wicked man “ not to have given water to the weary to drink” (Job 22:7); and the precept of kindness was universal: “ If thine enemy be thirsty, give him water to drink” (Proverbs 25:21). Yet the woman makes her little gibe— half-jest, half-earnest— recalling to Jesus the old feud between Jews and Samaritans. She recognised Jesus as a Jew, perhaps by His dress or perhaps by His manner of speech (cf. Matthew 26:73). The narrative does not say explicitly that she granted the request of Jesus, Δόςμοιπεῖν , but the reader is intended to understand that she did so. The explanatory comment οὐγὰρσυνχρῶνταιἸουδαῖοιΣαμαρείταις , “ for Jews do not treat familiarly with Samaritans,” is omitted by א *D a b e, but it must be retained with א aABCLTbWNΘ . συγχρᾶσθαι does not occur again in N.T., but it appears in Ignat. Magn. 3, ὑμῖνδὲπρέπειμὴσυγχρᾶσθαιτῇἡλικίᾳτοῦἐπισκόπου , “ it becomes you not to presume upon the youth of your bishop,” to treat him with undue familiarity. If συνχρῶνται is translated “ have dealings with,” co-utuntur, the comment would not be accurate; for although Jews and Samaritans were intolerant of each other (cf. Luke 9:53, John 8:48), of necessity there was much business intercourse. As v. 8 indicates, Jews could trade with Samaritans, as indeed they could do with heathen (cf. Nehemiah 13:16). The comment is not that of the Samaritan woman, but of the evangelist, and is quite in his manner (cf. Introd., p. xxxiv). 10. ἀπεκρ . καὶεἶπ . For the constr., see on 1:50. εἰᾔδειςτὴνδωρ . κτλ ., “ If thou knewest the gift of God” ; Cf. 8:19. δωρεά , a free gift, occurs in the Gospels adverbially (Matthew 10:8), and is always used in the Acts and Epistles of a divine gift. It refers here to the “ living water” mentioned in the next sentence, i.e. to the gift of the Holy Spirit (which σωρεά always indicates in the Acts). Some commentators have referred to 3:16, and have interpreted it of the gift which God gave of His Son, and the revelation of salvation through Him. τίςἐστινὁλέγωνσοι . The woman had taken Him for a Jew. But He was no ordinary Jew, and if she had understood who He was, she would have been the suppliant (σὺἂνἤτησαςαὐτόν , “ It is you who would have asked Him), and He would have granted her request (cf. Matthew 7:7); He would have given her “ living water.” ἔδωκενἄνσοιὕδωρζῶν . This saying was paradoxical in its form, like the saying with which the attention of Nicodemus was arrested (3:3). The woman did not understand it (v. 11), nor could she have been expected to do so. But Jesus is here following the method by which He was accustomed to convey instruction to simple people who were willing to learn; and the discourse which follows may be particularly compared with 6:26f. The plan of these instructions, for which there are Synoptic parallels, has been discussed in the Introduction, p. cxi. ὕδωρζῶν . “ Living water” is water issuing from a spring or fountain, unlike the water in Jacob’ s Well, which was due to percolation and rainfall,1 being collected in a kind of cistern or pit (τὸφρέαρ , v. 12). This was good water, but had not the virtues of “ running” or “ living” water, such as was always preferred, especially for purposes of purification (Genesis 26:19, Leviticus 14:5, Numbers 19:17). Water was full of symbolism to Eastern thought, and in the O.T. it is often symbolic of the Divine Wisdom which is the source of life. Thus “ the law of the wise” is πηγὴζωῆς (Proverbs 13:14; cf. Proverbs 14:27). The Son of Sirach declares that he that possesses the law shall obtain wisdom: “ with bread of understanding shall she feed him, and give him water of wisdom to drink” (Ecclus. 15:2, 3). Zechariah’ s vision of hope is that “ living waters shall go out from Jerusalem” (Zechariah 14:8; cf. Ezekiel 47:1, Joe 3:18), i.e. that in the glorious future the blessings of the Law shall be extended far and wide. The promise of Isaiah (12:3) is “ with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation,” a passage specially parallel to the declaration of Christ here. “ If thou hadst known who it is that speaketh to thee, thou wouldest have asked Him, and He would have given thee living water.” To appreciate the depth of this saying, it must be remembered that, according to the O.T., it is Yahweh Himself who is the Fountain of living waters (Psalms 36:9, Jeremiah 2:13, Jeremiah 2:17:13; cf. Son 4:15, where the mystic Bride is described as φρέαρὕδατοςζῶντος ). So also in the Apocalypse, the river of the Water of Life proceeds from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Revelation 22:1; cf. Revelation 7:17). Thus the statement of Jesus to the Woman of Samaria that, had He been asked, He would have given her living water, implies His claim to be One with the Lord of the O.T. prophets, who is alone the Source and Spring of the living waters which refresh the soul and assuage the spiritual thirst of men. See further on v. 14. Note that Jesus does not call Himself the Living Water, although He calls Himself the Living Bread (6:51). It is from Him that the Living Water proceeds, for this is the symbol of the Spirit which He was to send (7:39). There is no exact parallel in Philo to this doctrine of the Living Water which flows from the Word, although the similar idea expounded by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 10:4) of the mystical meaning of the Rock in the Desert from which water flowed forth for the refreshment of Israel is found in Leg. Alleg. ii. 21: ἡγὰρἀκρότομοςπέτραἡσοφίατοῦθεοῦἐστιν , ἣνἄκρανκαὶπρωτίστηνἔτεμενἀπὸτῶνἑαυτοῦδυνάμεων , ἐξἧςποτίζειτὰςφιλοθέουςψυχάς . In the Messianic forecast of Isa 35:7 one of the promised blessings was εἰςτὴνδιψῶσανγῆνπηγὴὕδατος , and at v. 26 below (where see note) Jesus is represented as declaring that He was Messiah. See on 9:1 for a quotation of this Messianic passage by Justin Martyr. 11. κύριε . She is impressed by the Speaker, and so addresses Him now (cf. vv. 15-19) in terms of respect (see on 1:38). How could He provide spring water, or water of any kind, without a bucket (ἄντλημα ; cf. v. 8)? For φρέαρ and its depth, see on v. 6. The broken Constr. οὔτε … καί is found only once again in N.T., at 3 John 1:10. λέγειαὐτῷἡγυνή . B, with the Coptic Q and Syr. sin., omits ἡγυνή ; but א cACDLTbWΘ . 12. It could not be from the well, that Jesus would provide living water. Whence then could He get it? Even Jacob got water for himself and his household from this well. Was the Speaker greater than Jacob, who had to draw the water from the well like any one else? μὴσὺμείζωνεἶτοῦπατρὸςἡμῶνἸακώβ ; See 6:31 and cf. the similar question put by the Jews (8:53), “ Art thou greater than our father Abraham?” “ Our father Jacob.” The Samaritans claimed descent from Joseph, through Ephraim and Manasseh (Josephus, Antt. xi. 8, 6). ὃςἔδωκενἡμῖντὸφρέαρ . Field compares Pausan. iii. 25, 3: ἔστιδὲἐντῇπυρρίχῳφρέαρἐντῇἀγορᾷ , δοῦναιδέσφισιτὸνΣιληνὸννομίζουσι . θρέμμα is a word occurring nowhere else in the Greek Bible. τὰθρέμματα means “ cattle,” a usage of which Wetstein gives many instances; etymologically, it might include also Jacob’ s servants or retainers, all who were fed by him. 13, 14. Jesus explains to the puzzled woman that He does not speak of ordinary spring water. Those who drink of it will thirst again; but the Living Water satisfies eternally (οὐμὴδιψήσειεἰςτὸναἰῶνα : cf. 6:35). The parallels between this discourse and that of 6:26f. have been exhibited in the Introduction, p. cxi. 14. “ It shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto eternal life.” In v. 10 the thought is of God as the Eternal Fountain; but it was also a Hebrew thought that the man who has assimilated the Divine Wisdom becomes himself, as it were, a fountain from which streams of the water of life proceed. Thus the promise of Isa 58:11 is, “ Thou shalt be like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.” Schoettgen quotes an apposite saying from the Talmud: “ Quando homo se convertit ad dominum suum, tanquam fons aquis uiuis impletur, et fluenta eius egrediuntur ad omnis generis homines et ad omnes tribus.” And similarly Wetstein quotes from Tanchuma, f. 17. 1: “ Unde Abrahamus didicit legem? R. Simeon filius Jochai dixit: bini renes eius tanquam binae lagenae aquarum factae sunt, ex quibus lex promanavit.” See on 7:38 below. The passage in Ecclus. 24:21-31 about the Divine Wisdom presents some parallels to these thoughts. The stream of the waters of Wisdom comes originally from God: “ Her thoughts are filled from the sea, and her counsels from the great deep” (v. 29). Of the wise man increasing in wisdom it may be said, “ My stream became a river, and my river became a sea” (v. 31); these waters of Wisdom lose themselves at last in the same eternal Ocean whence they sprang. Cf. Psalms 36:9 παρὰσοὶπηγὴζωῆς . The water of life is, as Jesus says here, πηγὴὕδατοςἁλλομένουεἰςζωὴναἰώνιον , leaping forth to eternal life. C. Wesley puts it all in familiar words: “ Thou of life the Fountain art, Freely let me take of Thee; Spring Thou up within my heart, Rise to all eternity.” The verb ἅλλομαι does not seem to be applied elsewhere to the action of water. But water in this passage is symbolic of the Spirit (cf. 7:38f.); and “ ἅλλομαι or ἐφάλλομαι in LXX is applied to the action of a ‘ spirit of God,’ forcing its way or falling violently on Samson, Saul, and David.” 1 It may be, therefore, as E. A. Abbott has suggested, that ἁλλομένου is used here with special reference to the action of the Holy Spirit, vehement like that of rushing waters. If that be so, εἰςζωὴναἰώνιον expresses the purpose of this spiritual torrent of grace; it is “ with a view to eternal life.” There seems to be a reminiscence of this passage in Ignatius, Rom_7, ὕδωρδὲζῶνκαὶλαλοῦν † ἐνἐμοί , where Lightfoot supposes the MS. reading to be a corruption of ὕδωρδὲζῶνκαὶἁλλόμενον . It is possible that there is also a trace of it in Justin (Tryph. 69). Commenting on Isaiah 35:7 he says: πηγὴὕδατοςζῶντοςπαρὰθεοῦ … ἀνέβλυσεν (i.e. has gushed forth) οὗτοςὁΧριστός . Cf. also Tryph. 114, and see on 7:38. Verses 10 and 14 are quoted explicitly in Pistis Sophia, c.141. In one important particular, at least, the promise of Jesus about the Living Water transcends what is said about the Water of Wisdom by the Son of Sirach. “ They that drink me shall yet be thirsty” are the words of Ecclus. 24:21; the spiritual thirst is insatiable, so far as the Hebrew sage knew. But Jesus said: “ Whosoever shall drink of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst” (cf. 6:35). To him who has appropriated the revelation of God in Christ, there is no sense of imperfection in the Divine gift, no dissatisfaction with it as insufficient. The Living Water is always quickening, always flowing in correspondence with human need. As Bengel puts it: “ ubi sitis occurrit, hominis non aquae defectus est.” The promise of Jesus is that those who “ thirst after righteousness shall be filled” (χορτασθήσονται , Matthew 5:6). With ἐκτοῦὕδατοςοὓἐγὼδώσωαὐτῷ cf. ὁἄρτοςὃνἐγὼδώσω of 6:51. א DTbWN, with the Lat. and Syr. vss. generally, insert ἐγώ before the second δώσω ; but om. ABCLΓΔΘ . εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , “ for ever.” This is a common phrase in the LXX and occurs elsewhere in the N.T.; but it is especially frequent in Jn. (6:51, 58, 8:35, 51, 52, 10:28, 11:26, 12:34, 13:8, 14:16, 1 John 2:17, 2 John 1:2). The phrase εἰςζωὴναἰώνιον first appears in 4 Macc. 15:3, where a mother prefers to the temporal safety of her sons τὴνεὐσέβειαν … τὴνσώζουσανεἰςαἰώνιονζωὴνκατὰθεόν . It appears again in John 4:36, John 6:27, John 12:25, Romans 5:21, 1 Timothy 1:16, and Jude 1:21, and in each case the reference is to the future life, the life after death (see note on 3:15). 15. λέγειπρὸςαὐτόν . For the constr., see on 2:3. For κύριε . Cf. v. 11. δόςμοιτοῦτοτὸὕδωρ . Cf. 6:34 δὸςἡμῖντὸνἄρτοντοῦτον . The woman did not understand Jesus, words about the Water which assuages thirst for ever; and her reply is a puzzled request: “ Give me this water, that I may not be thirsty, and need not come hither continually to draw from the well.” She speaks half in irony; for she does not believe in any πηγὴὕδατος such as Jesus had incomprehensibly spoken of as being “ in” the recipient of His gift. The rec. text has ἔρχωμαι with ACDWΓΔΘ ; but א *B support διέρχωμαι . As Field points out, διέρχωμαι may have arisen from a mistake in transcribing μηδεερχωμαι ; but in any case the prep. διά does not add special force to the verb here (cf. Luke 2:15). ἵναμὴδιψῶκτλ . For ἵνα with the pres. subj., cf. 6:29, 1 John 1:2, 1 John 2:27, 1 John 5:3. 16. The exact bearing of the words of Jesus, “ Go, call thy husband, and come hither,” is not easy to determine. Perhaps the woman was going off, after her last retort, and Jesus bade her come back again with her “ husband,” as He wished to carry on His ministry at Sychar (v. 39). He had observed her intelligence, and He knew her need. Another interpretation of the words is that Jesus wished, by mentioning her “ husband,” to recall her to a sense of her sad condition, that thus the way might be opened for a fuller presentation to her of His message. We cannot in any case assume that more than a fragment of the conversation has been preserved, and much that was said is, no doubt, omitted in the narrative of Jn. (see on v. 18). For the verb ὑπάγειν , see on 16:7; and for the aor. imper. φώνησον , see on 2:5. 17. καὶεἶπεν . So א cADLNΓΔΘ , but BCW Syr. sin. and Syr. cur. add αὐτῷ . The woman, by this time, feels that she is in the presence of One to whom she cannot lie, and she confesses, “ I have no husband.” Jesus gently shows her that He knows all about that, and about her past. “ You had five husbands, and he whom thou hast now is not thy husband.” Jn. frequently lays stress on the power which Jesus had of reading men’ s hearts (cf. 1:48, 2:24, 25). If the report of His words here is precise, He showed more than natural insight, and this the evangelist evidently means to suggest. But (see on v. 18) we have to remember that the record of this conversation probably depends on the subsequent report of the woman (v. 27), and in regard to some details she may have confused what her own guilty conscience told her with what Jesus saw in her face. On the other hand, to have had five husbands in succession would be an unusual experience, and the woman may have been notorious for the number of her marriages. But there is no hint in the narrative that Jesus had heard of her before, although there is nothing to exclude this possibility. 18. πέντεἄνδρας . It is remarkable that Heracleon (according to Origen) read ἓξἄνδρας , a reading unknown elsewhere. Origen, himself, finds allegory in the number five, and says that it refers to the fact that the Samaritans only recognised as canonical the five books of Moses.1 For ἀληθές , א has ἀληθῶς . Upon the words πέντεγὰρἄνδραςἔσχεςκτλ . has been built a theory that the narrative of the Samaritan woman at the well is an allegory from beginning to end, and that the woman is a symbol of the Samaritan people. It is recorded (2 Kings 17:24f.) that the King of Assyria brought colonists from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and planted them in Samaria; and that each set of colonists brought with them the cult of their former national deities, who were worshipped side by side with Yahweh. Here then are the five “ husbands” of the Samaritan woman, while the husband who was “ not a husband” stands for the spurious cult of Yahweh, which to the Jews was little better than heathenism.1 But this ingenious interpretation will not bear analysis. It appears from the narrative in 2 Kings 17:30, 2 Kings 17:31 that not five, but seven, strange deities were introduced into Samaria from Assyria.2 Further, these were not the objects of worship in succession, but simultaneously, so that the supposed analogy to the successive husbands of the Samaritan woman breaks down. Again, the allegory would imply that the heathen deities had been the legitimate gods of Samaria, while Yahweh whom she came to worship was not a true “ husband” at all, and that therefore Samaria’ s relation to Yahweh was that of an illegitimate and shameful sort, shame equally resting on her and Him who was not her “ husband.” No Christian writer of the first century, or of any century, would have ventured to construct an allegory so blasphemous when its implications are examined. This fancy may safely be rejected. Another suggestion is that “ he whom thou hast is not thy husband” alludes to Simon Magus, who had a great influence in Samaria (Acts 8:9-11). But the simplest interpretation is the best. The narrative is a genuine reminiscence of an incident that actually happened, recorded many years after the event, and probably— so far as the words of the conversation are concerned— with much freedom. That Jesus expressed Himself so tersely and even enigmatically, to an ignorant woman, as the deep saying of v. 14 would suggest, without explaining what He said more fully, is improbable. On the other hand, the vividness and simplicity of the story have the note of actuality. The narrative brings out clearly the main features of the interview between Jesus and the woman, and it is easy to follow the general lines of their conversation. When the woman got back to her friends (v. 29) she reported in eager haste what her experience had been, and told them what Jesus had said to her. She may have exaggerated or confused words here and there, but that the incident became known to any one was probably due to her own talk about it. Jesus seems to have been alone with her (v. 27), but this is not certain. If we could suppose that one of the disciples remained with his Master at the well, while the others went into Sychar to make their purchases (which would a priori be probable), then we should be able to refer the report of the conversation to the disciple’ s recollection, as well as to the woman’ s account of it. And that the disciple who remained with his Master is not mentioned by the evangelist would not surprise us if he were John the son of Zebedee, who is kept so much out of sight in the Fourth Gospel, while at the same time his reminiscences are behind large parts of it. But this only can be affirmed with certainty, that the woman told the story to her fellow-villagers, and with such emphasis that many of them “ believed on” Jesus, so that He (and no doubt His disciples) stayed at Sychar for two days (v. 40). All the disciples who were present (see on v. 8) must have become thoroughly familiar with her report. 19. For κύριε , see v. 11, and for the shades of meaning of θεωρεῖν see on 2:23. κύριε , θεωρῶκτλ ., “ Sir, I perceive,” sc. from what you have said, “ that you are a prophet” . A prophet was one who had special powers of insight, as well as of foresight. Cf. Luke 7:39, where the Pharisee objects that if Jesus were really a prophet He would have known that the woman with the cruse of ointment was a sinner. The Samaritan woman was astonished at the knowledge of her personal history which Jesus displayed, and, by her reply, she virtually confesses that it is wit! her even as He had said. 20. The woman diverts the conversation to another subject, and proceeds to raise a theological difficulty, either to evade the personal issue, or because she was honestly anxious to learn what a prophet with such wonderful insight would say about the standing controversy between Jews and Samaritans. Probably both motives affected her. οἱπατέρεςἡμῶνκτλ ., “ Our fathers worshipped in this mountain,” i.e. Mount Gerizim, at the foot of which Jacob’ s Well is situated. Abraham (Genesis 12:7) and Jacob (Genesis 33:20) had set up altars at Shechem; and the Samaritan Pentateuch at Deuteronomy 27:4 recorded the setting up of an altar in Mount Gerizim (the true reading being Mount Ebal); cf. also Deuteronomy 11:29, Deuteronomy 27:12. After the Return from the Babylonian Captivity, the Jews and Samaritans parted company, and a temple was erected on Mount Gerizim about 400 b.c. It was destroyed by John Hyrcanus about 129 b.c.; but the odium theologicum grew more bitter thereafter, and in the first century the hatred between Jew and Samaritan was ready to break out at any moment. καὶὑμεῖςλέγετεκτλ ., “ and you (i.e. the Jews) say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.” ὁτόπος is “ the place (Deuteronomy 12:5) which the Lord your God shall choose … to put His Name there” (cf. Deuteronomy 16:2, Deuteronomy 26:3), but the name of the place is not given in the Books of the Law, and the Samaritans recognised no later Scriptures (as they deemed them). Thus such passages as 2 Chronicles 6:6, 2 Chronicles 7:12, Psalms 78:68, to which Jews appealed as justifying their claim for Jerusalem as the appointed religious centre, were not recognised as authoritative by Samaritans. For τόπος as indicating the Temple, see 11:48. J. Lightfoot1 illustrates this passage by the following from Bereshith Rabba, § 32: “ R. Jochanan going to Jerusalem to pray, passed by Mount Gerizim. A certain Samaritan, seeing him, asked him, ‘ Whither goest thou?’ ‘ I am,’ saith he ‘ going to Jerusalem to pray.’ To whom the Samaritan, ‘ Were it not better for thee to pray in this holy mountain than in that cursed house’ ?” Cf. Luke 9:53 and John 8:48. The verb προσκυνεῖν is used absolutely here and at 12:20; it may be followed either by a dative, 4:21, 23, 9:38 (as always in Mk. and Paul), or by an accusative, 4:22, 23 (as in Luke 24:52). It is noteworthy that in the Apocalypse, where it occurs 25 times, there is the same variety of construction as in Jn. Cf. Revelation 5:14 for the same absolute use as here.2 The word always stands in Jn. for divine worship, while elsewhere it sometimes signifies no more than respect (cf. Matthew 18:26 and perhaps Matthew 8:2). 21. πίστευέμοι , γύναι , is read by א BC*LW; the rec. has γύναι , πίστευσόνμοι . πίστευέμοι , a unique phrase in the Greek Bible, calls attention to the fact that what follows is deliberately said: the more usual ἀμήνἀμήν does not occur in this chapter (see on 1:51). In a monastic Rule formerly ascribed to St. Benedict it was laid down that no stronger form of asseveration than this is to be used: “ iuramentum aliud nemo proferat, nisi Crede mihi, sicut in euangeliis legimus dominum Samaritanae affirmasse, aut Certe aut Sane.” 3 γύναι ; see on 2:4. ἔρχεταιὥρα , “ an hour is coming” : so v. 23, 5:25, 28 16:2, 25,32. That the phrase occurs 7 times exactly is noted by Abbott (Diat. 2625). It is not ἡὥρα , for the thought of the inevitableness of the predestined hour (see on 2:4) is not present here; cf. Luke 17:22. οὔτε … οὔτε … , “ not (only) in Gerizim and not (only) in Jerusalem.” These ancient rivalries will disappear when the spirituality of true religion is fully realised. The prophets had already taken this wide view. “ Men shall worship Yahweh, every one from his place,” was the vision of Zephaniah (2:11): “ in every place incense is offered unto my Name, and a pure offering,” was Malachi’ s forecast (1:11). The words ascribed to Jesus here are in entire harmony with His saying about the destruction of the Temple, and its replacement by the spiritual temple of believers (see on 2:19). Cf. Acts 7:48, Acts 7:17:24, Acts 7:25. “ The Father,” not as contrasted with “ the Son” (see 3:35), but as the Father of all men. The Samaritan woman had referred to “ our father Jacob,” and “ our fathers (who) worshipped” in Gerizim (vv. 12, 20); but pride of ancestry is to be replaced by the thought of the universal Fatherhood of God, when questions pertaining to worship are being answered. ὁπατήρ is a very frequent designation of God in Jn.; but it nearly always occurs in connexion with the thought of the Sonship of Christ. Here, however, it is rather “ the Universal Father” ; perhaps we may compare 8:27, 16:26f. (see on 6:27). 22. This verse is an assertion of the superiority of the Jewish religion to the Samaritan, not based on any difference as to the place of worship, but. rather on the difference as to their knowledge of the Object of worship. “ Ye,” i.e. the Samaritans, “ worship that which ye know not” (cf. ἣνὑμεῖςοὐκοἴδατε in v. 32). They accepted Yahweh for the true God, indeed, but they knew little about Him. By refusing to recognise the writings of the prophets and psalmists they had shut themselves off from all revelation of God except that which was contained in the Law. The Athenian inscription Ἀγνώστῳθεῷ quoted in Acts 17:23 provides no parallel to the ignorance of the Samaritans. The Samaritans knew, as the Athenians professedly did not know, the Name of the God to whom they erected their altar on Mount Gerizim; but their ignorance was an ignorance of His character and purposes. “ We,” on the other hand, i.e. the Jews, “ worship that which we know” (but cf. 7:28), the same God as the God of the Samaritans, but known to Jews as He was not known to Samaritans; cf. Psalms 147:19, Psalms 147:20.Psalms 147:1 The Jews were the chosen people, “ whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises” (Romans 9:4). Paul’ s enumeration of their prerogatives is not more emphatic than the calm statement, “ We worship that which we know.” The woman of Samaria is not permitted to suppose that the Speaker believes the Samaritan religion to be as good as the Jewish, although He tells her that in the future their poor rivalries as to their respective sanctuaries will be disregarded as of no consequence. He gives the reason why the Jewish religion is, and must be, superior: ἡσωτηρίαἐκτῶνἸουδαίωνἐστίν . ἡσωτηρία , “ the salvation,” the Messianic deliverance (see on 3:17), was the central thought of Jewish national expectation (cf. Luke 1:69, Luke 1:71, Luke 1:77, Acts 13:26, Acts 13:47). It was to come from the tribe of Judah, ἐκτῶνἸουδαίων , as distinct from the other tribes; cf. Genesis 49:10 (a passage which Samaritans accepted as canonical, although they do not seem to have taken it as Messianic), Isaiah 59:20 (quoted Romans 11:26). Later Judaism held firmly to this conviction of Jewish prerogative. Cf. Test. of XII. Patr., Daniel 5:10, “ There shall arise unto you from the tribe of [Judah and] Levi the salvation of Yahweh” ; see also Gad viii. 1, Naph. viii. 2). See further for σωτήρ , σωτηρία , on 4:42. Here the point is that the Messianic deliverance was to be ἐκτῶνἸουδαίων . For the constr. εἶναιἐκ … cf. 1:46, 7:22, 52, 10:16; and for “ the Jews” in the Fourth Gospel, see on 1:19. The force of ἡμεῖς must be observed: “ We worship that which we know.” Jesus, here, definitely associates Himself with the Jews; He is a Jew. Their God is His God. Nowhere in the Gospels is there another passage so emphatic as this, in its assertion of the common nationality of Jesus and the Jews who rejected Him; cf. Matthew 15:24. Here He associates Himself with Jews in a common worship. The plural οἴδαμεν in 3:11 (see note) is not a true parallel to this. See on 15:25. In this verse are expressed the worthiness of Jewish worship and the supreme privilege of the Jewish race; but in v. 23 we have on the other hand the simplicity of the ideal worship of God and the catholicity of true religion. Both aspects are included in the Fourth Gospel. The evangelist is not forgetful of the debt which Christianity owes to Judaism, while he views Christianity sub specie œ ternitatis as for all men and for all time. 23, 24. The repetition of τοὺςπροσκυνοῦντας seems to have misled scribes and translators, so that there are a good many minor variants, but none calling for special notice. Syr. cur. exhibits extraordinary confusion here, for in it v. 24 runs as follows: “ For God is a Spirit, and those that worship Him in spirit, and to worship for them it behoves, even those that in spirit and in truth worship Him.” 1 23. ἔρχεταιὢρα , repeated from v. 21 (where see note), the theme of that verse, which has been temporarily abandoned in v. 22, being resumed. It is a question whether καὶνῦνἐστίν , both here and at 5:25, should not be treated as an editorial comment on the words of Jesus. But probably the words “ and now is” are appended to “ an hour is coming,” to obviate any misunderstanding. Jesus has told the Samaritan woman that the old rivalries as to sanctuary are passing away, and that in the future “ the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” But that is not confined to the future; it may be equally asserted of the present, that true worshippers worship thus. See on 5:25. For the word ἀληθινός , “ genuine,” see on 1:9. Here οἱἀληθινοὶπροσκυνηται is equivalent to “ the genuine worshippers” : at whatever altar they worship, they worship ἐνπνεύματικαὶἀληθείᾳ . The πνεῦμα is the highest in man, for it associates him with God who is Spirit. In so far as a man walks κατὰπνεῦμα , does he realise the dignity of his being (cf. Romans 8:5). To worship ἐνπνεύματι is, then, to worship in harmony with the Divine Spirit, and so to worship in truth . This is a general statement, and we must not bring in here thoughts which are peculiar to Christian doctrine, because of that fuller revelation of God which was granted in the Incarnation. Indeed, Philo has a passage precisely parallel: γνήσιοι [θεραπεῖαι ] δὲεἰσὶναἱψυχῆςψιλὴνκαὶμόνηνθυσίανφερούσης , ἀλήθειαν , sc. “ Genuine religious services are those of a soul offering the plain and only sacrifice, viz. truth” (quod. det. pot. insid. 7). Cf. Psalms 145:18. καὶγάρ only occurs again in Jn. at 4:45; it seems to mean “ for indeed” (but cf. Abbott, Diat. 2167). ὁπατήρ , the Universal Father; see on v. 21. ζητεῖ , “ seeks.” It is not only that the true worshippers are accepted of God, but that He seeks for such. The approach of man to God is not initiated by man; the first movement of love is on the side of God. This is the constant teaching of Jn.; cf. 1 John 4:10, and John 3:16, John 6:44, John 15:16. It is a phase of that doctrine of pre-destination which underlies the Fourth Gospel; see note on 3:14. The gift of the Spirit is a necessary preliminary to spiritual worship. 24. πνεῦμαὁθεός . The spirituality of God was an essential tenet of Judaism (cf. 1 Kings 8:27, Isaiah 31:3), although all its implications were not recognised. It was a tenet common to Jews and Samaritans, but it is here for the first time put into three words, and its bearing on the nature of worship drawn out. The similar phrases ὁθεὸςφῶςἐστίν , ὁθεὸςἀγάπηἐστίν (1 John 1:5, 1 John 4:8), show that we must render “ God is Spirit,” not “ God is a spirit.” It is the Essential Being, rather than the Personality, of God which is in question. The consequence of this, as regards worship, is repeated from v. 23. For true worship there must be affinity between the Worshipped and the worshipper. ἐνπνεύματικαὶἀληθεία . א * has the aberrant reading ἐνπνεύματιἀληθείας (from 14:17). For the repetition of the phrase “ worship in spirit and in truth” from v. 23, see on 3:16 above. Such refrains or repetitions are a special feature of Johannine style. 25. Little is known about the Messianic doctrine of the Samaritans, but that they cherished Messianic hopes, although less clearly than the Jews did, is known from other sources, Josephus (Antt. XVIII. iv. 1) tells of a rising in Samaria, quelled by Pilate, which was evidently due to a kind of fanaticism, similar to that of Simon Magus in the same district (Acts 8:9) who gave himself out to be “ some great one.” 1 The Samaritan woman thought of Messiah as a prophet, like the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18 (cf. v. 29 below). This was common to Jew and Samaritan, that Messiah was to be a Revealer of new truths about God and man: ὅτανἔλθῃἐκεῖνος , ἀναγγελεῖ (cf. 16:13) ἡμῖνἅπαντα . Thus in the Similitudes of Enoch (xlvi. 3) there is a description of the Son of Man “ who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the God of spirits hath chosen Him.” οἶδα . א cL fam. 13 have οἴδαμεν . The Samaritan woman had already confessed that Jesus was “ a prophet” (v. 19); but now she begins to wonder if He may not be more. “ I know,” she says it wistfully, “ that Messiah is coming; when He comes, He will declare all things to us.” Her words are almost a query; they invite a further declaration on the part of Jesus, which He gives forthwith. Messiah is here without the article, and the title may have been used as a kind of proper name. At 1:41 (where see note) it has the article, and there as here is explained by Jn. for his Greek readers (cf. 1:38). ὁλεγόμενος is not “ which is interpreted” (ὅἐστινμεθερμηνευόμενον , 1:41), but is equivalent to “ which is commonly called,” χριστός being used like a proper name by the time that the Fourth Gospel was written. See, for a similar usage, 11:16 and cf. 5:2. 26. Jesus declares Himself. “ I who am talking to you am He.” So, to the blind man whose sight had been restored, He said ὁλαλῶνμετὰσοῦἐκεῖνόςἐστιν (9:37). The usage of the phrase ἐγώεἰμι in Jn. has been discussed in the Introduction, p. cxx; and it is probable that this is one of the cases where, although the predicate is not expressed, it is implied in the context: “ I that talk to you am the Christ.” See on v. 10. Nevertheless, the phrase ἐγώεἰμιαὐτὸςὁλαλῶν is placed in the mouth of Yahweh at Isaiah 52:6, and it may be that Jn. here intends ἐγώεἰμι to indicate the style of Deity, as at other points (see Introd., p. cxxi). Cf. esp. 8:58. ἐγώεἰμι , ὁλαλῶνσοι ,, then, if not an assertion of the Speaker’ s Divinity, is at any rate an assertion of His Messiah-ship. That it should have been made so early in His public ministry is not in accordance with what we should gather from the Synoptists. Perhaps Jn. has antedated this momentous declaration; or perhaps it was actually made on this occasion, although unheard or unnoticed by Peter, who may not have been present with Jesus on His journey through Samaria (see on v. 8 above). The Disciples Wonder (V. 27) 27. ἐπὶτούτῳκτλ ., “ upon this came His disciples,” i.e. at this point in the story. ἐπὶτούτῳ is not used elsewhere in the N.T. in this sense, but the reading is well attested, only א *D having ἐντούτῳ . ἐθαύμαζον , “ began to wonder” or “ kept wondering.” This is the true reading as against the rec. ἐθαύμασαν . To talk with a woman in a public place was not consonant with the grave dignity of a Rabbi; Lightfoot quotes the Rabbinical precept, “ Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no, not with his own wife.” 1 Yet the disciples had learnt by this time that Jesus had good reason for what He did, and they did not venture to expostulate. They did not ask the woman Τίζητεῖς ; “ What do you want?” nor did they ask Jesus Τίλαλεῖςμετ ʼ αὐτῆς ; “ Why are you talking with her?” That they did not ask these questions, which they were tempted to ask, is the reminiscence of some one who was of the company. For μέντοι , see on 12:42. The Samaritan Woman Tells Her Friends About Jesus (Vv. 28-30) 28. The woman was so much impressed that she went off to tell her friends in Sychar. She left her waterpot, or ὑδρία , which was a large, heavy vessel (cf. 2:6), behind her, as she intended to return speedily. Probably it had not yet been filled, as she had been engrossed with the conversation (cf. v. 7), and it was useless to carry it backwards and forwards. 29. During the heat of the day, the men of the village were not working in the fields, and so she found them readily. In her excitement, she uses the exaggerated language of an uneducated woman, “ Come and see a man who told me all things that ever I did.” πάνταἅ . So א BC* Syr. sin. Syr cur., as against πάνταὃσα of the rec. text (cf. v. 39). μήτιοὗτόςἐστινὁχριστός ; “ Is this, perhaps, the Christ?” (see on v. 25). Cf. Matthew 12:23 μήτιοὗτόςἐστινὁυἱὸςΔαυείδ ; and John 8:22 (for the form of sentence) μήτιἀποκτενεῖἑαυτόν ; The question is put tentatively, with just a shade of hope that the answer may turn out to be in the affirmative. But cf. 18:35 and 21:5, where μήτι introduces a question to which it is assumed that the answer will be “ No.” 30. We have seen above (v. 25) that the Samaritans had Messianic hopes. The men of Sychar were so much impressed by what the woman told them that they left the village and “ were coming” to Him. The impft. tense is used as indicating that they were on their way while the conversation between Jesus and His disciples which follows was being carried on. The rec. text has οὖν after ἐξῆλθον , which is rejected by ABLΓΔΘ . But א NW have it, and it would be quite in Jn.’ s style. The omission of οὖν by a scribe after ἐξῆλθον would be a natural slip, εξηλθονου passing into εξηλθον . The redundant ἐξῆλθονἐκ occurs again 8:42, 59, 10:39, 1 John 2:19; and cf. 18:29. Discourse with the Disciples (Vv. 31-38) 31. ἐντῷμεταξύ , “ in the meanwhile,” sc. before the Samaritan villagers arrived. There is no exact parallel to this use of μεταξύ in the Greek Bible; but cf. Acts 13:42 and Luke 8:1. ἠρώτωναὐτόνκτλ ., “ the disciples begged Him, saying, Rabbi, eat.” For of οἱμαθηταί used absolutely of the disciples who were present, see on 2:2. For ἐρωτᾶν , “ to beseech,” cf. vv. 40, 47. The disciples (see vv. 8, 31) were apprehensive lest He should be overcome by hunger and fatigue (cf. v. 6). See on 1:38 for “ Rabbi” as a title of address. 32. Jesus had been fatigued, but He was sustained by spiritual support of which the disciples did not know (v. 34). ἐγώ and ὐμεῖς are both emphatic. βρῶσις occurs again 6:27, 55, in the same sense as the more correct form βρῶμα (see v. 34), viz. that of the thing eaten, not of the act of eating (as in 1 Corinthians 8:4). The only other occurrence of βρῶσις in the Gospels is in Matthew 6:19, Matthew 6:20, where it means “ rust.” 33. The conversation pursues the course usual in Jn.’ s narrative. Jesus utters a profound saying (v. 32). It is misunderstood and its spiritual meaning is not discerned (v. 33). Then He enlarges the saying and explains it to some extent.1 Here the puzzled disciples say to each other (πρὸςἀλλήλους ; cf. 16:17), “ Did some one perhaps bring Him something to eat?” μήτιςἤνεγκεναὐτῷφαγεῖν ; For constr., see on 4:7; and cf. v. 29 for the form of the sentence. 34. ποιήσω is read by BCDLNTbΘ W the rec. text has ποιῶ , with א AΓΔ . Yet ποιήσω may be due to assimilation of tense with τελειώσω which follows. Jesus answers the disciples by reminding them that it was in the fulfilment of His mission that He had His strength and His joy. He had been tired and, no doubt, hungry; but the joy of perceiving the receptiveness of the Samaritan woman and the eager welcome which the villagers gave Him was sufficient to renew His vigour of body as well as of spirit. To do God’ s will is the supreme obligation of man at every moment of life, and to it is attached the supreme reward (Mark 3:35, Matthew 7:21, John 7:17, John 9:31 and passim). The condition “ Thy will be done” (Matthew 6:10) governs all Christian prayer, as it governed the prayer of Christ (Luke 22:42, Matthew 26:42) at Gethsemane. Christ’ s “ meat” was to do the will of God, the metaphor being similar to that suggested by “ Man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3), which was the Scripture thought that supported Him in His Temptation (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4); cf. Job 23:12, Psalms 119:103. It was in Him that the words of the Psalm, “ Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” received their complete fulfilment (Psalms 40:7, Psalms 40:8 , Hebrews 10:7). ἐμὸνβρῶμάἐστινἵναποιήσωκτλ .: ἵνα has no telic force here (cf. 6:29, 15:8, 17:3), “ My meat is to do, etc.” Wetstein quotes a good parallel from Thucyd. i. 70 μήτεἑορτὴνἄλλοτιἡγεῖσθαιἢτὸτὰδέονταπρᾶξαι . βρῶμα is found in Jn. only in this verse; see above (v. 32) on βρῶσις . The thought is one which appears many times in Jn.; e.g. “ I seek not mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me” (5:30), and “ I am come down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me” (6:38); cf. 14:31 and Acts 13:22. τοῦπέμψαντόςμε . For the conception of Jesus as “ sent” by God, see on 3:17. καὶτελειώσωαὐτοῦτὸἔργον , “ and to accomplish His work.” “ To do God’ s will” is, in a measure, within the reach of any man, but “ to accomplish His work,” to perform it perfectly and completely, was possible only for the Son of Man. This perfection of achievement bore witness to the uniqueness of His mission: “ The works that the Father hath given me to accomplish bear witness that the Father hath sent me” (5:36). So at the close of His ministry He could say, “ I have accomplished the work which Thou hast given me to do” (17:4); and from the Cross came the word τετέλεσται (19:30). 35. The illustration of the harvest used by Jesus to unfold to the disciples the significance of the incident just narrated brings Jn. into line with the Synoptists, who repeatedly tell of His parables of the seed. He was the Great Sower (cf. Mark 4:14ff.), and the seed just now sown in the heart of the Samaritan woman was springing up already. The harvest of souls at Sychar followed forthwith upon the sowing, contrary to the natural order in which he who wishes to reap must have patience and wait. Natural law does not always prevail in the spiritual world. The spiritual harvest was ready to be reaped with joy (v. 35), so that Sower and reaper might rejoice together (v. 36). But the reaping would not be for Him. It was the apostles who were to reap at a later date the harvest which originally sprang from the seed that He had sown in Samaria. τετράμηνος So א ABCDLNTbΘ , as against the rec. τετράμηνον . τετράμηνος does not occur again in the Greek Bible, although τετράμηνον (used as a substantive) is read by A at Judges 19:2, Judges 20:47. The meaning “ four months long” is not doubtful, and the words τετράμηνόςἐστινκαὶὁθερισμὸςἔρχεται mean “ the harvest comes in four months’ time.” But we cannot interpret this as indicating that the harvest of the fields of Sychar would not be ready for four months from the date of the interview of the woman of Samaria with Jesus, for that would involve the scene being laid in January or early in February. That was the rainy season, and there would have been no difficulty in getting water to drink, such as is suggested (vv. 6, 7). The words οὐχὑμεῖςλέγετε , “ Do you not say?” which introduce the sentence, suggest that it was a proverbial phrase. J. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr., in loc.) quotes a passage from a Rabbinical writer, showing that the agricultural year was divided into six periods of two months each, viz. seed-time, winter, spring, harvest, summer, and the season of extreme heat, so that the interval between sowing and harvest would be reckoned roughly as four months, although actually it might be a little longer. Thus Jesus here reminds His disciples of a rural saying, “ Harvest does not come for four months,” and then he points to the contrast with the spiritual harvest already ripe for gathering in the hearts of the Samaritan villagers, although the seed had been sown only that day. The words of this proverbial saying, with a trifling change, form a line of iambic verse:1 τετράμηνόςἐστιχὡθερισμὸςἔρχεται . If Jn. represented Jesus as quoting Greek iambics, then there would be some ground for treating the narrative of c. 4 as an allegory rather than as an historical reminiscence, freely edited. But this would be at variance with the general lines on which the Gospel is written. The disciples elsewhere (see on 1:38) address Jesus in Aramaic, and doubtless He spoke in the same language to them. That Jn. should represent them as familiar with a Greek proverb in verse is incredible. Further, not only is this proverb unknown in Greek literature, but it would be hard for it to have currency among Greeks. There is no evidence that the Greeks had a sixfold division of the agricultural year as the Hebrews had; and if they did not adopt this division, four months would not be as likely an interval to be contemplated as normal between seed-time and harvest as five or even six months. Again, ἔτι precedes τετράμηνόςἐστινκτλ . in א ABCNTbWDΘ , and has to be retained, although it is omitted by DL fam. 13 Syr. cur. But ἔτι spoils the iambic senarius, and yet it must be reckoned with; for the saying which Jesus quotes as familiar to the disciples is, “ There are yet four months (sc. from the time of sowing), and then comes the harvest.” We conclude, therefore, that the rhythm of ὁθερισμὸςἔρχεται is an accident, and that we are to regard the whole phrase as the Greek rendering of an Aramaic agricultural proverb. See 5:14 for another accidental Greek verse. With the paratactic constr. ἔτιτετράμηνόςἐστινκαὶὁθερισμὸςἔρχεται , Milligan2 compares the illiterate P Par. 18:14 ἔτιδύοἡμέραςἔχομενκαὶφθάσομενεἰςΠηλοίσι . ἰδούλέγωὑμῖν . ἰδού is unusual in Jn., occurring again only in 16:32, 19:5 (12:15 is a LXX quotation). Jn. generally has ἴδε (see on 1:29). ἰδού here and at 16:32 is almost equivalent to “ but” ; it introduces a contrast with what has gone before. ἐπάρατετοὺςὀφθαλμούς is an expressive phrase, suggesting careful and deliberate gaze, which we have both in O.T. (Genesis 13:10, 2 Samuel 18:24, 1 Chronicles 21:16, Ezekiel 18:6) and in N.T. (Luke 16:23, Luke 18:13, Matthew 17:8). See on 6:5 (cf. 11:41, 17:1), where, as here, the phrase is followed by the verb θεᾶσθαι , which in the N.T. (see on 1:14) is always used of seeing with the bodily eyes.3 The disciples could see for themselves that the fields were whitening for the harvest already. Jesus does not say that the material harvest of the fields of Sychar was springing up immediately after it had been sown; the harvest of which He speaks is expressly contrasted with the harvest that takes months to grow and ripen. The allusion is to the spiritual receptiveness of the Samaritan woman, the measure of faith which she has already exhibited (v. 29), and the eagerness with which her friends and neighbours were even now coming to inquire of Jesus for themselves. These were the fields for the spiritual harvest, which was patent not to the eye of faith only, but to the bodily eyes of the disciples, for these people were hastening to meet them even at the moment of speaking. ἤδη may be taken either with what precedes, or with what follows. But the word “ already” seems to go more impressively with what has just been said than with the saying of v. 36. Nothing, then, can be certainly inferred as to the time of year from this verse. The fields may have, literally, been ready for the reapers, and if so, it was the harvest season. That, in itself, would bring home to the disciples the meaning of the Lord’ s words about the spiritual harvest; but it is clear that it is the spiritual harvest which is primarily referred to in v. 35b, while it is the natural harvest which is the subject of the proverb of v. 35a. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ Jesus Goes Up to Jerusalem for the Passover (5:1) 5:1. The conclusion of Part I.1 tells of the continued faithfulness of the Twelve (6:67, 68); and it can hardly be doubted that they went up to Jerusalem for the Passover as well as Jesus on this occasion. Hence, behind the story of the cure of the impotent man (5:2-9) there may have been the original testimony of some who were present. And inasmuch as in the Fourth Gospel μετὰταῦτα is the phrase which seems to mark the beginning of a new set of reminiscences dictated by John the son of Zebedee to the future evangelist,2 it is quite possible that the witness of John is behind Son_5 and 7:15-24, allowing for evangelical commentary and expansion in 5:20-30.3 ἑορτὴτῶνἸουδαίων , i.e. the Passover, which has already been mentioned in 6:4 as near at hand. This was probably the Passover of the year 28.4 א CLD read ἡἑορτή , but the article is rightly omitted by ABDNWΘ . Its insertion is readily explained by the preceding ἦν . If ἡἑορτή were the true reading, the reference ought to be to the Feast of Tabernacles, which was pre-eminently the feast of the Jews. One minor uncial for τῶνἸουδαίων reads τῶνἀζύμων , rightly identifying the feast as that of “ unleavened bread,” i.e. the Passover. For the expression “ a feast of the Jews,” see on 2:13. καὶἀνέβηὁἸησοῦςεἰςἸεροσόλυμα . The Passover was a feast of obligation, and so Jesus went up (ἀνέβη , the regular word for going up to the metropolis; cf. 2:13); but, as it seems, He went up privately and unaccompanied by His disciples. There had been danger of popular enthusiasm (6:15), which, if exhibited at Jerusalem, would have caused trouble. So it appears that He went up without making it known who He was; even the man whom He healed did not know His name (v. 13). His disciples, i.e. the Twelve, may have gone up to the feast, as would become pious men, but they do not seem to have been in attendance upon Jesus. ὁἸησοῦς . So א CDΔΘ W, but ABDLΓ om. ὁ . See on 1:29. For the form Ἰεροσόλυμα , see on 1:19. Healing of the Impotent Man at the Pool of Bethesda (Vv. 2-9) 2. ἔστινδὲἐντοῖςἸεροσολύμοις . The present tense (instead of ἦν , as at 4:6) has been taken, e.g. by Bengel,1 as proof that the Fourth Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; but this would be a precarious inference, even if it were not ruled out on other grounds. An old man looking back on the city as he knew it, might naturally say “ is,” especially if he had in mind a pool or spring. The Sinai Syriac changes “ is” to “ was,” and so does Nonnus. κολυμβήθρα (from κολυμβάω , I dive) is a pool deep enough to swim in; It occurs again in N.T. only at 9:7 of the Pool of Siloam, but is a LXX word. The text of this verse is uncertain. Βηθεσδά is the rec. reading, following “ Syrian” authorities ; Βηθσαιδά is read by BW and also by Tertullian, an unusual and strong combination, but this spelling may be due to some confusion with Bethsaida of Galilee; Βηθζαθά has the support of א LD, and is probably original. Bethzatha was the name of part of the city, north of the Temple. ἐπὶτῇπροβατικῇ is the best attested reading (BCΔ NW), and it would mean that the pool was “ by the sheep gate” or “ by the sheep market,” the adj. προβατικῇ requiring a substantive to be supplied. In Nehemiah 3:1, Nehemiah 12:39 mention is made of the building of ἡπύληἡπροβατική , which is believed to have been north-east of the Temple, and close to the present St. Stephen’ s Gate, by which flocks from the country enter Jerusalem. א cADLΘ have the aberrant reading ἐντῇπροβατικῇ which some Latin vss. perversely render in inferiorem partem. The Western reading προβατικὴκολυμβήθρα , “ a sheep pool,” is supported by א * 61, Eusebius, and others. It appears, then, that ἐπὶτῇπροβατικῇκολυμβήθρα must be adopted. But it has been suggested1 that behind προβατική lies the Aramaic פ ּ ְ ר ו ֹ ב ָ ט ַ י ָ א , which means a bath; and then the original text would have been, “ There is a pool at the Bath, which is called in Hebrew Bethzatha (House of the Olive?).” The situation of this pool is as uncertain as its exact name. There are twin pools north of the Temple area, near the fortress of Antonia, which Schick identified with the κολυμβήθρα of the text, but it is doubtful if these existed before the destruction of the Temple. Others have identified the “ Pool of Bethzatha” with the “ Pool of Siloam” (9:7); but they seem to be specially distinguished by the evangelist. Many writers are inclined to find the Pool of Bethzatha in the Virgin’ s Well, anciently called Gihon, i.e. “ the Gusher,” which is periodically subject to a bubbling of its waters caused by a natural spring. This is south of the Temple, in the Valley of Kidron, and we believe it to be the most probable site of “ Bethzatha.” ἡἐπιλεγομένηἙβραϊστὶΒηθζαθά . Ἑβραϊστί occurs only in John 5:2, John 5:19:13, John 5:17, John 5:20, John 5:20:16 and Revelation 9:11, Revelation 9:16:16; it signifies not the classical Hebrew of the O.T., but the Aramaic in common use. See on 1:38 for instances of Jn.’ s habit of giving the Hebrew name of a person or place, along with a Greek equivalent. Here and at 19:13, 17 he describes the place first in Greek, and then adds its Aramaic designation: he is not interpreting the Aramaic name (see on 4:25). For ἡἐπιλεγομένη , א *D fam. 1 have τὸλεγόμενον . πέντεστοὰςἔχουσα . These would have been cloisters or arched spaces round the pool similar to those which are found in India near tanks. Schick claimed that such were to be seen at the twin pools which he discovered; but this has not been generally admitted.1 Those who interpret the narrative symbolically, find the Five Books of Moses in the “ five porches.” We have already considered this method of interpreting Joh_2 While symbolic meanings may easily be read into the narrative once written, there is no probability that it was originally constructed in so artificial a fashion. 3. The picture of the sick people lying under the covered arcades (it would have been too cold at the Passover season to lie out in the open air) waiting for the bubbling up of the intermittent spring, which was supposed to have healing properties, is most natural and vivid. ἐνταύταις , sc. in the στοαί or arches. κατέκειτο . The verb does not appear again in Jn. The rec. text inserts πολύ after πλῆθος ,, but om. א BCDLW. τυφλῶν , χωλῶν , ξηρῶν , “ blind, halt, withered.” ξηροί were those who had atrophied limbs (cf. Matthew 12:10, Luke 6:8). The Western text (D a b) adds παραλυτικῶν , but this is only a gloss explanatory of ξηρῶν : om. א ABCLWΘ . After ξηρῶν , παραλυτικῶν , the rec. adds ἐκδεχομένωντῆντοῦὓδατοςκίνησιν . This, again, is a Western (and Syrian) amplification; it is omitted by א ABCL, although supported by DWΓΔΘ syrr. It was suggested by the mention in v. 7 of the disturbance of the healing waters. 4. Verse 4, like the words ἐκδεχομένων … κίνησιν , is no part of the original text of Jn., but is a later gloss. The best attested text of the gloss is thus given by Hort: ἄγγελοςδὲκυρίουκατέβαινενἐντῇκολυμβήθρᾳκαὶἐταράσσετοτὸὕδωρ · ὁοὖνπρῶτοςἐμβὰς [μετὰτὴνταραχὴντοῦὕδατος ] ὑγιὴςἐγίνετοοἵῳδήποτ ʼ οὖνκατείχετονοσήματι . The verse is wholly omitted by א BC*DW 33, the Old Syriac, the early Coptic versions (including Q), and the true text of the Latin Vulgate. In the Latin MSS. in which it is found, it appears in three distinct forms, the diversity of which provides an additional argument against its genuineness. The earliest patristic authority for it is Tertullian (de bapt. 5), the earliest Greek writer who shows knowledge of it being Chrysostom; his comment on the passage is: “ An angel came down and troubled the water, and endued it with healing power, that the Jews might learn that much more could the Lord of angels heal the diseases of the soul.” It is a marginal gloss which crept into some Western and Syrian texts, the chief uncials which contain it being ALΓΔΘ . Linguistic evidence also marks the verse as not original. Thus the words ἐκδέχομαι , κίνησις (here only in N.T.), κατὰκαιρόν (cf. Romans 5:6, Numbers 9:13), ἐμβαίνω (of going into the water; cf. 6:17), ταραχή (here only in the N.T.), κατέχομαι , and νόσημα (here only in N.T.) are non-Johannine. The healing virtues of the intermittent spring were explained by the Jewish doctrine of the ministry of angels, and the explanation first found a place in the margin and, later, in the text. Cf. Revelation 16:5 for “ the angel of the waters,” i.e. the angel who was believed to preside over the mysterious powers of water. 5. The constr. τριάκοντακαὶὀκτὼἔτηἔχων appears again in v. 6 πολύνχρόνονἔχει . Cf. also 8:57, 9:21, 11:17 for an acc. of the length of time, governed by ἔχειν . καί before ὀκτώ is om. by BΓΔΘ , but ins. א ACDLW; αὐτοῦ after ἀσθενείᾳ is om. by AΓΔ , but ins. א BC*DLΘ W. The man had been infirm for thirty-eight years; it is not said that he had been waiting all that time by the pool. That his paralysis had lasted thirty-eight years is mentioned to show that it was no temporary ailment from which he was suffering, just as it is told of the woman in Luke 13:11 that she had been infirm eighteen years, or of the lame man whom Peter cured that “ he was more than forty years old” (Acts 4:22). There is no more reason for finding an esoteric significance in the number 38 than in the Num_18 or 40. Or, again, in Acts 9:33, Æ neas, whom Peter cured of paralysis, is described as ἐξἐτῶνὀκτὼκατακείμενονἐπὶκραβάττου . These eight years are not supposed to be significant as regards their number; and there is no more reason for supposing the thirty-eight years of the text to symbolise anything. Those who seek for hidden meanings in the Johannine numbers point here to the thirty-eight years of wandering mentioned in Deuteronomy 2:14. But if Jn. had wished to indicate that the years of the paralytic’ s infirmity were like the years of Israel in the wilderness, it would have been more natural for him to have said forty, not thirty-eight; for it was forty years before the Promised Land was reached. Cf. 2:20, 21:11; and see Introd., p. lxxxvii. 6. Jesus came, unknown by sight to the sick who were assembled at the pool. καὶγνοὺςὅτιπολὺνἤδηχρόνονἔχει , “ and when He knew that the man had been infirm for a long time,” He addressed him. It is neither stated nor implied that this knowledge of the man’ s sad condition was supernatural. It may have been the common talk of the crowd at the Pool. See on 2:24 for the insight of Jesus into the character of men, and cf. 4:18. Θέλειςὑγιὴςγενέσθαι ; sc., as we would say, “ Would you like to be well?” There is no need to press the force of θέλεις , as if Jesus meant that the man’ s own conscious effort of will must co-operate in the work of healing. That may be true in such cases, but θέλεις here only conveys the simple question, “ Would you like to be healed?” We do not know why Jesus chose this man out from the crowd of sufferers at the pool. Perhaps attention was specially directed to his pathetic case by the onlookers. There is no suggestion that the man had any faith, nor did he display gratitude for his healing. He must have known that to point out Jesus as the agent of his cure (v. 15) would bring his benefactor into danger. Abbott (Diat. x. iii. 268 f.) suggests that we must take the act of Jesus in connexion with His own comment. He did not select the object of His pity by arbitrary caprice, but “ the Son can do nothing Himself, except what He sees the Father doing” (see on v. 19 below). He “ saw” this particular act of healing performed by the Father in heaven, and therefore appointed to be performed by the Son on earth. But not only is such an explanation too subtle; it really explains nothing, for why should this particular sick man have been selected by the Father any more than by the Son? The healing is perhaps, but not certainly, regarded by Jn. as supernatural (see 7:21), although he does not call it a “ sign.” But it is not represented as having any relation to the faith of the man that was cured. In this it is like the Synoptic story of the healing of a paralytic (Mar_2, Mat_9, Luk_5), where it is the faith of those who brought the man to Jesus rather than the faith of the man himself that is commended. It is unlike the Synoptic story, in that the cure in the Johannine narrative does not seem to have impressed the onlookers at all. There is nothing here corresponding to “ they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion” (Mark 2:12). In Jn.’ s story, everything turns on the fact that it was on the Sabbath that the man was cured, and it was this, and not the wonder of the healing, that attracted attention. See Introd., p. clxxviii. 7. κύριε , ἄνθρωπονοὐκἔχωκτλ . The sick man explains that it is not his will that is deficient, but that he is unable, because of his infirmity, to get quickly enough down to the water when it becomes “ troubled,” because he has no one to assist him. (The paralytic of Mar 2:3 was helped by four friends to get access to Jesus.) ὅτανταραχθῇτὸὕδωρκτλ . Apparently the popular belief was that, when the water began to bubble at a particular spot, the person who first bathed at that point received relief, but that the spring did not benefit more than one. He who came second had to wait for cure until another overflow. ἴνα … βάλῃμεεἰςτὴνκολυμβήθραν . βάλλειν , “ to cast,” implies rapidity of movement, which would be impossible for an invalid without assistance. βάλῃ . So א ABC2DLWΘ : the rec. has βάλλῃ . ἐνᾧδὲἔρχομαιἐγώκτλ . “ But while I (ἐγώ being emphatic) am coming, another steps down before me.” 8. ἔγειρεἆρονκτλ . Jesus ignores the belief of the sick man about the healing waters of the pool, to which He makes no reference. Nor does He, as in the case of the Synoptic paralytic, give him a word of spiritual consolation (Mark 2:5) before He heals him. Nothing is said to the man, except the sharp command, ἔγειρεἆροντὸνκράβαττόνσουκαὶπεριπάτει , “ Get up, take your pallet and walk.” The words are almost, identical with those of Mar 2:11, but there the evangelistic comment is that they were effectively spoken in order to show the wondering bystanders that He who spoke them had really the spiritual authority to forgive sins. Here is nothing similar. As has been said (v. 6), there is no clear proof that Jn. regarded the healing of the man at Bethesda as miraculous, nor need we do so. The patient obeyed a sudden, authoritative order to stand up and walk, and when he tried he found that he could do it. That may be the whole of the matter. However, no disciple is expressly said to have been present on the occasion; and the story, which may have come to the evangelist at second or third hand, is told in barest outline. ἔγειρε is to be preferred to the rec. ἔγειραι . κράβαττος (grabatus), a pallet or mattress, such as was used by the poor, is said to be a late word of Macedonian origin, and is not approved by Phrynichus. It occurs in the N.T. again only in Mark 2:2-12, Mark 6:55, Acts 5:15, Acts 9:33, and always stands for the bed of a sick person. περιπάτει So in Luke 5:23; but at Mark 2:11, Matthew 9:6, we have ὕπαγεεἰςτὸνοἷκόνσου . 9. καὶεὐθέωςἐγένετοὑγιὴςὁἄνθρωπος , καὶἦρεντὸνκράβαττοναὐτοῦκαὶπεριεπάτει . In the parallel, Mark 2:12, we have ἠγέρθηκαὶεὐθὺςἄραςτὸνκράβαττονἐξῆλθενἔμπροσθενπάντων . In both cases εὐθέως or εὐθύς carries the sense of immediate consecutiveness . The word is not common in Jn. (6:21, 13:30, 32, 18:27, 19:34), and he always uses it thus, whereas it is often used in Mk. only as a conjunctive (see on 1:22). That the cure was not merely for the moment is shown by the man’ s walking away, as is also indicated in the Synoptic story. The language of Joh 5:8, John 5:9 closely resembles that of Mar 2:11, Mark 2:12, although the stories are quite distinct. Jn. may have availed himself of the words of the earlier evangelist to describe a somewhat similar scene at which he was not present, and of which he could not give the exact report of an eye-witness. See Introd., p. xcvii. ἦνδὲσάββατονἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳ . This is the point of the story for Jn., as also at 9:14 where Jesus healed the blind man. The healing on the Sabbath was the beginning of His controversies at Jerusalem; this was the first occasion on which He had openly violated the law at the metropolis; but cf. Mark 2:23-6 for His earlier claim in Galilee to be Lord of the Sabbath, which had already attracted the attention of the Pharisees. The Jews Object to Sabbath Healings, and Jesus Replies by the Analogy of God’ s Working (Vv. 10-19) 10. For οἱἸουδαῖοι , see on 1:19. This is the designation throughout the Gospel of the leading opponents of Jesus, i.e. the strict Pharisees, as distinct from the simple folk whether in town or country . Cf. vv. 13, 15, 16. τῷτεθεραπευμένῳ . θεραπεύειν is found only here in Jn., while it is common in the Synoptists. Cf. v. 13 below. σάββατόνἐστιν , καὶοὐκἔξεστίνσοιἆραιτὸνκράβαττον . The bearing of burdens on the Sabbath was forbidden (Nehemiah 13:19, Jeremiah 17:21). The Rabbinical law was, “ If any one carries anything from a public place to a private house on the Sabbath … intentionally, he is punished by cutting off (i.e. death) and stoning” (Shabb. 6a, quoted by Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr.). After κράβαττον , א C*DLNWΘ add σου (as at vv. 8, 9), but om. ABC3ΓΔ . 11. The rec. text omits ὃςδέ before ἀπεκρίθη with D; but AB ins. the words, א C*LWNΘ giving ὁδέ . For ἀπεκρίθη , א *W have ἀπεκρίνατο ; but see on v. 17. ὁποιήσαςμεὑγιῆ , ἐκεῖνόςμοιεἶπενκτλ . For this emphatic use of ἐκεῖνος . in Jn., see on 1:8. The man’ s excuse was reasonable. He who had cured him, by giving him power to get up and walk, had bidden him carry away his bed; surely it was pardonable to obey His command? The excuse was accepted, and the man was not blamed by the Jews: they go on to ask who it was that dared to give such an order. 12. After ἠρώτσαν , the rec., with ACLWΓΔΘ , ins. οὖν ; om. א BD. τίςἐστινὁἄνθρωποςὁεἰπώνσοι , “ Who is the fellow that said this to you?” ἄνθρωπος is used contemptuously. The Jews do not take any notice of the fact that the man said he had been healed; they complain only of the breach of the Sabbath law involved, not in the healing but in the order to carry the bed. As Grotius says: “ Quaerunt non quod mirentur, sed quod calumnietur.” But from 7:23 it is apparent that the real gravamen of the charge made in this case by the Jews was that a work of healing had been done on the Sabbath, although they prefer here to put forward the technical point about carrying the bed home. See on 9:16, where the Sabbath was broken in a different way. The rec. text has τὸνκράβαττόνσου after ἆρον , but om. א BC*L. The words have come in from v. 11. 13. The man that had been healed did not know who his benefactor was. Jesus was not yet a familiar figure to all and sundry at Jerusalem. He had gone up to the Passover, privately, unaccompanied by His band of disciples (see on v. 2) which would have marked Him out as a Rabbi. This must also have made it easier for Him to slip away unnoticed in the crowd. For ἰαθείς , see on 4:47. D has ἀσθενῶν . ἐξένευσενὄχλουὄντοςἐντῷτόπῳ , “ He (had) turned aside (cf. 4:44 for this use of the aor.), a crowd being in the place.” ἐκνεύειν does not appear again in the N.T., but it is found in the LXX (Judges 18:26, 2 Kings 2:24, 2 Kings 2:23:16, 2 Kings 2:3 Macc. 3:22), being a variant for ἐκκλίνειν at Judges 4:18. ἐξένευσεν here expresses that Jesus had quietly moved away; cf. 8:59, 10:39, 12:36. For τόπῳ , א * has the variant μέσῳ . 14. μετὰταῦτα , i.e. subsequently, not immediately afterwards. See Introd., p. cviii. εὑρίσκειαὐτὸνὁἸησοῦςἐντῷἱερῷ . Apparently, Jesus sought out the man, as He sought for the blind man whom He cured on a later occasion (9:35; cf. 1:43). It has been conjectured that the man had gone to the Temple to offer thanks for his recovery, but there is no evidence for this. The ἱερόν , or sacred precinct, was a common place of resort; and Jesus, finding him there, gave him a word of grave counsel. ἴδε (a favourite word with Jn.; see on 1:29) ὑγιὴςγέγονας · μηκέτιἁμάρτανεκτλ . For μηκέτιἀμάρτανε , see [8:11]. We cannot tell what the man’ s sin had been, but quite possibly it had been the immediate occasion of his loss of health; if so, it had been terribly punished by an infirmity continuing for thirty-eight years. There was a prevalent belief that sickness was always due to sin (cf. Psalms 38:5, 107:17, 1 Corinthians 11:30), and a Talmudic saying asserts that “ the sick ariseth not from his sickness until his sins be forgiven.” But the moral of the Book of Job is that sickness is not always to be regarded as punishment for sin, and this seems to have been suggested by Jesus, when the case of the man born blind was put to Him (see on 9:3). In the absence of knowledge as to the antecedents of the impotent man of the text, “ Sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee” is not susceptible of complete explanation. Cyprian (Test. iii. 27) quotes “ jam noli peccare, ne quid tibi deterius fiat,” to illustrate the danger of sin after baptism, by which a man has been “ made whole” — a characteristic comment. J. H. Moulton1 has called attention to the curious fact that the Greek words here fall naturally into anapæ sts: ὑγιὴςγέγονας · μηκέθ ʼ ἁμάρτανε , ἵναμὴχεῖρόνσοίτιγένηται — a tolerable, if not perfect, couplet. This is, of course, a mere accident. Cf. 4:35. 15. καὶεἶπεντοῖςἸουδαίοιςκτλ . εἶπεν is read by א CL, but ἀνήγγειλεν by ABΓ NΘ and ἀπήγγειλεν (which means the same thing, “ reported” ; see on 16:25) by D. The man went off and reported to the Jews who it was that had healed him, as soon as he had identified Him. But there is no reason to suppose that this was due to ingratitude, or that he meant to betray his benefactor. He had good reason to fear that severe punishment would follow his technical breach of the Sabbath, despite his excuses (v. 11), and he may have desired to propitiate the ecclesiastical authorities, without meaning that any harm should come to Jesus. They were entitled to know all that he could tell them about a breach of the Sabbath. His action may have been like that of the Jews who reported the raising of Lazarus to the Pharisees, without any malevolent intention (11:46). Yet, in any event, his conduct stands in contrast with that of the blind man who was healed later on (9:33-38). 16. καὶδιὰτοῦτοἐδίωκονκτλ ., “ And for this cause the Jews began to persecute Jesus, because, etc.” The force of the imperfects, ἐδίωκον , ἐποίει , ἐζήτουν (v. 18), must not be overlooked. This was the first open declaration of hostility to Jesus by the Pharisees of Jerusalem, and its immediate cause was His first open violation of the Sabbatical law. ἐδίωκον , “ they began to persecute Him” ; ὅτιταῦταἐποίειἐνσαββάτῳ , “ because He began to do these things on the Sabbath.” Cf. Mark 3:6, where a similar cause is assigned for the first exhibition of enmity to Him in Galilee. διὰτοῦτο , “ for this cause,” referring to what follows (not, as more commonly, to what precedes, e.g. 6:65), is a favourite opening phrase with Jn. Cf. v. 18, 8:47, 10:17, 12:18, 39, 1 John 3:1, and Isaiah 24:6 διὰτοῦτοἀρὰἔδεταιτὴνγῆν , ὅτιἡμάρτοσανοἱκατοικοῦντεςαὐτὸν . After τὸνἸησοῦν the rec. with AΓΔΘ inserts καὶἐξζήτουναὐτὸνἀποκτεῖναι (from v. 18), but om. here א BCDLW 17. ἀπεκρίνατο (1 aor. mid.) is found in Jn. only here and at v. 19; ἀπεκρίθη occurring more than 50 times. Abbott1 points out that while ἀπεκρίθη is the colourless “ answered,” ἀπεκρίνατο carries the sense of “ made public and formal answer” to a charge or accusation that has been made: “ He made His defence,” in reply to the prosecution or persecution of the Jews (ἐδίωκον , v. 16). Cf. οὐδὲνἀπεκρίνατο (Mark 14:61, Matthew 27:12, Luke 23:9). See also 12:23, 13:38, 18:34. The defence of His technical breach of the Sabbath which Jn. here ascribes to Jesus is different from most of the sayings on the subject of which the Synoptists tell. Thus in Mark 3:4, Luke 6:9, Jesus confounds His critics by the simple question, “ Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good?” when they objected to His cure of the man with the withered hand. In Matthew 12:11, Luke 13:15, He puts the case that no one will scruple to pull a sheep out of a pit or to water his cattle on the Sabbath (cf. 7:23, where appeal is made to a similar principle). In Mark 2:25, Luke 6:3, Matthew 12:3, He appeals to O.T. precedent to show that necessity may override strict law, and in Matthew 12:8 He appeals to the saying that God prefers mercy to sacrifice (Hosea 6:6). But in Mark 2:28, Matthew 12:8, Luke 6:5, He lays down the principle that “ the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” 1 This principle contains in germ the argument which Jn. puts forward here, in a different form. ὁπατήρμουἕωςἄρτιἐργάζεται , κἀγὼἐργάζομαι . Here is claimed by Jesus the same freedom with regard to the Sabbath that belongs to God Himself. God instituted the Sabbath for man, but the law of its observance does not bind Him who gave the law. Philo points out that God, the Author of nature, does not observe the Sabbath: “ Having ceased from the creation of mortal creatures on the seventh day, He begins with other more divine beings . For God never ceases making but as it is the property of fire to burn and of snow to chill, so it is the property of God to make ” (Leg. All. i. 2, 3). And, again, Ποιῶνὁθεὸςοὐπαύεται (l.c. i. 7).2 Justin Martyr quotes a saying from the old man to whom he owed his conversion, to the effect that the heavenly bodies do not keep the Sabbath, ὁρᾶτεὅτιτὰστοιχεῖαοὐκἀργεῖοὐδὲσαββατίζει (Tryph. 23); and the same idea is expressed in the Odes of Solomon: “ He rested from His works; and created things run in their courses and do their works, and they know not how to stand or be idle” (Ode xvi. 13). Such thoughts were prevalent in Jewish circles, and it is to the idea that God Himself does not share the Sabbath rest of man, that appeal is made in this saying which Jn. ascribes to Jesus. Thus Origen rightly says that Jesus shows in John 5:17 that God does not rest on earthly Sabbaths from His providential ordering of the world, the true Sabbath of God being the future rest when He shall be all in all.1 And the Syriac commentator Isho’ dad, who wrote in the ninth century, but whose interpretations preserve much older material, in like manner represents Christ as saying here: “ Do I allow the circuit of the sun … the flowing of the rivers … the birth and growth of men together and the energies of all living beings about everything? These are things which are accomplished by means of angels, according to His will, and these things are done in the feasts and on the Sabbaths and at every hour.” 2 Thus the ancient interpretation of ὁπατήρμουἕωςἄρτιἐργάζεται is clear. The words express the idea (obvious when it is expressed) that God does not keep the Sabbath ἕωςἄρτι , that is, hitherto (see 2:10, 16:24, 1 John 2:9). God’ s working has not been intermitted since the Creation. He works, goes on working uninterruptedly, until now. The rest of God is for the future, as Origen points out. κἀγὼἐργάζομαι , “ And I also work,” sc. in the same way. That is, Jesus claims not only that He may call God ὁπατήρμου (“ my Father,” in a unique sense; see on 2:16), but that His relation to the Sabbath law is not different from that of God Himself. This is the Johannine form of the Synoptic saying, “ The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,” expressed in mystical and uncompromising fashion. 18. This declaration provoked the Jews to indignation. διὰτοῦτο (see on v. 16) οὖν (om. א D, but ins. ABCL) μᾶλλονἐζήτουναὐτὸνοἱἸουδαῖοιἀποκεῖναι . The phrase “ sought to kill Him” is repeated 7:1, 19, 25, 8:37, 40. οὐμόνονἔλυεντὸσάββατον . For λύειν in the sense of “ break,” “ set at naught,” as in Matthew 5:19, cf. 7:23, 10:35, Moulton-Milligan’ s Vocab. (p. 384) cites from papyri of the third century b.c. ἐὰνδέτιςτούτωντιλύηι , κατάρατοςἔστω , and also λύειντὰπένθη , “ to break the period of mourning,” i.e. to go out of mourning. That Jesus was setting Sabbatical rules at naught was the primary cause of the Jews’ hostility to Him; but it was a much graver offence that He claimed to have Divine prerogatives. This they treated as blasphemy (cf. 8:59, 10:36, Mark 2:7, Matthew 26:65). It need not be doubted that the breaches of the Sabbath which Jesus countenanced provoked the first suspicions of His opponents at Jerusalem (as in Galilee, Mark 3:2), and that the incident of the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath is historical. Jn. is here true to fact, but he is not interested so much in Jewish Sabbatical doctrines as in the Divine Personality of Jesus,1 and so he dwells at great length on the doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God which is implied in His claim to be Lord of the Sabbath. πάτεραἴδιονἔλεγεν , “ He was calling God His own Father,” in a special sense, as indeed the words ὁπατήρμου of v. 17 implied. Cf. Romans 8:32 ὁἴδιοςυἱός . ἴσονἑαυτὸνποιῶντῷθεῷ . This was the form in which His Jewish enemies defined the meaning of His words (cf. 10:33, 19:7), and there is a sense in which their complaint might be justified. But the actual phrase ἴσοςθεῷ is not part of the claim of Jesus for Himself , and Paul’ s phrase is ἴσαθεῷ , which refers to the attributes rather than to the person of Christ (see Lightfoot on Philippians 2:6). It is not taught anywhere by Jn. that Christ is ἴσοςθεῷ , for that would seem to divide the Godhead (cf. θεὸςἦνὁλόγος , 1:1). 19. For ἀπεκρίνατο , see on v. 17. ἀμὴνἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν : see on 1:51. For ὁυἱός used absolutely, see on 3:17. οὐδύναταιὁυἱόςποιεῖνἀφ ʼ ἑαυτοῦοὐδέν . Cf. οὐδύναμαιἐγὼποιεῖνἀπ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦοὐδέν (v. 30), and see 7:28, 8:28, 14:10. So Moses had said (Numbers 16:28), and it is true of every man that “ he can do nothing of himself,” but only what God empowers him to do. Here, however, the thought is deeper. It is that the relation between the Father and the Son is so intimate, that even the Son of God can do “ nothing of Himself.” His works are the works of the Father (cf. v. 17) who sent Him (see on 3:17). He has ἐξουσία (see on 10:18), but it is always a delegated authority. It is a moral impossibility that He should do anything “ of Himself,” ἂνμήτιβλέπῃτὸνπατέραποιοῦντα , “ unless He be seeing the Father doing something.” Thus the Incarnate Son is represented as continually seeing on earth what the Father is doing in heaven, and as Himself doing the same thing.2 The action of the Father and the Son is, sc to say, coextensive; cf. 14:10. ἃγὰρἂνἐκεῖνοςποιῇκτλ ., “ for what He, the Father, does (see on 1:8 for ἐκεῖνος in Jn.), the Son does likewise.” This mystical doctrine that the Son cannot do anything except what He sees the Father doing has verbal affinity with the teaching of Philo. He speaks of the πρεσβύτατοςυἱός , or πρωτόγονος , as one “ who imitated the ways of the Father and, seeing His archetypal patterns, formed certain species” (μιμούμενοςτὰςτοῦπατρὸςὁδούς , πρὸςπαραδείγματαἀρχέτυπαἐκείνουβλέπωνἐμόρφουεἴδη , de confus. ling. 14). Ignatius (Magn. 7) has the words ὥσπεροὖνὁκύριοςἄνευτοῦπατρὸςοὐδένἐποίησεν , ἡνωμένοςὤν (cf. John 10:30), οὔτεδἰἑαυτοῦοὔδὲνδιὰτῶνἀποστόλων , which appear to be a reminiscence of Johannine texts such as the present passage and 8:28. Discourse on the Relation of the Son to the Father (Vv. 20-29) 20. Vv. 20-29 form a section by themselves. They deal with the secrets of the Divine Life, and unfold in some degree the relation of the Son to the Father, thus providing an explanation of, or commentary on, the mystic words of v. 17, “ My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” and of v. 19, “ The Son can do nothing of Himself.” As at other points in the Gospel (see on 3:16), it is impracticable to distinguish precisely the evangelist’ s own commentary from the words which he ascribes to Jesus. The formula “ Verily, verily, I say unto you,” which precedes vv. 19, 24, 25, always introduces words of Jesus Himself, and this must be the intention here. And vv. 28, 29, seem also to be placed in His mouth. But the use of ὥσπεργάρ at the beginning of v. 21 and again at v. 26 (ὥσπερ does not appear again in Jn.) suggests that vv. 21-23 and vv. 26, 27, may be comments of the evangelist on the sayings of Jesus introduced by ἀμὴνἀμήν in vv. 19, 24, 25. This is like Jn.’ s use of γάρ elsewhere (see on 3:16).1 It will be observed that the third person is employed throughout in vv. 21-23, 26, 27. We do not return to the first person until v. 30, where the opening words are the words of v. 19. It is possible that the sayings of vv. 24, 25 and 28, 29 belong to some discourse different from that which was addressed to the Jewish cavillers about work on the Sabbath day; but the argument of this section (vv. 20-29) is quite consecutive (see on v. 28). ὁγὰρπατὴρφιλεῖτὸνυἱόν . D reads ἀγαπᾷ from 3:35 (where see note). “ The Father loves the Son, and so exhibits to Him the things which He Himself does.” φιλεῖν expresses more than the intimacy of friendship; it is here equivalent to ἀγαπᾶν (see on 3:35 and 21:17), and expresses the mystery of the Divine Love, of the Father for the Son. This is so complete and unreserved that all the Father’ s works are displayed, as they are being wrought, to the Son. No reference is made to any limitation of the Incarnate Son’ s knowledge of the future, such as is indicated in Mark 13:32; the statement is that the Son has complete cognizance of all that the Father does in the present. καὶμείζονατούτωνδείξειαὐτῷἔργα , “ and greater works than these (sc. healing miracles such as the cure of the impotent man, which had disquieted the Jews so much) shall He show Him.” In the following verses, these “ greater works” are specified, viz. that of raising the dead, and that of judging mankind. The miracles of Christ are described in Matthew 11:2 as His ἔργα , and Jn. applies this description to them frequently (5:36, 7:3, 21, 10:25, 32, 38, 14:12, 15:24), as he does to the “ works” of God (4:34, 6:28, 9:3, 17:4; cf. Psalms 95:9). For God there is no distinction in kind between “ natural” and “ supernatural” works. And the works of Christ are actually the works of God: ὁπατὴρἐνἐμοὶμένωνποιεῖτὰἔργααὐτοῦ (14:10). See on 7:21. ἵναὑμεῖςθαυμάζητε . ὐμεῖς is emphatic, “ you, incredulous Jews.” The healing miracles did not so much arouse their wonder, as their jealous indignation (there is no hint that the cure of the impotent man caused any wonder); but the “ greater works” of raising the dead, and of judgment, could not fail to make them marvel. Such astonishment may pass into admiration, and thence into faith (cf. Acts 4:13). Later on, it is promised to the faithful disciple that, in the power of Christ’ s Risen Life, he too should do “ greater things” than those which had attended the Lord’ s public ministry: μείζονατούτωνποιήσει . But this is not in contemplation here. See note on 14:12. 21. The first of the “ greater works” specified is that of the “ quickening” power of Christ, in raising the dead. The power of death and life is a Divine prerogative (Wisd. 16:13), “ Yahweh kills and makes alive” . Several times in the daily prayer of the Jews, the Shemoneh Esreh, which in substance goes back to a period before the first century,1 is God invoked as One who “ quickens the dead.” Cf. θεοῦτοῦζωοποιοῦντοςτοὺςνεκρούς (Romans 4:17), and also Romans 8:11 ὁἐγείραςἐκνεκρῶνΧριστὸνἸησοῦνζωοποιήσεικαὶτὰθνητὰσώματαὑμῶν . So here we have ὁπατὴρἐγείρειτοὺςνεκροὺςκαὶζωοποιεῖ , ἐγείρειν being used of God’ s “ raising” of the dead, as it is at Mark 12:26. This Divine prerogative also appertains to the Son: οὕτωςκαὶὁυἱὸςοὓςθέλειζωοποιεῖ . Paul has the same doctrine of Christ, as πνεῦμαζωοποιοῦν (1 Corinthians 15:45; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22), revivifying the dead. ζωοποιεῖν is not used here in a spiritual sense only (as at 6:63; cf. Ephesians 2:5), although that is included in its meaning; the significance of the verse as specifying one of Christ’ s “ greater works” is that He is declared to be one who has power over the death of the body, so that it is His to “ quicken” whom He will. He is the Resurrection as well as the Life (11:25). οὓςθέλει . His will is final as to who are to be “ quickened,” just as there is no appeal from God’ s will (Romans 9:18). 22, 23. The second of the “ greater works” of Christ is that of judgment, a prerogative which has been already implied in οὓςθέλει of the preceding verse, for all judgment or separation between the evil and the good is a selective process. Judgment is the prerogative of God (cf. Deuteronomy 1:17), for to be perfectly administered it demands omniscience. But this tremendous office has been “ given” (see on 3:35) by the Father to the Son. ὁπατὴρκρίνειοὐδένα , ἀλλὰτὴνκρίσινπᾶσανδέδωκεντῷυἱῷ . The doctrine of the Son of Man as the final Judge of mankind has been already examined (see Introd., pp. cxxvii, clvi; cf. 3:17). Here is added the Divine reason for this delegation of judgment to the Son by the Father. It is ἵναπάντεςτιμῶσιτὸνυἱόνκαθὼςτιμῶσιτὸνπατέρα . The Jews were dishonouring Jesus (cf. 8:49) in accusing Him of blasphemy (v. 18), but worship is His due, for the honour due to the Father is His. With the thought that they who dishonour Him dishonour the Father, cf. 15:23, 1 John 2:23, and Luke 10:16. τιμᾶν is found in Jn. again at 8:49, 12:26, and is generally used by him of the honour due to Christ or to His Father. τὸνπέμψαντααὐτόν : see on 3:17. 24. In vv. 24, 25, the thought is of spiritual life and death, the believer in Christ possessing already eternal life, and the words of eternal life being proclaimed in the ears of the spiritually dead, that they too may hear and live. In vv. 28, 29, the reference is to the future life, the voice of Christ being a voice of power at the Last Judgment, even as it is now. See on v. 28. ἀμὴνἀμήν … : see on 1:51. Here this formula introduces two distinct assertions, both surprising in their majestic claims of power, in vv. 24 and 25 respectively. ὁτὸνλόγονμουἀκούων … “ he that hears my word” (cf. 8:43; and for ἀκούειν followed by an accusative, see on 3:8), καὶπιστεύωντῷπέμψαντίμε , “ and believes Him that sent me.” To hear with the outward ear is not enough; the inward response is essential. There must be the belief in Christ (3:15, where see note), which is the same thing as belief in the word of Him who sent Him (12:44). For the “ sending” of the Son by the Father, see on 3:17. ἔχειζωὴναἰώνιον . The obedient believer has eternal life, as a present possession. See on 3:15, and cf. 1 John 5:12. καὶεἰςκρίσινοὐκἔρχεται . Cf. 3:18 ὁπιστεύωνεἰςαὐτὸνοὐκρίνεται . The believer “ comes not to judgment” ; that has already been determined.1 None the less, the prayer of humility will always be μὴεἰσέλθῃςεἰςκρίσινμετὰτοῦδούλουσου (Psalms 143:2). ἀλλὰμεταβέβηκενἐκτοῦθανάτουεἰςτὴνζωήν . Some Latin versions try to escape the force of the pft. tense by the renderings transit, transiet, and Nonnus in his paraphrase has ἴξεταιἐκθανατοίο ; but this is through misunderstanding. Jn. is quite clear that the believer has “ passed from death into life,” into the eternal life which begins here. Cf. οἴδαμενὅτιμεταβεβήκαμενἐκτοῦθανάτουεἰςτὴνζωήν (1 John 3:14), the reason for such assurance being added, ὅτιἀγαπῶμεντοὺςἀδελφούς . 25. οἱνεκροὶἀκούσουσινκτλ . Even those who do not believe, who are spiritually dead, are not beyond the range of Christ’ s words. They, too, may hear and live. This is one of those extraordinary assurances which must be introduced by the solemn adjuration ἀμὴνἀμήν . It is, as it were, a corollary or sequel to v. 24; see on 1:51. Of the quickening of the physically dead at the Last Judgment, it is said in v. 28 ἔρχεταιὥρα , but of the spiritually dead in the present, ἔρχεταιὥρακαὶνῦνἐστιν , as at 4:23, where see note. To treat καὶνῦνἐστίν as an editorial interpolation here is to misunderstand the sequence of thought in vv. 24-29. οἱνεκροί here are the spiritually dead, as at Ephesians 2:1, Ephesians 2:5, Ephesians 2:5:14. “ They shall hear (cf. ἀκούων in v. 24) the voice of the Son of God.” It is not only.His sheep who may hear His voice (10:16), but those also who have not yet learnt to follow. Note that ἀκούειν with the gen. carries the meaning of “ hearing with appreciation” ; see on 3:8. τοῦυἱοῦτοῦθεοῦ : see on 1:34. It is only in Jn. that this title is put into the mouth of Jesus (10:36, 11:4); while he often employs it when writing in his own person. B has ἀκούσουσιν , but א LW read ἀκούσωσιν , the rec. having ἀκούσονται . Also the rec. ζήσονται must give place to ζήσουσιν (א BDLW). 26. ὥσπεργὰρὁπατήρκτλ . Verses 26, 27, repeat (from vv. 21, 22) that the Father has given to the Son (a) the quickening power and (b) the authority of judge, which are prerogatives of Deity. Verse 26 deals with the power of life. To Hebrew thought, no less than to Greek, God is the Living One: “ With thee is the fountain of life” (Psalms 36:9). Thus the Father “ has life in Himself,” and so He gave “ to the Son to have life in Himself,” ἐνἑαυτῷ being emphatic. (For ὤσπερ , see on v. 20 above.) To “ have life in Himself” involves the power to give out life, or to quicken. This “ giving” has been interpreted of the mystical communication of life sub specie œ ternitatis by the Father to the Son in His pre-incarnate state; and the statement would then point to the Logos doctrine of the Prologue (cf. esp. 1:3, “ In Him was Life,” and the note in loc.). This is possible (see on 17:24); but the thought of the Father “ giving” to the Incarnate Son is frequent in Jn. (see on 3:35 above). It is better to interpret ἔδωκεν as in the other passages in the Gospel, where it is applied to the Father’ s gifts to Christ as manifested in the flesh (see on 17:2). Christ is, in any case, “ the Living One” (Revelation 1:18); but the significance of ἔδωκεν here is the same as that suggested by the words, “ I live because of the Father” (6:57). The Divine power of life is delegated to Him, as is the Divine prerogative of judgment, which Jn. sets forth in v. 27. 27. The rec., supported by DΓΔΘ and some O.L. texts, has καί before κρίσιν ; but om. א cABLW. ἐξουσίανἔδωκεναὐτῷ : see v. 22. The ἐξουσία is that of 17:2; cf. also Matthew 28:18. The Father “ gave to Him authority to pass judgment, because He is the Son of Man,” 1 to whom, as we have seen,2 the tremendous office of Judge is assigned in Jewish apocalyptic. It has been suggested that the absence of the article before υἱὸςἀνθρώπου here is significant, and that we should render “ because He is a son of man,” the meaning being that the office of the Judge of men is committed to Christ because He is Man, an affinity of nature between Judge and him who is judged being essential for just judgment. But the title “ Son of Man” occurs repeatedly in Jn. (see on 1:51), and several times in connexion with the thought of Him as Judge. It would be strange if in the present passage, where His office as Judge is emphasised, another explanation of the phrase should be necessary. The absence of the article before υἱὸςἀνθρώπου is not to be pressed. Official titles have a tendency to become anarthrous, and this has happened here, although elsewhere in Jn. we have ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου . If we are right in regarding vv. 20-29 as, in part, a commentary by the evangelist on what Jesus actually said to the Jews, then it is the less surprising to find υἱὸςἀνθρώπου instead of ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου , which never occurs in narrative. The latter is a designation of Himself used by Jesus in all four Gospels, but is not employed by the evangelists when referring to Him. 28. μὴθαυμάζετετοῦτο (cf. v. 20). This is not to be connected with the statement “ because He is the Son of Man,” as Chrysostom suggested, and as is implied in the Pesh. Syriac and in Δ . It has been stated that the Father has given to the Son the power of life and authority to pass judgment (vv. 26, 27), in reference more particularly to the spiritual life of men in this present world (vv. 24, 25). But what is still more wonderful (here is indicated the mind of the first century), these powers of quickening and of judgment extend to the physical awakening of the dead and their judgment in the body at the Last Assize. The argument is: The Son is to do greater works than works of healing, in order that the observers may marvel (as apparently they had not done when the impotent man was cured, v. 20); these greater works include the power of awakening the spiritually dead, and of being the Agent of judgment in this life, as to belief and unbelief (vv. 24, 25). This, indeed, is marvellous, but the greater marvel is what will happen at the Last Day, when the dead in the tombs shall be quickened by the voice of the Son of God, and final judgment shall be pronounced by Him on good and evil. Such a doctrine, no doubt, has its roots in Jewish eschatology, but the Fourth Gospel cannot be understood unless it be realised that Jn. has not abandoned this, while he lays his emphasis on the spiritual conceptions of eternal life and judgment in the present, which were taught by Jesus (see Introd., p. clxi). Verses 28, 29, have been thought to be “ materialistic,” but they cannot be torn from the text as an interpolation or later addition;1 they are an integral part of the argument. With μὴθαυμάζετε , cf. 3:7 and 1 John 3:13. ἔρχεταιὥρα : see on v. 25 and on 4:23 With ἀκούσουσιντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦ , cf. 11:43 φωνῇμεγάλῃἐκραύγασεν , Λάζαρε , δεῦροἔξω . πάντεςοἱἐντοῖςμνημείοιςκτλ . This is a plain statement of a general bodily resurrection, both of good and bad, such as is suggested in Apoc. of Baruch 50, 51, 2 Esd. 7:32f. In the N.T. it is explicitly asserted in Matthew 25:46, Acts 24:15, 2 Corinthians 5:10; and it is frequently implied in the Synoptic reports of the words of Jesus (e.g. Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:10:28. Luke 11:32). That Christ is the Agent of this Resurrection, so far as the righteous are concerned at any rate, has appeared 6:39f. He “ makes alive” both in this world and at the Day of Judgment; such is the consistent teaching of Jn. As at v. 25, the MSS. vary as to ἀκούσουσιν (B), ἀκούσωσιν (א LΔ NW 33), and ἀκούσονται . 29. The word ἀνάστασις is used by Æ schylus (Eum. 648) of “ rising up” from the grave, that is, of “ resurrection.” In the LXX it is infrequent, and occurs with this meaning at 2 Macc. 7:14, 12:43 only (cf. Psa_66tit). The Synoptists have it in the narrative of the questioning Sadducees (Mark 12:18f., Matthew 22:23f., Luke 20:27f.); and, besides, Lk. has the phrase “ the resurrection of the just” (14:14). We have ἀνάστασις in Jn. again at 11:24, 25. There are the two resurrections: one of life, the other of judgment. For the former, cf. 2 Macc. 7:14 σοὶμὲνγὰρἀνάστασιςεἰςζωὴνοὐκἔσται . The two are mentioned together Daniel 12:2. For τὰφαῦλαπράξαντες (πράσσοντες D), see on 3:20. Life and judgment begin in this world, but the life once secured continues eternally, the future judgment being already anticipated. The evil-doer is to rise after death, for a judgment which, although predetermined, has not yet been fully exhibited or revealed. See on 3:18f. Jesus Appeals to the Witness to His Claims Provided by God (Vv. 32, 37), By the Baptist (V. 33), By His Own Works (V. 36), And by the O.T. (V. 39) 30. The discourse returns to the first person, from the third; the thought, “ I can do nothing of myself,” returning to v. 19, where see note . ἐμαυτός is used by Jesus of Himself 16 times in Jn., never in the Synoptists, where it occurs only Matthew 8:9, Luke 7:7, Luke 7:8. καθὼςἀκούωκρίνω ,i.e. “ as I hear from the Father (see on v. 19), I judge.” The authority to judge is delegated to Him (v. 27); and His judgments are righteous because they reflect the judgments of God Himself. ἡκρίσιςἡἐμὴδικαίαἐστίν (cf. Psalms 7:11 of God, the Righteous judge) is repeated 8:16 in the form ἡκρίσιςἡἐμὴἀληθινήἐστιν . There is no self-will in the passing of these judgments, οὑζητῶτὸθέληματὸἐμόν , but rather τὸθέληματοῦπέμψαντόςμε . For this last phrase, see 6:38, 39, 40, where it recurs, and 4:34. Cf. especially the notes on 7:16, 17, 18. Thus to seek that God’ s will be done, in every decision of life, was perfectly realised only in the Son of Man Himself. But the precept of Rabbi Gamaliel may apply to every man, however imperfectly it may be obeyed: “ Do His will as if it were thy will, that He may do thy will as if it were His will.” 1 The rec. adds πατρός after τοῦπέμψαντόςμε (cf. 6:40), but om. א ABDLNW 31. The argument in vv. 31-37 is that the proclamation by Jesus of His own claims and authority did not depend, as the Pharisees naturally urged, upon His individual testimony. He admits that if the witness which He bore to Himself was merely that of one man, it would not be sufficient. “ If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true,” i.e. it need not be taken as true, for (of course) a single witness may speak truth even in his own case. But He urges that, apart from the “ witness” to Him which was given by John the Baptist to the Pharisees when they made inquiry (v. 33), upon which He does not rely (v. 34), there is the “ witness” of Another, greater immeasurably than John (vv. 32, 34). The “ witness” of the “ works” which He did is really the “ witness” of God (v. 36), without whom they could not have been done, and in whose Name and by whose authority they were done. The argument in 8:14-17 is different. He does, indeed, appeal there, as He does here, to the fact that the “ witness” of the Father corroborates His own, and that therefore the requisite “ two witnesses” are present in His case (8:17); but He goes on to claim that His consciousness of Divine origin (v. 14) and the intimacy of His union with the Father justify Him in the assertion, paradoxical as it might seem to His opponents, that His self-witness must be true. ἐγώεἰμιὁμαρτυρῶνπερὶἐμαυτοῦ is the claim and the style of Deity (8:18). Here, however, He is represented only as saying that His individual witness is confirmed by the witness of God. ἐὰνἐγὼμαρτυρῶπερὶἐμαυτοῦ , ἡμαρτυρίαμουοὐκἔστινἀληθής . This challenges comparison with 8:14, where the sentence is verbally repeated, with the omission of οὐκ : “ If I bear witness of myself, my witness is true.” The Jewish maxims as to evidence were rigidly and pedantically observed in the subtle disputations of the Rabbinical schools. One was that two witnesses at least were always necessary for the establishment of any matter of fact (Deuteronomy 19:15). To this maxim allusion is made 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19; and Jesus quotes it as a rule at Matthew 18:16. Another, not less weighty, rule was that a man’ s evidence about himself was suspect. Wetstein quotes the Mishna (Ketuboth ii. 9), “ homo non est fide dignus de se ipso.” That, indeed, is a common maxim of law everywhere; cf. Demosthenes, 2 contra Steph. § 9 μαρτυρεῖνγὰροἱνόμοιοὐκἐῶσιναὐτὸνἑαυτῷ . Now when Jesus enunciated lofty claims for Himself and for His mission, He was challenged to substantiate them, and all arguments conducted with the Rabbis had perforce to fall in with their doctrine as to what constituted valid evidence. The arguments here (vv. 31-39) and at 8:12-19 seem to a modem reader pedantic and unattractive in form, precisely because they reproduce modes of thought and speech which are foreign to our Western culture. They are not like the arguments of Greek disputants; but their Rabbinical flavour is an indication that they have been faithfully reported by one who was himself a Jew, and to whom Jewish scholasticism was not strange or unfamiliar. In arguing with the Rabbis, Jesus did not shrink from arguing on their principles, and had He refused to do this, He could not have gained a hearing at Jerusalem at all. See Introd., p. lxxxii. 32. ἄλλοςἐστὶνὁμαρτυρῶνπερὶἐμοῦ (cf. 8:18). To interpret ἄλλος of John the Baptist, as is done, e.g., by Chrysostom, makes havoc of the argument which follows. Cyprian (Epist. lxvi. 2) rightly interprets ἄλλος of the Father. Blass1 cites, in illustration of such a use of ἄλλος Æ schylus, Suppl. 230, κἀκεῖδικάζει … Ζεὺςἄλλος ; and Abbott (Diat. 2791) quotes a passage from Epictetus (iii. 13, 13-14), where God is reverentially described as Another , who guards men’ s lives. Cf. 14:16. The present participle μαρτυρῶν should be noted: “ There is Another who is bearing witness concerning me,” this witness being continuous and a present reality at the time of speaking, whereas the witness of John the Baptist is spoken of in the past tense (vv. 34, 35). According to the arrangement of the Gospel text which is followed in this commentary (see on 6:1), John the Baptist was dead at the point in the ministry of Jesus which has now been reached (cf. v. 35). For οἶδα , א *D and Syr. sin. have οἴδατε , a reading due to the mistaken interpretation which treats ἄλλος as referring to John the Baptist. καὶοἶδαὅτιὰληθήςἐστινἡμαρτυρίακτλ ., “ and I know that the witness which He witnesseth of me is true.” No one could know this as the Speaker knew it; cf. ἐγὼοἶδααὐτὸνὅτιπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦεἰμι (7:29). The reference to God the Father as His witness is an illustration of the saying ὁπατὴρμείζωνμούἐστι 14:28), and helps to explain it. Philo lays down the principle that “ he who bears witness, in so far as he does so, is superior to him of whom witness is borne,” ὁμαρτυρῦν , παρ ʼ ὅσο . μαρτυρεὶ , κρείττωνἐστὶντοῦἐκμαρτυρουμένου (de sacr. Abelis et Caini, § 28). 33. ὑμεῖςἀπεστάλκατεπρὸςἸωάνην , “ Ye sent to John” (cf. 1:19), and his witness was trustworthy, καὶμεμαρτύρηκεντῇἀληθείᾳ , as was the purpose of his mission (1:7), a purpose which was also that of the mission of Jesus Himself (18:37). 34. But, try as was the witness of the Baptist, it is not that upon which Jesus relies. ἐγώ is in contrast with ὑμεῖς of the preceding. ἐγὼδὲοὐπαρὰἀνθρώπουτὴνμαρτυρίανλαμβάνω , “ but the witness which I accept is not from man.” For τὴνμαρτυρίανλαμβάνειν , of accepting testimony as adequate, cf. 3:11, 32. See 1 John 5:9 εἰτὴνμαρτυρίαντῶνἀνθρώπωνλαμβάνομεν , ἡμαρτυρίατοῦθεοῦμείζωνἐστίν . ἀλλὰ , “ nevertheless” ; although He did not rely upon the witness of John, He referred to it because it was of it that the Pharisees had made inquiry (1:19), and He would remind them of this. ταῦταλέγω , “ I say these things,” i.e. about the Baptist’ s testimony, ἵναὑμεῖςσωθῆτε , “ in order that you (who made inquiry) may be saved.” It was the final cause of the mission of Jesus, ἵνασωθῇὁκόσμος . 35. ἐκεῖνος (much used by Jn. to mark out the subject of a sentence; see on 1:8) ἦν (the use of the past tense shows that the ministry of John Baptist was over; see on v. 32) ὁλύχνοςὁκαιόμενοςκαὶφαίνων , “ the Lamp that burns and shines.” The Baptist, as Jn. has said (1:8), was not the Light , but he was a lamp whose shining illuminated the darkness. “ Non Lux iste, sed lucerna,” as the Latin hymn has it. Cf. οἱλύχνοικαιόμενοι (Luke 12:35), and especially 2 Peter 1:19, where prophecy is compared to λύχνοςφαίνωνἐναὐχμηρῷτόπῳ , ἕωςοὗἡμέραδιαυγάσῃ . When the Light comes, the lamp is no longer needed. A lamp not only burns as it gives light, but it burns away, and so it was with the Baptist, who decreased as His Master increased; but this is not necessarily implied here. David is called the λύχνος of Israel (2 Samuel 21:17); but the sentence ἡτοίμασαλύχνοντῷχριστῷμου (Psalms 132:17) came to be applied by the Fathers to John the Baptist, the metaphor of John as the Lamp being widely adopted. It is said in Ecclus. 48:1 that the word of Elijah was like a burning torch, ὡςλάμπαςἐκαίετο ; and, if there were any evidence that Elijah was compared traditionally to a Lamp, we might suppose that the description in the text of John, the new Elijah, as λύχνος carried an allusion to this. But Ecclus. 48:1 does not provide sufficent foundation for such a theory. ὑμεῖςδὲἠθελήσατεἀγαλλιαθῆναιπρὸςὥρανἐντῷφωτὶαὐτοῦ , “ You were pleased to rejoice for a time in his light,” words which remind the Jews of how popular John Baptist had been (Mark 1:5, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:11:7, 21:26; and cf. John 1:19), and of the fickleness of those who had been attracted to him, like moths to a lighted candle. ἀγαλλιάομαι occurs again 8:56. 36. But Jesus does not rest His claims on the witness of the Baptist (cf. v. 34). ἐγὼδὲἔχωτὴνμαρτυρίανμείζω (this is the true reading, μείζων of ABW being due to misunderstanding) τοῦἸωάνου , “ but I (ἐγώ being emphatic) have witness greater than that of John” ; cf. vv. 32, 37, 1 John 5:9. The works which He did were witness that His mission was from God. For this conception of the ἔργα of Jesus as His “ witness,” see 10:25; and cf. Matthew 11:4, Luke 7:22, where He bade John’ s disciples report His works of healing to their master as sufficient proof of His Messiahship. Faith which is generated by the witness of such “ works” is not faith in its highest form (cf. 10:38, 14:11; and see 2:23), but to reject their witness is sinful (15:24). Cf. also 3:2. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ The Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:1-13) 6:1 ff. The incident of the Feeding of the Five Thousand is the only one in the public ministry of Jesus before the last visit to Jerusalem which is found in all four Gospels; Mk., Mt., and Jn. (but not Luke) adding an account of the Storm on the Lake. The Synoptists (Mark 6:31f., Matthew 14:13f., Luke 9:10f.) agree in placing the miraculous feeding after the return of the Twelve from their mission, and after the beheading of John the Baptist. The labours which the apostles had undertaken made a period of rest desirable (Mark 6:31); and also it was but prudent to go into retirement for a time, as Herod’ s suspicions had been aroused, and he was desirous of seeing Jesus (Luke 9:9). The setting of the miracle in Jn. is not inconsistent with these somewhat vague indications of the period in the ministry of Jesus at which it was wrought. Reasons have been given already for the conclusion (see Introd., p. xvii) that Son_5 and 6 have been transposed, so that in the original draft of Jn., c. 6 followed directly after c. 4. At the end of c. 4 Jesus and His disciples are at Cana, and we now find them crossing the Sea of Galilee to its north-eastern side. They probably followed the road familiar to them (2:12), and went down from Cana to Capernaum, where they had their heavy1 fishing-boat (τὸπλοῖον , Mark 6:32). Mk. (followed by Mt.) says that the place to which they went by boat was “ a desert place,” as Jesus wished to retire for a time from public view, but that the crowd followed them by road, evidently being able to observe the course the boat was taking, and arrived before them (Mark 6:32, Mark 6:33). Jn. rather implies that Jesus and His disciples arrived first (6:3). Lk. (9:10) gives the name of the place as Bethsaida, by which he must mean Bethsaida Julias (et Tell) at the extreme north end of the lake, on the eastern side, for no other Bethsaida is known.2 These data are all fairly consistent with each other, if we suppose that the place was the little plain on the north-eastern shore (about a mile south of Bethsaida Julias) which is now called el-Batî hah. This was grazing ground, and there would be abundance of grass there at the Passover season (cf. 6:4, 10, Mark 6:39).3 A hill (6:3) rises up behind it. This plain is about 4 miles by boat from Tell Hû m (the most probable site of Capernaum; see on 2:12), and perhaps 9 miles from it by following the path along the western shore and crossing the fords of Jordan, where it flows into the lake from the north. It was the latter route that the crowds took who followed Jesus. See further 6:15f. 1. μετὰταῦτα . For this phrase, see Introd., p. cviii. ἡθάλασσατῆςΓαλιλαίας is the name given in Mt. and Mk. to the lake called in the O.T. the “ Sea of Chinnereth” (Numbers 34:11, etc.). It is called ἡλίμνηΓεννησαρέτ in Luke 5:1, and ἡθάλασσατῆςΤιβεριάδος John 21:1. Tiberias was a town on the western shore, founded a.d. 22 by Herod Antipas, and named after Tiberius, which shows that the designation “ the Sea of Tiberias” could hardly have been current during our Lord’ s ministry.1 Accordingly the double designation found here, τῆςθαλάσσηςτῆςΓαλιλαίαςτῆςΤιβεριάδος , shows the use of the contemporary name “ the Sea of Galilee,” followed by the explanatory gloss “ that is, of Tiberias,” added to identify the lake for Greek readers at the end of the first century. If we ascribe τῆςθαλάσσηςτῆςΓαλιλαίας to the aged apostle, John the son of Zebedee, when telling his reminiscences, the addition τῆςΤιβεριάδος would naturally be made by the evangelist, whom we call Jn. Cf. v. 23 for the town of Tiberias. 2. ἠκολούθειδέ . So א BDLNW. But the rec. καὶἠκολούθει is quite in Jn.’ s manner, who often uses καὶ for δέ (see below, v. 21). “ A great crowd was following Him” (cf. Matthew 14:13, Luke 9:11; and see Mark 6:33), i.e. not only did they follow Him now, when He wished to be in retirement, but they had been following Him about before He crossed the lake; ἠκολούθει is the impft. of continued action. Their reason was “ because they were noticing the signs that He was doing on the sick.” ἐθεώρουν is the better reading, as preserving the idea that they had been continually observing His powers of healing (for θεωρεῖν in a like context, Cf. 2:23), but א ΓΔ have ἑώρων . W has θεωροῦντες . As Jn. represents the matter, it was previous works of healing that had attracted the attention of the crowds; e.g., presumably, the cure of the nobleman’ s son, which has just been narrated (4:46ff.). Cf. also the works of healing narrated in Mark 1:29, Mark 1:32, Mark 1:40, Mark 1:2:1, Mark 1:3:1, Mark 1:6:5, but not described by Jn. Matthew 14:14 and Luke 9:11, however, record that Jesus began the day on this occasion by healing the sick. This is not mentioned by Mk. On the other hand, Mark 6:34 (followed by Luke 9:11, but not by Mt.) says that the earlier part of the day was spent in teaching the people; but neither for this nor for works of healing is there room in the Johannine narrative (see below on v. 5). Jn. seems to know the Marcan story (see on v. 7), but he corrects it as he proceeds. See Introd., p. xcvii. 3. ἀνῆλθενδὲεἰςτὸὄροςἸη ., “ Jesus went up to the hill,” i.e. the hill rising out of the little plain by the shore. Mk. (6:46), followed by Mt., mentions the hill after his narrative of the miracle; but Mt. (15:29), in telling what preceded the parallel miracle of the Feeding of the Four Thousand, says, as Jn. does here, ἀναβὰςεἰςτὸὄροςἐκάθητοἐκεῖ . Perhaps Jn. has borrowed here from Mt., but this is unlikely.1 It was the habit of Jesus to sit when He taught, as the Rabbis were accustomed to do (cf. Mark 4:1, Mark 9:35, Matthew 26:55, Luke 4:20, Luke 5:3 [Jn.] 8:2); and He was wont to go up to the hills, whether for teaching (Matthew 5:1, Matthew 24:3) or for prayer (Mark 6:46, Luke 6:12, Luke 9:28). The verb ἀνέρχομαι occurs again in N.T. only at Galatians 1:18; and give א *D give ἀπῆλθεν here. This narrative represents Jesus and His disciples as having arrived at the eastern side of the lake before the crowd, who according to Mk. (6:33) had arrived there first. According to Mark 6:30, Luke 9:10, the disciples who were with Jesus were the “ apostles” ; and this is implied in Jn.’ s narrative, though not explicitly stated, for the twelve baskets of fragments of v. 13 indicate that the number of disciples present was twelve. See on 2:2. 4. It has been pointed out2 that, although τὸπάσχα is read here by all MSS. and vss., yet there are patristic comments on the verse which suggest that some early writers did not treat “ the feast” of 6:4 as a Passover, and that therefore the texts before them did not include the words τὸπάσχα at this point. Thus Irenæ us (Hæ r. II. xxii. 3) is silent as to this Passover, although it would have been apposite to his argument to use it.3 If τὸπάσχα were omitted here, it would be natural to identify the feast of this verse with the Feast of Tabernacles noted in 7:2. Having regard to the importance of the σκηνοπηγία , it might properly be described as pre-eminently ἡἑορτὴτῶνἸουδαίων (see on 7:2). But it would be precarious to omit words so fully attested as τὸπάσχα ,1 and on the hypothesis, which has been adopted in this Commentary, that c. 5 comes after c. 6 (see Introd., p. xviii), all is clear. The Passover mentioned here as “ near” is the feast whose celebration is narrated in 5:1; i.e. it was the second Passover of the public ministry of Jesus (that mentioned in 2:13 being the first), and was probably the Passover of the year 28 a.d. For the phrase “ feast of the Jews,” see on 2:13; and cf. 2:6, 19:21, 42. It has been suggested that this note about the approaching Passover was introduced into the narrative to explain the large concourse of persons who were present on the occasion of the miracle, and who are supposed to have been thronging the roads on the way to Jerusalem for the observance of the feast. But the north-eastern corner of the lake is hardly a point at which we should expect to find thousands of such travellers. Jn. is fond of introducing notes of time into his narrative (see p. cii), and he has similar notes about approaching festivals at 2:13, 7:2, 11:55. ἐγγύς is a favourite word with him, both in relation to time and to distance. 5. ἐπάραςοὖντοὺςὀφθαλμοὺςὁἸη . For this phrase, see on 4:35, where, as here, it is followed by the verb θεᾶσθαι . It is used again of Jesus at 17:1; cf. also 11:41 and Luke 6:20. For θεᾶσθαι see on 1:14. πολὺςὄχλος , i.e. apparently the ὄχλοςπολύς of v. 2 (see on 12:9), who had followed Jesus and His disciples round the head of the lake. But, no doubt, once it was known where He was, people would flock to the place from the neighbouring villages to see and hear Him. According to the Synoptists (see on v. 2), the crowd came upon Jesus early in the morning, and the day was spent teaching or healing their sick. Then, towards evening, the disciples suggest that the people should be sent away that they might buy food for themselves. Jn. tells nothing of teaching or healing on this occasion, and he represents Jesus as having foreseen, as soon as the crowd began to gather, the difficulty that would arise about food. When He saw the great multitude coming, He asked Philip, “ Whence are we to buy loaves?” It is to be observed that in the narratives of the Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mark 8:4, Matthew 15:33), although not in the parallel narratives of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, the disciples put this question to Jesus. The question is the same as that which Moses puts to Yahweh (Numbers 11:13), πόθενμοικρέαδοῦναιπαντὶτῷλαῷτούτῳ ; and the misgivings of Moses, when he reflects that he had 600,000 footmen to feed, are expressed in terms not unlike those which Philip uses here, πᾶντὸὄψοςτῆςθαλάσσηςσυναχθήσεταιαὐτοῖςκαὶἀρκέσειαὐτοῖς ; (Numbers 11:22). Another O.T. parallel may be found in 2 Kings 4:42f., where Elisha’ s servant exclaims at the impossibility of feeding a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and ears of corn “ in his sack” (εἴκοσιἄρτουςκριθίνουςκαὶπαλάθας , i.e. cakes). The narrative relates that Elisha said, Δὸςτῷλαῷκαὶἐσθιέτωσαν , declaring that Yahweh had told him there would be enough and to spare. And so it was: ἔφαγονκαὶκατέλιπον . This is a story which bears a likeness to the Feedings of the Multitudes in the Gospels, in detail much more striking than the story of the miraculous increase of meal and oil by Elijah’ s intervention (1 Kings 17:16). See Introd., p. clxxxi. However, in Jn.’ s narrative the question is a question put by Jesus Himself to Philip. Philip was of Bethsaida (1:44), and presumably he knew the neighbourhood; he was thus the natural person of whom to ask where bread could be bought. This is one of those reminiscences which suggest the testimony of an eye-witness. The Synoptists, in their accounts of the wonderful Feedings of the Multitudes, do not name individual disciples; but Jn. names both Philip and Andrew, and their figures emerge from his narrative as those of real persons, each with his own characteristics. See below on v. 8. λέγειπρὸςΦίλ . For this constr., see on 2:3. For ἀγοράσωμεν , the rec. has ἀγοράσομεν . 6. τοῦτοδὲἔλεγενπειράζωναὐτόνκτλ . We have seen already (cf. Introd., p. xxxiv) that Jn. is apt to comment on the words of Jesus and offer explanations of them. The comment at this point is probably due to a misunderstanding (as at 2:21). Jn. thinks it necessary to explain why Jesus asked Philip where bread could be bought, because he hesitates to represent Him as asking a question which would suggest His ignorance of the answer. But the true humanity of Jesus is not realised, if it is assumed that He never asked questions about the simple matters of every day. Jn. does not write thus of Jesus elsewhere. On His way to the tomb of Lazarus, Jesus asks where it is (11:34). When He saw the fishing-boat on the lake, He asked them if they had caught any fish (2:15, where, however, He may be represented as knowing that nothing had been caught). It is by a like mistaken idea of reverence that the later Synoptists often omit questions which Mk. represents Jesus as asking, e.g.: “ Who touched my garments?” (Mark 5:30, Luke 8:45, omitted by Mt.). “ Seest thou aught?” addressed to the blind man who was healed by stages, is found only in Mark 8:23. “ How long time is it since this hath come to him?” asked of the epileptic boy’ s father (Mark 9:21, is omitted by Mt. and Lk. The simple question, “ Where can bread be bought?” asked by Jesus of a disciple who was familiar with the locality, needs not to be explained or explained away. πειράζειν does not occur again in Jn., but that by itself does not prove the verse to be a later gloss, although it raises the question if it may not have been added after Jn. had completed his work. 7. διακοσίωνδηναρίωνἄρτοιοὐκἀρκοῦσινκτλ . There is no mention of the “ two hundred pennyworth” in Mt. or Lk., but Mark 6:37 makes the disciples say ἀγοράσωμενδηναρίωνδιακοσίωνἄρτους ; It is probable that Jn. is recalling the phraseology of Mk. at this point, although it is possible that two distinct traditions, that which came through Peter and that which came through John the son of Zebedee, have independently preserved the same remark made by disciples. Jn. several times betrays a knowledge of the Marcan narrative, which he corrects where necessary.1 A denarius was the ordinary day’ s wage of a labourer (cf. Matthew 20:2). Even if the disciples had as much as two hundred denarii in their common purse (13:29), which is improbable, Philip points out that they would not purchase enough bread to feed five thousand people, nor would it be easy to find so much bread in the vicinity without notice. There is a reminiscence of the phrase ἵναἕκαστοςβραχύτιλάβῃ in a passage quoted below (v. 11) from the second-century Acts of John. 8. εἷςἐκτῶνμαθητῶναὐτοῦ . This description of an apostle is not found in the Synoptists ; but Jn. has it again at 12:4, 13:23; cf. 18:17, 25. For the constr. εἷςἐκ followed by a gen. plur., see on 1:40. For the designation of Andrew as “ Simon Peter’ s brother,” see on 1:40. His first impulse of discipleship was to find Peter and bring him to Jesus (1:41). He appears here as a resourceful person who tries to find a practical answer to the question put to Philip by Jesus, although he does not think that he has been successful in gathering a sufficient supply of food. In 12:20-22 Philip and Andrew are again associated in somewhat similar fashion, Philip not knowing what to do until he has consulted Andrew. These notices in Jn. supply the only indications of Andrew’ s character that we have, and it is interesting to observe their consistency with each other. The only distinctive mention of Andrew in the Synoptists is at Mark 13:3, where he appears as associated with the inner circle of the Twelve— Peter, James, and John. A second-century notice of Andrew and Philip shows that they were held to be among the leaders of the Twelve. When Papias collected traditions from the elders of his day, he used to ask them, “ What did Andrew and what did Peter say? Or what did Philip? Or what Thomas or James or John or Matthew?” (Eus. H.E. iii. 39. 4), placing them respectively first and third of the apostles whom he names. In the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, Andrew is specially associated with the writing of the Fourth Gospel: “ eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis ut, recognoscentibus cunctis, Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret” ; and it is possible that his intimacy with John the son of Zebedee was handed down by tradition, although it cannot be held that he lived until the Gospel was published (see Introd., p. lvi). 9. In the Synoptists the five loaves and two fishes are the provision which the disciples had for their own use. In Jn., Andrew reports that a lad was present who had this food with him, possibly having brought it from a neighbouring village, for Jesus and the Twelve. παιδάριον . There is no mention of this lad in the Synoptists; see above. The word παιδάριον does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., but it is frequent in the LXX; and it must be noted that it is the word used of Elisha’ s servant (2 Kings 4:38, 2 Kings 4:43) in the passage immediately preceding the story of Elisha’ s multiplication of the loaves (see above on v. 5). The rec. has παιδάριονἕν ; א BDLNW om. ἕν . The Synoptists sometimes use εἷς or ἕν , as a kind of indefinite article, for τις or τι (cf. Matthew 8:19, Matthew 26:69); but this is not the style of Jn. (cf., however, 11:49, 19:34). κριθίνους . It is only Jn. who tells that the loaves were of barley. Barley bread, being cheaper than wheaten, was the common food of the poor; cf. Judges 7:13 and Ezekiel 13:19. Reference has already been made to ἄρτουςκριθίνους in the Elisha story (2 Kings 4:42). δύοὀψάρια . The Synoptists say δύοἰχθύας ; and Mt. and Mk. in the parallel narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand say ὀλίγαἰχθύδια . The word ὀψάριον (only found here and at 21:9, 10, 13 in the Greek Bible) is a dim. of ὄψον , which originally meant “ cooked food,” and thence came to be used of any relish taken with food; e.g. in Pap. Fay. 119:31 εἰςτὰγενέσιαΓεμέλληςπέμψιςὠψάρια ,1 the ὀψάρια were delicacies for a birthday feast. Thus ὀψάρια in the present passage stands for dried or pickled fish. The curing of fish was an important industry on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and is alluded to as such by Strabo.2 Neither in Jn. nor in the Synoptic narrative is there any mention of lighting a fire and cooking fish on the occasion of the miracle; and it is not to be supposed that the meal was of raw, fresh fish and bread. See, however, on 21:10. 10. ποιήσατε (for the aor. imper., see on 2:5) τοὺςἀνθρώπουςἀναπεσεῖν … ἀνέπεσανοὖνοἱἄνδρες . The R.V. distinguishes ἀνθρώπους from ἄνδρες : “ make the people sit down … so the men sat down,” suggesting that the women (or children), if present, remained standing. But no such discrimination is indicated in the Synoptic accounts, and it would, in the circumstances, be improbable, despite the Oriental subordination of women: ἐπέταξεναὐτοῖςἀνακλιθῆναιπάντας is Mk’ s statement. ἀνήρ is an infrequent word in Jn., occurring again only 1:13, 30 and 4:16, 17, 18 (of a husband); and it may be that its introduction here is due to a reminiscence of Mk.’ s πεντασχίλιοιἄνδρες , to which Mt. afterwards added the gloss χωρὶςγυναικῶνκαὶπαιδίων , as he did also in the parallel narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand (Matthew 14:21, Matthew 15:38). Jn. returns to the word ἄνθρωποι at v. 14. ἀναπίπτειν is “ to lie back” or “ recline,” whether on the sloping hillside (as here) or on a couch (as at the Last Supper, 13:12, 21:20). Mk. uses ἀναπίπτειν as well as ἀνακλίνειν in his parallel narrative; Mt. has ἀνακλίνειν only, and Lk. κατακλίνειν . χόρτοςπολύς , “ there was much grass” — green grass, Mk. says— it being spring-time, after the rainy season, just before the Passover (v. 4). Jn. does not mention the greenness of the grass, nor does he say anything about the people being distributed into groups or companies. 11. ἔλαβενοὖντοὺςἄρτους . Jesus took the loaves, and blessing them, caused them to be distributed, thus acting as host. It is remarkable, and probably significant, that Jn., alone of the evangelists, does not say that the loaves were broken by Jesus, as well as blessed. In all the narratives descriptive of the Feedings of the Multitudes, except this, we have ἄρτουςἔκλασεν or κατέκλασεντοὺςἄρτους , or the like. Jn. never uses the verb κλάω or κατακλάω . Now, in all the accounts of the institution of the Lord’ s Supper, that Jesus “ brake the Bread” is explicitly mentioned, ἔκλασενἄρτον , only one loaf being used. The rite itself is called in Acts 2:42 ἡκλάσιςτοῦἄρτου (cf. Acts 20:7, and perhaps Acts 27:35), so essential a feature was the breaking of the one loaf deemed to be. Thus, in this particular, the Johannine narrative of the Feeding of the Five Thousand is less suggestive of the action of Jesus at the Last Supper than are the Synoptic narratives of the same miracle. By the omission of ἄρτουςἔκλασεν Jn. has deviated from the Synoptic tradition in a fashion which suggests that he did not regard the miraculous meal, which he describes, as anticipatory of the sacrament with which he was familiar, although he does not tell of its institution. The discourse which follows (cf. esp. vv. 52-56) cannot be interpreted without including a sacramental reference; but it would seem, nevertheless, that Jn. wishes to avoid suggesting that the miraculous feeding was a sacramental meal. It is just possible, although unlikely, that Jn. omits all mention of the breaking of the bread, not because he did not regard the meal as sacramental, but because he lays stress on the circumstance (19:33) that the Body of Christ was not broken on the Cross. We must also note that Jn. omits the words, ἀναβλέψαςεἰςτὸνοὐρανόν before the blessing of the loaves, which are common to all three Synoptists. This “ lifting up of the eyes” was a very ancient feature of the Eucharistic rite, and we cannot be sure how far back it goes (cf. 11:41, 17:1, and see on 4:35). In another detail, per contra, Jn.’ s narrative of the Feeding of the Five Thousand suggests the Last Supper more clearly than the Synoptists do. In Jn., it is Jesus Himself who distributes the loaves to the multitudes, διέδωκεντοῖςἀνακειμένοις , just as He distributed the Bread to His disciples on the eve of His Passion (cf. also 21:13); but in the Synoptists, it is the Twelve who, acting under His direction, bring the loaves round, which probably was what actually took place. Jn.’ s διέδωκεν , however, need not be taken as excluding the assistance of the Twelve in the distribution, although this is not explicitly mentioned. Qui facit per alium, facit per se. The rec. text inserts after διέδωκεν the words τοῖςμαθηταῖς , οἱδὲμαθηταί , but this is a harmonising gloss introduced from Matthew 14:19. The intercalated words are not found in א *ABLNW or in most vss. We must now examine the word εὐχαριστήσας , “ having given thanks.” εὐλογεῖν is the verb used in the Synoptic parallels (Mark 6:41, Matthew 14:19, Luke 9:16); but Mk. (8:6) and Mt. (15:36) have εὐχαριστεῖν in a similar context in their narratives of the Feeding of the Four Thousand. In the accounts of the institution of the Lord’ s Supper, Lk. (22:19) and Paul (1 Corinthians 11:24) use εὐχαριστεῖν of the Blessing of the Bread, while Mt. (26:27), Mk. (14:23), and Lk. (22:17) use it of the Blessing of the Cup, the Cup being called by Paul τὸποτήριοντῆςεὐλογίαςὃεὐλογοῦμεν (1 Corinthians 10:16). In these passages it is not possible to distinguish in meaning between εὐχαριστεῖν and εὐλογεῖν ,1 although εὐχαριστεῖν and εὐχαριστία soon came to be used in a special sense in connexion with the Holy Communion (cf. Ignat. Philad. 4 σπουδάσατεοὖνμιᾷεὐχαριστίᾳ , and see Justin, Apol. i. 66, and Iren. Hæ r. iv. 18. 5). But the verb εὐλογεῖν is never used in Jn. (except once in a quotation, 12:13); and he uses εὐχαριστεῖν elsewhere where no sacramental reference is possible. In this general sense, “ giving of thanks,” εὐχαριστεῖν occurs a few times in the later books of the LXX (Judith 8:25, 2 Macc. 12:31) and in Philo, as well as frequently in the N.T., e.g. Luke 17:16, Luke 18:11, and very often in Paul. It may be that the “ giving of thanks” or “ blessing” which all the evangelists mention in their narratives of the miraculous Feedings of the Multitudes was the grace before meat which the Lord used, and which was the usual habit of piety before a meal (cf. Deuteronomy 8:10). The form of Jewish “ grace” which has come down to us is, “ Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the world, who bringeth forth bread from the earth.” But if this is the allusion in εὐχαριστήσας or εὐλογήσας in the evangelical narratives of the Miraculous Feedings, it is curious that no such phrase occurs in connexion with the other meals described in the Gospels at which Jesus presided or was the principal Guest (Luke 24:30 is sacramental). Jn. does not hint that “ a blessing” was asked or pronounced at the Marriage Feast in Cana (2:1, or at the supper in Bethany (12:2), or at the meal by the lake-side (21:13). Cf. Mark 14:3, Luke 5:29, Luke 7:37. In Acts 27:35 it is said, indeed, of Paul λαβὼνἄρτονεὐχαρίστησεντῷθεῷἐνώπιονπάντωνκαὶκλάσαςἤρξατοἐσθίειν ; but it is not clear that this was an ordinary meal preceded by a “ grace.” Knowling and Blass regard it as a sacramental celebration. Whatever be the reason, it would seem that the evangelical traditions handed down the incident of Jesus “ blessing” the loaves at the Miraculous Feedings as an incident of special significance. The similarity to this verse of Joh 21:13, λαμβάνειτὸνἄρτονκαὶδίδωσιναὐτοῖςκαὶτὸὀψάριονὁμοίως , brings out the more clearly the omission of any such word as εὐχαριστήσας or εὐλογήσας in the latter passage. The stress that was laid in early times on the blessing of the loaves, in connexion with their multiplication, is apparent in a legend preserved in the second-century Acts of John (§ 93):“ If at any time He were bidden by one of the Pharisees and went to the bidding, we accompanied Him; and before each was set one loaf by him that had bidden us, He also receiving one loaf. And, blessing His own loaf, He would divide it among us; and from that little each was filled (ἐκτοῦβραχέοςἕκαστοςἐχορτάζετο : see v. 7 above), and our own loaves were saved whole, so that they who bade Him were amazed.” The act of blessing is a preliminary condition of the miracle, according to this writer. See on 6:23 below. ὅσονἤθελον . All the evangelists agree in the statement that the multitudes “ were filled,” i.e. that they had a substantial meal, and not merely a scrap of food; but Jn. is even more explicit, saying that of the fish as well as of the loaves they had as much as they wished for. 12. ἐνεπλήσθησαν . The Synoptists have ἐχορτάσθησαν , as Jn. has at v. 26. The phrase μετὰτὸἐμπλησθῆναι used of the Eucharist in the Didache (10:1) probably comes from this passage. τὰπερισσεύσαντακλάσματα . Mk. (6:43) has the curious expression κλάσματαδώδεκακοφίνωνπληρώματα , but Mt. (14:20) has τὸπερισσεῦοντῶνκλασμάτων , and Lk. (9:17) has τὸπερισσεῦσαναὐτοῖςκλασμάτων . Jn. uses περισσεύειν only here and in v. 13 (he has περισσόν at 10:10); and it has been suggested that he is here dependent either on Lk. or Mt., rather than Mk. But he was quite capable of correcting Mk.’ s πληρώματα , just as Lk. and Mt. have done, and the verb περισσεύειν is the natural one to use. Jn. uses the word πλήρωμα only of the “ fulness” of Christ (1:16), and avoids it in all other contexts, perhaps because of its misleading employment in Gnostic systems. κλάσμα is a word used in the N.T. only in the Gospel accounts of the miraculous feedings. It is rare in LXX, but we find κλάσματαἄρτων in Ezekiel 13:19 and κλάσματιἄρτου in Judges 19:5 (A text). It is used of the Bread of the Eucharist in the Didache (ix. 3). Lightfoot1 recalls a Jewish custom at meals of leaving something over for those who served: this was called פ א ה , peah. This possibly is behind the incident recorded here. The apostles had each his travelling-basket or κόφινος (cf. Judges 6:19), and having ministered to the people they went round and collected what was left over. Juvenal mentions the κόφινος as a basket characteristic of Jews: “ quorum cophinus foenumque supellex” (Sat. iii. 14). All four evangelists have the word κόφινος , while in the parallel narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand the word is σπυρίς or σφυρίς , which was a hamper large enough to hold a man (Acts 9:25). It is Jn. alone who tells that it was at the bidding of Jesus that the fragments were gathered up, and he alone adds a reason, viz. ἵναμήτιἀπόληται . This is one of those comments upon his narrative to which Jn. is so prone (see p. xxxiv), and no doubt it gives an excellent sense at this point. But the Synoptists know nothing of this, and the Jewish custom of leaving a peah or morsel at the end of a meal for the servers provides a sufficient explanation of the matter. There is no suggestion that the bread, miraculously provided, was like the manna of ancient days, which could not be kept over from one day to another (Exodus 16:19); and the objection of the people recorded at v. 31 shows that they did not consider the supply of bread that they had witnessed as at all comparable with the manna from heaven which their fathers had enjoyed. 13. δώδεκα . This suggests that all the original apostles were present ἐκτῶνπέντεἄρτωνκτλ . Mk. (6:43) speaks of fragments of the fishes being gathered up along with the fragments of the loaves, but Jn. (as also Mt., Lk.) speaks only of the fragments of bread. βεβρωκόσιν . The verb does not occur again in the N.T. Jesus Acclaimed as the Messianic King (Vv. 14, 15) 14. ὁπροφήτηςὁἐρχόμενοςεἰςτὸνκόσμον . The people had already been attracted because of the “ signs” of healing which Jesus did (v. 2); now this greater “ sign” led them to think of him as “ the prophet that cometh into the world.” The woman of Samaria had been convinced that He was “ a prophet” (4:19), as the blind man whom He healed said of Him afterwards (9:17); but the miracle of the loaves and fishes inclined the eye-witnesses to go further, and to identify Jesus with the prophet of popular belief whom Israel expected (see on 1:21) as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Deu 18:15. “ They began to say” , “ This is truly the prophet that is coming into the world” (see on 11:27). Cf. v. 31. ἀληθῶς is a favourite adverb with Jn.; cf. οὗτόςἐστινἀληθῶςὁπροφήτης (7:40), and see on 1:47. ὃ … σημεῖον , not ἃ … σημεῖα , is the true reading, the reference being to the particular “ sign” which has just been described. The rec., with ALNΓΔΘ , ins. ὁἸησοῦς after σημεῖον , for clearness, but om. א BDW 15. Jn. generally writes ὁἸησοῦς (see on 1:29), but we have Ἰησοῦς (without the art.) followed by οὖν , as here, several times; cf. 11:38. 18:4, 19:26. γνοὺςὅτιμέλλουσινἔρχεσθαικτλ . The excited people, having concluded that Jesus was the prophet of their expectation, began to plot how they might seize Him and make Him king, that is, the Messianic king. The Jerusalem crowds had the same idea when they cried “ Hosanna” and greeted Him as “ King of Israel” on His entry to the city (12:13). Indeed, it was made part of the charge against Him, that He had claimed to be “ King of the Jews” (18:33f.). But He would not accept the title in the sense in which they understood it. He was not a political revolutionary. And so “ He withdrew again to the hill” (see v. 3), from which He had come down to feed the people. Mk. and Mt. tell nothing of the fanatical excitement of the crowds, or of their being so much impressed by the miracle as to think of Jesus as Messiah;1 the only hint the Synoptists give of this being supplied by Lk., who follows up the narrative of the Feeding by the story of the various answers to the question, “ Who do the multitudes say that I am?” (Luke 9:18) which Mk. and Mt. put in another context. Indeed, Mk. and Mt. give as the reason of Jesus’ retirement to the hill, that it was to pray, which is perhaps here suggested by μόνος . That was His habit, and such a motive for His retirement is not inconsistent with His other motive, viz. to be freed from the embarrassing attentions of the crowds. Mk. and Mt. tell that He dismissed the crowds (Mark 6:45, Matthew 14:23), while Jn. suggests rather that He escaped from them. Probably He tried to disperse them, but some, more obstinate and excited than the rest, would not leave. It is these latter who come before us in v. 22 as having remained until the next morning. Again, Jn. does not mention that the return of the disciples was ordered by Jesus, as Mk. and Mt. do; but it is evident that they would not have left Him had they not been told to do so. He may have wished to remove them from the atmosphere of political excitement which had been generated. Apparently Jesus had not told His disciples exactly where and when they would meet Him again. The Storm on the Lake (Vv. 16-21) 16. ὀψία may indicate any time in the late afternoon (cf. 20:19 and Matthew 14:15, Matthew 14:23). The sun set after the disciples had started, and it became dark (σκοτία , v. 17) while they were on the lake. Mark 6:48 notes that Jesus met them “ about the fourth watch of the night,” i.e. about 3 a.m. κατέβησαν , “ they descended,” sc. from the slopes of the hill. 16 ff. The incident is described with vividness. It was late in the evening when the boat started on the return journey to Capernaum (v. 17; see on v. 1). The wind had risen, and the lake was stormy. Mk. does not say that the destination of the boat was Capernaum, although that is what we should have expected: his words are ἠνάγκασεντοὺςμαθητὰς … προάγεινεἰςτὸπέρανπρὸςΒηθσαϊδάν (Mark 6:45), and he goes on to tell that, driven by the storm, they landed ultimately at Gennesaret, which is a little to the south of Capernaum. That is to say, according to Mk., they made for Bethsaida in the first instance; whether because they wished to take Jesus on board there, or to land one of the party (it was the home of some of them; see on 1:44), or because they wished to keep under the lee of the land, in view of the impending storm, we cannot tell. In any case the storm caught them, and when they had rowed 25 or 30 furlongs, that is, about 3 or 4 miles, they see Jesus περιπατοῦνταἐπὶτῆςθαλάσσης , and coming near the boat. Now by this time, having rowed nearly 4 miles, they must have been close to the western shore of the lake, and so Jn. says: εὐθέωςτὸπλοῖονἐγένετοἐπὶτῆςγῆςεἰςἣνὑπῆγον . If we had only Jn.’ s account of this incident, we should have no reason to suppose that he intended to record any “ miracle.” The phrase ἐπὶτὴςθαλάσσης (v. 19) is used by Jn. again at 21:1, where it undoubtedly means “ by the sea shore” ; and it is probable that he means here that when the boat got into the shallow water near the western shore, the disciples saw Jesus in the uncertain light walking by the lake, and were frightened, not being sure what they saw. Jn. does not say, as Mk. does, that Jesus was received into the boat; he only says that they were desirous to have Him with them, when they found that the voyage was already over (v. 21). Nor does Jn. say anything about a miraculous stilling of the storm (cf. Mark 6:51). Nor does he say (as Mark 6:49, Matthew 14:26) that the disciples thought they had seen a phantasm . So far from it being true that we always find in Jn. an enhancement of the miraculous, in this particular case, while the story as narrated by Mk. (followed by Mt.) is miraculous, in Jn. there is no miracle whatever. Nor does Jn. call the incident a “ sign,” as he is accustomed to speak of the miracles which he records (cf. v. 14). In short, this story, as told by Jn., is exactly the kind of story that we might expect from John the son of Zebedee, a fisherman with experience of the lake in all its moods, well accustomed to its sudden storms, and knowing the distance from one point to another (v. 19). See Introd., p. clxxvi. 17. ἐμβάντεςεἰςπλοῖον . The same phrase occurs for embarking 21:3 and 1 Macc. 15:37. ADΓΘ W insert τό before πλοῖον , which no doubt gives the sense, it being probably their own boat that they took for their return voyage; but א BLΔ Omit τό . ἤρχοντο , “ they were going,” the impft. being used for an incompleted action. For καὶσκοτίαἤδηἐγεγόνει , א D read κατέλαβενδὲαὐτοὺςἡσκοτία , “ but darkness overtook them” (cf. 12:35 and 1:5, where see note). This, again, gives the sense, but we follow ABLΓΔ NΘ W with the rec. text, although κατέλαβεναὐτοὺςἡσκοτία is a thoroughly Johannine phrase. οὐκ is read for οὔπω by AΓΔΘ , but οὔπω is better attested (א BDLNW) and gives the better sense. Jesus had “ not yet” come to them. They had expected to meet Him at Bethsaida Julias (see on 6:16 above), or at some other point, but their course had been embarrassed by the storm. They were probably keeping close to the shore on the look out for Him, before the storm broke. 18. The sea was rising because of the squall. We have the same expression ἡθάλασσα … ἐξηγείρετο , Jonah 1:13. 19. ἐληλακότες . Cf. βασανιζομένουςἐντῷἐλαύνειν (Mark 6:48). ἐλαύνειν occurs again in N.T. only at Luke 8:29, James 3:4, 2 Peter 2:17. They had rowed about 25 or 30 stades, i.e., as a stade was 600 feet, nearly 4 miles, and therefore, as has been shown above (v. 16), they were close to the western shore. Mk. says they were ἐνμέσῳτῆςθαλάσσης (Mark 6:47), which need not mean more than that the water was all round them. Mt. adds to Mk.’ s sentence, according to the text of BΘ (although the other uncials do not confirm this), σταδίουςπολλοὺςἀπὸτῆςγῆςἀπεῖχε , which seems to be a gloss derived from the narrative of Jn., but intended, after the manner of Mt., to emphasise the miraculousness of the story. In some texts of Mat 14:25 we have ἐπὶτὴνθάλασσαν for the ἐπὶτῆςθαλάσσης of Mark 6:48 and John 6:19. The latter does not necessarily mean more than “ by the sea shore” : to read ἐπὶτὴνθάλασσαν would indicate beyond question that Jesus literally “ walked on the sea.” Job says of the Creator that He “ walks upon the high places of the sea,” περιπάτωνὡςἐπ ʼ ἐδάφουςἐπὶθαλάσσης (Job 9:8); and Wisdom declares (Ecclus. 24:5), ἐνβάθειἀβύσσωνπεριεπάτησα , from which passages it might be concluded that “ walking upon the sea” is a Divine prerogative. It is possible that some such idea may account for the transformation of the Johannine tradition, which is void of miracle, into the supernatural story in Mk., Mt. See on v. 15 and Introd., p. clxxvi. θεωροῦσιν , “ they notice” ; see on 2:23 for θεωρεῖν . ἐγγὺςτοῦπλοίουγινόμενον , sc. “ getting near the boat,” a use of γίγνομαι for ἔρχομαι which we have again in v. 25; cf. Acts 20:16, Acts 21:17, Acts 25:15. ἐφοβήθησαν , “ they were afraid,” and so Jesus says— 20. ἐγώεἰμι , μὴφοβεῖσθε . These comforting words are reported in identical phrase in the Marcan and Johannine narratives . They probably mean simply “ It is I: be not afraid,” the Marcan account suggesting that the reason of the disciples’ alarm was that they thought Jesus was a spirit . Another explanation has been offered of ἐγώεἰμι , viz. that it stands for the self-designation of Yahweh in the prophets, א ֲ נ ִ י ־ ה ו ּ א , I (am) He; cf. 8:58, 13:19. But this explanation is not necessary here,1 and such a mystical use of words would be foreign to the style of Mk., although there are parallels in Jn. 21. ἤθελονοὖνλαβεῖναὐτὸνεἰςτὸπλ ., “ they were wishing to receive Him into the boat, and straightway the boat was at the land.” ἤθελον is used here as at 7:44, 16:19, the wish not being translated into action. Here Jn. is at variance with Mk. (6:51), who says, as also Mt. does (with an amplification about Peter’ s going to Jesus on the water, Matthew 14:28-32), that Jesus climbed into the boat. The narrative of Jn. is simpler. It has been objected to this view that we should expect ἀλλὰεὐθέωςτὸ . πλ . κτλ . rather than καὶεὐθέως , if the meaning intended is that they did not receive Jesus into the boat, because they found their voyage already ended. But Jn. is prone to use καὶ , where ἀλλά or δέ would be employed by another writer (see on 1:11). For εὐθέως in Jn. see on 5:9. The People Cross the Lake and Find Jesus at Capernaum (Vv. 22-25) 22 ff. The readings of א in vv. 22-24 are curiously aberrant, and the text from א must be transcribed in full: τῇἐπαύριονὁὄχλοςὁἑστὼςπέραντῆςθαλάσσηςεἶδενὅτιπλοιάριονἄλλοοὐκἦνἐκεῖεἰμὴἕν , ἐκεῖνοεἰςὃἐνέβησανοἱμαθηταὶτοῦἸησοῦ , καὶὅτιοὐσυνεληλύθειαὐτοῖςὁἸησοῦςεἰςτὸπλοῖονἀλλὰμόνοιοἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ · ἐπελθόντωνοὖντῶνπλοιῶνἐκΤιβεριάδοςἐγγὺςοὔσηςὅπουκαὶἔφαγονἄρτον , εὐχαριστήσαντοςτοῦκυρίου , καὶἴδοντεςὅτιοὐκἦνἐκεῖὁἸησοῦςοὐδὲοἱμαθηταὶἀνέβησανεἰςτὸπλοῖονκαὶἦλθονκτλ . This is evidently a rewriting of the original, which has a clumsy parenthesis at v. 23. Other variants are ἰδών (rec. reading with ΓΔ W, a casus pendens) for εἶδον , א D having εἶδεν ; א *ΓΔΘ interpolate the explanatory gloss ἐκεῖνοεἰςὃἐνέβησανοἱμαθηταί of the rec. text; for πλοῖον (the true reading) at the end of v. 22, ΓΔΘ give πλοιάριον ; after ἀλλά , the rec. text with AΓΔΘ inserts δέ ; BW have πλοῖα for πλοιάρια (the true reading; see exegetical note) in v. 23; for gratias agente domino, many Latin texts have gratias agentes domino, as if it was the multitude that had given thanks; and in v. 24, the rec. text with AΓΔΘ has πλοῖα for πλοιάρια (א cBDLNW). 22. τῇἐπαύριον . See on 1:19, 29. Some, perhaps the more zealous of the crowd, had remained all night on the scene of the miracle, in the hope that they would succeed in their attempt (v. 15) to set up Jesus as king, the more apathetic, or the more submissive, having dispersed to their homes. The construction of the sentence is difficult, and attempts to make it more consecutive have led to various readings. The balance of authority is for εἶδον (see above), but the rec. ἰδών would be more natural. The meaning is: On the next day the crowd which had stood on the other (i.e. the eastern) side of the lake, having seen (sc. the evening before) that only one boat was there, and that the disciples had embarked in their boat without Jesus, started for Capernaum in the little boats that came from Tiberias during the night. There had been only one boat on the beach the previous evening, which they had seen go without Jesus; but they could not find Jesus in the morning, and so they decided to go after Him in the little boats that had since been driven in by the storm. These, apparently, were sufficient for all the zealous watchers, so that their number could not have been very large. A πλοιάριον , “ little boat,” is mentioned in N.T. only at Mark 3:9, John 21:8 (where it is the skiff or dinghy belonging to the πλοῖον of 21:3, 6), and in this passage. τὸπλοῖον was the big fishing-boat, able to carry Jesus and the Twelve, which has been mentioned already (vv. 17, 19, 21); there had been no other πλοιάριον on the beach the previous evening (perhaps Jn. means no other πλοιάριον besides the dinghy belonging to the πλοῖον , which had gone with it). But several small boats had been driven in from Tiberias (see for Tiberias on v. 1 above) by the squall during the night, and these were available. 23. This parenthetical verse appears to be a later gloss. It is, indeed, necessary to the narrative, which tells that the disappointed watchers by the lake crossed over to Capernaum, and hitherto there has been no mention of any boats that they could have used. But (1) the town of Tiberias (see on v. 1) is not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T., and had only recently been founded. (2) More significant is the description of the scene of the miracle τοῦτόπουὅπουἔφαγοντὸνἄρτονεὐχαριστήσαντοςτοῦκυρίου . Nowhere else are the five loaves of the story called ὁἄρτος in the singular, that being the way, on the contrary, in which the Eucharistic bread is always spoken of (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 10:17, 1 Corinthians 10:11:27). (3) εὐχαριστήσαντοςτοῦκυρίου suggests that this was the central fact which would at once identify the occurrence, whereas we expect an expression like “ where He fed the multitudes.” (4) The meaning of εὐχαριστεῖν has been examined above (v. 11), but here it seems to bear its later sacramental significance, the writer giving a sacramental turn to the miracle, which Jn. studiously avoids in his narrative. (5) Specially noteworthy is it that D 69* a e Syr. sin. and Syr. cur (a strong combination) omit the words εὐχαριστήσαντοςτοῦκυρίου here; and several of the Latin vg. texts avoid them by the mistaken rendering gratias agentes domino, “ agentes” replacing “ agente.” (6) As we have seen above (on 4:1), ὁκύριος is not Johannine in narrative (except after the Resurrection). Jn. would have used ὁἸησοῦς . Verse 23 must be regarded as a non-Johannine gloss (see Introd., p. xxxiii). 24. There is no art. before Ἰησοῦς , contrary to the general usage of Jn. (see on 1:29). But the reason is the same as at 4:1, 47, viz. that ὅτι is here recitantis. What the people actually said to each other was, “ Jesus is not there, nor His disciples.” 25. εὐρόντεςαὐτόν . Jesus had reached Capernaum with His disciples (cf. vv. 17, 59), and the crowds found Him there πέραντῆςθαλάσσης , that is, now on the western side of the lake, the side opposite to that from which they started. For “ Rabbi,” the title by which these excited followers addressed Him, see on 1:38. πότεὧδεγέγονας ; “ When did you get here?” See on v. 19. Jesus gives no answer to their question, but rebukes them for their lack of understanding (v. 26). Discourse: Jesus the Bread of Life, Which is Given by the Father (Vv. 26-40) 26. Jn. states (v. 59) that the long discourse which follows, interrupted at several points by questions, was delivered in the synagogue at Capernaum; and it is represented as marking a turning-point in the ministry of Jesus, many, even of His former disciples (v. 66), being repelled by the strange and lofty mysticism which it teaches. There is no reason to question the statement that a discourse about the Bread of Life followed the Miracle of the Loaves, in correction of the failure to appreciate its significance by some of those who had been fed. But it can hardly be doubted that the whole discourse, as we have it, has been arranged by Jn. so as to bring out special (and often repeated) teachings of Jesus about His own person, and to illustrate the growing opposition of “ the Jews” (v. 41). The plan of the discourse in all its parts is similar to that in the discourses with Nicodemus and with the Samaritan woman.1 It falls into three sections (vv. 26-40, 41-51a, 51b-58), but cf. note on v. 51, and Introd., p. clxvii. ἀπεκρ . αὐτοῖςὁἸη . καὶεἶπεν . See on 1:50. ἀμὴνἀμήν … See on 1:51. οὐχὕτιεἴδετεσημεῖα .2 They had seen a σημεῖον in the Miraculous Feeding (v. 14), and if they had interpreted it aright, the faith which would have ensued would have been acceptable, although not of the highest type (see on 2:11). But they were following Jesus about because of the material benefits which they had received at His hands , rather than because they discerned in Him the spiritual Deliverer of their race. They mistook His mission, as some of them had shown already (cf. vv. 15 and 30). καὶἐχορτάσθητε , et saturati estis. See on v. 12, where Jn. has ἐνεπλήσθησαν instead of the Synoptic ἐχορτάσθησαν . But bodily satiety does not last. They would be, perhaps were already, hungry again. 27. ἐργάζεσθεμὴτὴνβρῶσιντὴνἀπολλυμένην , “ work not for the food which perishes,” as even the manna did (Exodus 16:20), but for the spiritual food which endures. The exhortation recalls the rebuke of Isa 55:2, “ Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which satisfieth not?” Cf. Ignatius (Rom_7) οὐχἥδομαιτροφῇφθορᾶς , words, perhaps, suggested by the present passage. For βρῶσις , βρῶμα , see on 4:32. א om. τὴνβρῶσιν before τὴνμένουσαν , but the sense is not affected. τὴνμένουσαν . It is the abiding and permanent property of the spiritual food upon which stress is laid throughout the discourse; cf. vv. 35, 50, 54, 58. εἰςζωὴναἰώνιον . For this phrase, see on 4:14 and cf. 3:15. ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου . It is the Son of Man, and He alone, such is His uniqueness and mystery, who can give that spiritual food which endures “ unto eternal life” ; cf. v. 53. See Introd., p. cxxx. ὑμῖνδώσει is the reading of the rec. text, with ABLWΓΔΘ but א D have δίδωσινὑμῖν . The future is to be preferred; cf. the parallel δώσωαὐτῷ in 4:14, and ἐγὼδώσω in v. 51. His giving of “ life” is spoken of in the present tense (v. 33; cf. 10:28), but the giving of the spiritual food, which was His Flesh, with a view to the imparting of that eternal life, was still in the future. See further on v. 51b. τοῦτονγάρκτλ . This is the ultimate explanation of the power vested in the Son (cf. 3:17) of imparting life: “ Him did the Father seal” (see on 5:19). Cf. 5:20 ὁγὰρπατὴρφιλεῖτὸνυἱὸνκτλ ., and also 5:37 ὁ … πατὴρ … μεμαρτύρηκενπερὶἐμοῦ . For the frequency of the designation in Jn. of God as ὁπατήρ , see on 4:21; here, at the end of the sentence, ὁθεός is added, apparently for emphasis, the reference to ὁπατήρ being unmistakable without it (cf. vv. 37, 44-46, 57, 65). ἐσφράγισεν occurs in Jn. elsewhere only at 3:33, where it is used of an attestation by man, its usual meaning. The idea of a “ sealing” by God is rare in the N.T., occurring again only in 2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 1:4:30; and in each of these places there is an allusion, direct or implied, to the baptism of Christian converts. Here the aorist marks a Divine act at a particular moment of time, and the reference seems to be to the Baptism of Jesus and the Descent of the Spirit upon Him, which was interpreted by the Baptist as the Divine attestation of His mission (1:32f.). But cf. 5:37. The description of baptism as a seal became common in Christian literature at an early date; cf. Hermas, Sim. ix. 16, and 2 Clem. 8. In the Odes of Solomon the “ sealing” by God is explicitly mentioned: “ On their faces I set my seal” (Ode viii. 16; cf. also 4:8). 28. εἶπονοὖνπρὸςαὐτόν . For the constr. here and at v. 34, see on 2:3. ποιῶμεν is the true reading, not ποιοῦμεν of the rec. text. Θ W fam. 13 have ποιήσωμεν . τίποιῶμεν ; “ What shall we do?” The question is not mere carping. They understand that they must please God, if they are to have the food which endures unto eternal life; and they ask quite naturally, “ What then are we to do? What does God require of us?” (cf. Luke 3:10). ἵναέργαζώμεθατὰἔργατοῦθεοῦ , i.e. the works which God desires of men (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:58). Cf. τὰἔργαΚυρίου (Jeremiah 31:10, LXX). The phrase in Numbers 8:11 ἐργάζεσθαιτὰἔργαΚυρίου is no true parallel; and the ἔργατοῦθεοῦ of John 9:3 denote the works which God Himself does. To their question, Jesus replies that works are the issue of the life of faith, that faith in Him is the condition of doing τὰἔργατοῦθεοῦ . 29. The answer of Jesus contains, in small compass, the gist of the Pauline teaching about faith. Jesus will not allow the Jewish inquirers to begin by speakng of working the works of God. They must get away from the legalism which counted up good works as meriting from God the recompense of eternal life. There is one ἔργοντοῦθεοῦ which must precede all others, because it alone places the man in his true relation with God, viz. faith in Christ. The βρῶμα , or spiritual food, of the Incarnate Christ Himself was to do God’ s will and accomplish His work (4:34, where see note); but man cannot do this without sharing in the humanity of Christ which He imparts to those who have faith in Him (v. 51). Here is the βρῶσις which He gives, and which endures εἰςζωὴναἰώνιον (v. 47). This mystical doctrine of union with Christ is the core of the Fourth Gospel; see, for earlier statements of it, 3:15, 36 and the notes there. The question and its answer are like the question of the jailor at Philippi and the answer of Paul and Silas: τίμεδεῖποιεῖνἵνασωθῶ ; … πίστευσονἐπίτὸνΚύριονἸησοῦνκαὶσωθήσῃ (Acts 16:30, Acts 16:31). πιστεύητε is the true reading; the rec. textwith DW has πιστεύσητε , but this does not convey the teaching of Jn. about faith. ἵναπιστεύσητε points to a definite act of faith at a particular moment (cf. 13:19); but this does not suffice. τὸἔργοντοῦθεοῦ is ἵναπιστεύητε , “ that you may have faith continually,” that you may live the life of faith. An act of faith in Christ at a definite crisis is a good thing, but a better (and a harder) thing is to keep in perpetual contact with Christ, and nothing less than this is what is needed εἰςζωὴναἰώνιον (see above on 3:36, and cf. 15:7). ὃνἀπέστειλεν . See for this frequent phrase on 3:17. ἐκεῖνος , i.e. God, is placed at the end of the sentence for emphasis. See on 1:8 for Jn.’ s use of ἐκεῖνος . 30. τίοὖνποιεῖςσὺσημεῖον ; A similar demand made by the Pharisees for a “ sign from heaven” is placed in Mark 8:11 (so Matthew 16:1; cf. Matthew 12:38) as following on the Feeding of the Four Thousand. There, as here, Jesus is represented as having declined (and with indignation) the request. Lk. does not tell the story of this second miraculous feeding, and he puts the request for a sign in a different context (11:16; cf. also 23:8). Like the Pharisees in Mark 8:11, the interlocutors in the Johannine story were not convinced that by the miraculous feeding Jesus had established His claim to be a messenger from God. Some, at least, of those who had seen it said that He was the expected prophet, and were for making Him a king (vv. 14, 15). But by the next day all were not so fully persuaded. If Jesus were really a Divine messenger, they expected something more. They were not satisfied as to the character of the action which had been acclaimed by them as a σημεῖον (v. 14). So, like the Jews in 2:18, who had asked τίσημεῖονδεικνύειςἡμῖν ; they now ask τίποιεῖςσὺσημεῖον ; the emphatic word here being σύ , “ What sign do you show?” ἵναἴδωμενκαὶπιστεύσωμένσοι . They did not understand what He had meant by “ believing in Him” (v. 29), for they take up the words in the altered form “ believe thee.” They imply that if they saw a really convincing sign, something greater than anything they had witnessed yet (vv. 2, 14, 26), they would believe Him, that is, believe His words (cf. 8:31). But this is not what Jesus claimed of them. To believe His words would be, no doubt, the beginning of discipleship, and of faith in His Person (see on v. 29); but it would not be enough εἰςζωὴναἰώνιον . τίἐργάζῃ ; They think that Jesus has been referring to manna, and they ask Him to provide it (see Introd., p. cxi). ἐργάζῃ refers back to vv. 28, 29. 31. To appreciate the significance of this allusion to the manna, it must be borne in mind that there was a general belief, more or less explicit, that Messiah when He came would outdo Moses, the great national hero of Israel, in the wonders which he would accomplish. Thus there was a Rabbinical saying: “ The former redeemer caused manna to descend for them; in like manner shall our latter redeemer cause manna to come down, as it is written, ‘ There shall be a handful of corn in the earth’ (Psalms 72:16).” 1 Accordingly the questioners of Jesus are here represented as telling Him that something more wonderful than the miracle of the loaves was expected of one who claimed to be the Messiah (cf. vv. 14, 27). We have here a reminiscence of an objection to Jesus which is historical: “ The key to the understanding of the whole situation is an acquaintance with the national expectation of the greater Moses. But this knowledge is not obtruded upon us by the evangelist. It is tacitly assumed. In fact, the meaning is unintelligible, except to one who is brought up among the ideas of his time, or to one who, like a modern critic, has made them his special study.” 2 οἱπατέρεςἡμῶνκτλ . As Chrysostom notes, this corresponds to the reference made by the Samaritan woman to “ our father Jacob” (4:12; see Introd., p. cxi, for the schematism of the present discourse). The provision of the manna (Exodus 16:15, Numbers 11:7, Numbers 21:5, Deuteronomy 8:3, Wisd. 16:20, 2 Esd. 1:19) was counted by the Jews as the greatest achievement of Moses. Josephus says of the manna θεῖονἦντὸβρῶμακαὶπαράδοξον (Antt. iii. i. 6). καθώςἐστινγεγραμμένον . This is the usual form of citation in in. (see on 2:17). ἄρτονἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦἔδωκεναὐτοῖςφαγεῖν (from Exodus 16:15 freely quoted; but cf. Psalms 78:24, Nehemiah 9:15). Their appeal is: “ What Moses gave us was bread from heaven; can you do the same?” The loaves with which the multitudes had been fed were not ἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦ , but the ordinary barley loaves (v. 9) with which all were familiar. 32. Jesus corrects a twofold misapprehension on the part of His questioners. First, it was not Moses who was the giver of the manna, but God, whose instrument he was; and, secondly, the manna, while it was in a sense “ bread from heaven,” was not the true Bread of God. This momentous saying is introduced by the solemn ὀμὴνἀμήν (see on 1:51). The objectors had not named Moses, but Jesus knew what was in their minds, and that they were disparaging Him in comparison with Moses. ἔδωκεν (BDLW) is the true reading, rather than δέδωκεν of the rec. text . The aor. points to a definite historical date in the past. οὐΜωϋσῆςἔδωκενὑμῖντὸνἄρτονἐκτ . οὐ ., “ Moses did not give you that bread from heaven” ; what had been given to their fathers might be spoken of as given to them who were the heirs and descendants of the ancient race that came out of Egypt. The manna of old was in a true sense the gift of God; that is not questioned in the reply of Jesus: what He questions is that it was given by Moses. ἀλλ ʼ ὁπατήρμου . For this significant phrase, see on 2:16. δίδωσινὑμῖν . “ Gives,” not “ gave.” The Divine gift now to be revealed is continuously offered. τὸνἄρτονἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦτὸνἀληθινόν , “ the genuine Bread from heaven” ; see on 1:9 for ἀληθινός , and note its use in the dialogue with the Samaritan woman at 4:23. It seems to be implied, although not directly expressed yet, that the genuine heavenly Bread must be such as will nourish the heavenly life, the life of “ the kingdom of heaven.” This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ Retreat to Galilee; His Brethren Urge Jesus to Show Himself at Jerusalem (7:1-9) 7:1. καὶμετὰταῦταπεριεπάτεικτλ . SO א caBC*LΓΔΘ , but א C2DW with most syrr. latt. om. καί , which may be an editorial addition. N has καὶπεριεπάτειμετ ʼ αὐτῶνὁἸης . κτλ ., and the rec. also goes wrong with καὶπεριεπάτειὁἸης . μετὰταῦτακτλ . μετὰταῦτα is the beginning of a new section of the narrative, and reasons have been given (Introd., p. xix) for placing 7:1-14 in direct sequence to cc. 5, 7:15-24. After the severe rebukes which Jesus had addressed to the Rabbis, already exasperated by the breach of the Sabbath and His lofty claims (5:18), it was natural that He should withdraw from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem for a while. He had gone up to Jerusalem for the Passover, and after that He healed the impotent man (5:8). Then controversy ensued, and in 5:19-47, 7:15-24 we have a summary of the main points on which stress was laid, the discussions probably extending over some days. If we suppose that He left Jerusalem about the month of May, there is time for a ministry of four or five months in Galilee, before He returned to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles at the end of September. Jn. gives no details of this Galilæ an ministry, but there is room in these months for many of the incidents recorded in the Synoptic Gospels as having taken place in Galilee (see on v. 3). The narrative of the events in Jerusalem after Jesus went up to the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 10) is full of movement and of local colour. Presumably (see on 5:1) the Twelve attended the Feast of Tabernacles, and were again in the company of Jesus after He went up. περιεπάτει . This is the natural word for the itinerant ministry of a Rabbi accompanied by His disciples; cf. 6:66, 11:54. (For the larger meaning of περιπατεῖν , see on 8:12.) Jesus was “ walking in Galilee,” because the Jews, as has just been said (7:19), were seeking His life. For the phrase ἐζήτουναὐτὸνοἱἸουδαῖοιἀποκιεῖναι , see on 5:18. 2. ἦνδὲἐγγὺςἡἑορτήκτλ . This was the Feast of Tabernacles of the year 28 a.d. See on 5:1. The Feast of Tabernacles was originally a Feast of Ingathering or a Harvest Festival, and was not at first held on a fixed date, but “ at the year’ s end” (Exodus 34:22), according to the time when the harvest was gathered. The Deuteronomic Code calls it “ the Feast of Tabernacles” (Deuteronomy 16:13), and prescribes that it is to be kept for seven days. The reason for its name assigned in the Priest’ s Code is that “ I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 23:43). In the same Code the annual date is fixed; it was to begin on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Tishri), going on for seven days (Leviticus 23:34). That is, it was held at the end of September or the beginning of October. In Numbers 29:35 an eighth day of observance appears, on which was to be “ a solemn assembly,” and we find this eighth day observed in post-exilic times (Nehemiah 8:18, Nehemiah 8:2 Macc. 10:6). Josephus, who mentions the eighth day (Anti. iii. x. 4), calls this feast ἑορτὴσφόδρὰπαρὰτοῖςἙβραίοιςἁγιωτάτηκαὶμεγίστη (Anti. viii. iv. i), thus marking its important place in Jewish life, it being, pre-eminently, the Feast of the Jews. For the ritual observed, see on 7:37 and 8:12. For the phrase ἡἑορτὴτῶνἸουδαίων , see on 2:13. 3. For the “ brethren of Jesus,” see on 2:12. They were older than He was, and this may explain their venturing to offer Him advice as to His conduct. The discussion between them and Him, which is reported vv. 3-8, could only have been known to one who was in intimate relations with the family; and there could be no motive for setting it down in narrative, if it had not actually taken place. μετάβηθιἐντεῦθεν , “ depart hence” : μεταβαίνειν is used 13:1 of departing from this world, and metaphorically 5:24, 1 John 3:14. καὶὕπαγε (a favourite word with Jn.; see on v. 33) εἰςτὴνἸουδαίαν , ἵνακαὶοἱμαθηταίσουθεωρήσουσιντὰἔργασουἅποιεῖς . The advice seems to have been ironical, for they go on to express doubts about His alleged “ works,” saying εἰταῦταποιεῖς , “ if you do such things.” The suggestion is that the rumour of these ἔργα was confined to Galilee, and that if He were to establish His reputation in Judæ , it would be desirable that His disciples there should have an opportunity of seeing what He could do. We have already heard of many disciples in Judæ a (2:23, 4:1); indeed, it was because their number excited the jealousy of the Pharisees that He had left Judæ a on a former occasion (4:3). But there was little of miracle there on His last visit; the cure of the impotent man is not described as a “ sign,” and it had attracted attention rather because it had been wrought on a Sabbath day, than because of its marvellousness (5:5f.; and cf. 7:21, where see note). The “ works” to which the brethren of Jesus make reference here are those of Galilee, perhaps the Miracle of Cana (2:1f.) or the Healing of the Nobleman’ s Son and other sick folk (4:46f., 6:2), or the Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:5f.), or more probably healings wrought between His departure from Jerusalem and His going up again for the Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 1, 14), i.e. during the summer of the year 28. Nothing is told about them by Jn., but the words τὰἔργασουἅποιεῖς , “ the works which you are doing,” suggest that the reference is not to anything that He had done months before the date of the conversation, but to quite recent events. And, as has been suggested on v. 1, some of the Galilæ an miracles recorded by the Synoptists may be placed at this period in the ministry as narrated by Jn. The allusion to the μαθηταί here cannot be to the Twelve, for they had been witnesses of many of the wonderful things that Jesus had done, and were already convinced of the truth of His claims. Nor can the allusion be to the Galilæ an disciples who were disheartened by the difficulty of His teaching and left Him on a former occasion (6:66), for they would not be in the way of seeing miracles wrought at Jerusalem, whither His brethren advised Him to transfer His activities. We conclude, then, that the μαθηταί whom His brethren suggested He should confirm in their allegiance by displays of His power, were those in Judæ a and at Jerusalem. If, indeed, He was to succeed in the Mission for which He claimed the highest sanctions, He must convince Jerusalem. And His brethren were right in the view they took of this. They did not accept His claims, as yet at any rate (v. 5), but they understood clearly that it was at the Holy City that they must either be proved or disproved. θεωρήσουσιν : So א cBDLNW, although ἵνα with the future indic. is rare in Jn. (cf. 17:2). א has θεωροῦσιν , and ΓΔΘ read θεωρήσωσιν . B places σου before τὰἔργα , but om. א *D. 4. The principle laid down by the brethren of Jesus is sound, sc. that no one who seeks public recognition can afford to keep his deeds a secret. οὐδεὶςγάρτιἐνκρυπτῷποιεῖκαὶζητεῖαὐτὸςἐνπαρρησίᾳεἶναι , “ No one does anything in secret, and (at the same time) himself seeks to be in the public eye.” καί is used like καίτοι (see on 1:10). For αὐτός BD*W have αὐτό , through misunderstanding. παρρησία expresses primarily a complete openness and freedom of speech (cf. Mark 8:32, the only place where the word occurs in the Synoptics), and in this sense it is a favourite word with John 7:13; John 7:26; John 10:24; John 16:25; John 16:29; John 18:20 (where ἐνκρυπτῷ and ἐνπαρρησίᾳ are again contrasted). It is thus, according to Proverbs 1:20, that Wisdom speaks: ἐνπλατείαιςπαρρησίανἄγει . The word then comes to connote intrepidity or courage; and it is used in 1 John 2:28, 1 John 3:21, 1 John 4:17, 1 John 5:14 of boldness in man’ s attitude to God (cf. Job 27:10). In this passage ἐνπαρρησίᾳεἶναι signifies “ to be boldly in public view,” as in 11:54, where we have οὐκέτιπαρρησίᾳπεριεπάτειἐντοῖςἸουδαίοις ; cf. Wisd. 5:1, Colossians 2:15. What the brethren of Jesus suggest is that to hide Himself in Galilee is incompatible with the claim for public recognition, as One sent by God, which He makes for Himself. εἰταῦταποιεῖς , “ if you do these things,” sc. the wonderful works with which rumour associated His name. The brethren do not express definite unbelief, but they are sceptical. φανέρωσουσεαυτὸντῷκόσμῳ , “ show thyself to the world,” i.e. to the great public at Jerusalem (cf. v. 7), where multitudes would be gathered at the Feast of Tabernacles. The wider meaning of κόσμας (see on 1:9) cannot be intended, as present to the minds of the brethren of Jesus. For φανερόω , see on 1:31; and cf. 14:22. 5. οὐδὲγάροἱἀδελφοὶαὐτοῦἐπίτευον (DLW have ἐπίστευσαν , which is plainly wrong) εἰςαὐτόν . The form of the sentence suggests that it is remarkable that His own kinsfolk did not believe in Jesus, the imperfect tense indicating their general attitude. For the constr. πιστεύεινεἰςαὐτόν , see on 1:12. It is a favourite constr. in Jn., and it implies a belief in Jesus, as distinct from mere belief in His doctrine. It is used thus throughout this chapter (vv. 31, 38, 39, 48; and cf. 8:30), and its use at this point means that the brethren of Jesus did not believe in Him as Messiah. Their incredulity, as reported by Jn., is in accordance with the Synoptic narratives (cf. Mark 3:21, Matthew 12:46, Matthew 13:57). 6. λέγειοὖν . So א cBLNΓΔΘ , but om. οὖν א *DW and syrr. For οὖν in Jn., see on 1:22. ὁκαιρὸςὁἐμὸςοὔπωπάρεστιν , “ my time is not yet come.” καιρός is a word which Jn. uses only in this passage; it stands for the moment of opportunity, the fitting occasion, rather than for the “ predestined hour” , on which the Fourth Gospel dwells with such insistence (see on 2:4). The fitting time had not yet come, Jesus says in reply to the suggestion, “ reveal Thyself to the world” (v. 4); and by this is meant not the hour of His Passion, but rather the best time for that public manifestation of Himself as Messiah, which He would make when He went up to the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 8). Such public declaration was made, when He did go up: cf. vv. 29, 33, 8:12, 28 etc. ὁδὲκαιρὸςὁὑμέτεροςπάντοτέἐστινἕτοιμος . Their case was different from His. It did not matter when they went up to the feast; it was one of strict obligation, but the exact day on which they would present themselves in Jerusalem was of no consequence, provided that they attended. Any day would be a fitting day for them to arrive, for they would not be received with hostility, but rather with indifference. 7. οὐδύναταιὁκόσμοςμισεῖνὑμᾶς , “ the world (see on v. 4) cannot hate you,” ὑμᾶς being emphatic. We have adopted (see on 2:12) the ancient belief that “ the Lord’ s brethren” were children of Joseph by his first wife, and were not numbered among the Twelve. The language of this verse shows, at any rate, that Jn. did not regard them as members of that select company, for it assumes that there was no reason why they should be regarded with disfavour by the Jews who were hostile to Jesus, as His accredited followers would certainly be (cf. 15:18). ἐμὲδὲμισεῖ . Cf. 15:18, 23, 24. The κόσμος which “ hates” Jesus is that world which Jn. describes as lying in wickedness, 1 John 5:19 (see on 1:9). But here the reference is only to the hostile Jews, as appears from the words which follow. ὅτιἐγὼμαρτυρῶπερὶαὐτοῦὅτιτὰἔργααὐτοῦπονηράἐστιν . He had denounced the Jews recently, and had said that their unbelief was due to moral causes (5:42-45), wherefore they hated Him. Such denunciation was a form of His “ witness” to the truth (cf. 18:37). See on 3:19, where the phrase ἦναὐτῶνπονηρὰτὰἔργα has already appeared. 8. ὑμεῖςἀνάβητε (the regular word for going up to Jerusalem; see on 2:13) εἰςτὴνἑορτήν . א *ΓΔ add ταύτην here, but om. א caBDLTNWΘ . ὑμεῖς is emphatic, “ Go ye up to the feast.” ἐγὼοὔπωἀναβαίνωεἰςτὴνἑορτὴνταύτην , “ I (on the other hand) am not yet going up to this feast.” οὔπω is read by BLTNWΓΔΘ , but א D Syr. cur. have οὐκ . If οὔπω be read, Jesus is represented as saying that He is not going up immediately, as His brethren would have Him do. If we read οὐκ , His words would seem to convey to His hearers that He was not going up at all to this particular feast; and in that case He altered His plans afterwards (v. 10). ὅτιὁἐμὸςκαιρὸς (this is the true reading here, as against ὁκαιρὸςὁἐμός , which the rec. text reads, from v. 6 above) οὔπωπεπλήρωται . This is a repetition of the reason given in v. 6, with slight verbal changes, the stronger word πεπλήρωται being substituted for πάρεστιν . The fitting moment had not yet arrived for His public proclamation of His Messiahship. The repetition of the same thought in slightly different words is a feature of Jn.’ s style. See on 3:16. 9. ταῦταδὲεἰπὼναὐτὸςἔμεινενκτλ . So א D*LNW, while BTΓΔΘ have αὐτοῖς . But the emphatic αὐτός is thoroughly Johannine. Jesus Goes Up Secretly to the Feast of Tabernacles (Vv. 10-13) 10. ὡςδὲἀνέβησανκτλ ., “ when His brethren had gone up to the feast,” the aor. being used like a pluperfect cf. 2:9 and 4:44). τότεκαὶαὐτὸςἀνέβη . This was His farewell to Galilee, as the scene of His public ministry. οὐφανερῶςἀλλὰὡςἐνκρυπτῷ , “ not openly” (i.e. not with the usual caravan of pilgrims), “ but, as it were, in secret,” or privately. ὡς is omitted by א D, but, ins. BLTNW. There was nothing secret about His movements or His teaching when He reached Jerusalem (7:26, 28; and cf. 18:20), but He did not go up publicly with the other pilgrims from Galilee. We find mention of disciples with Him at 9:2, but it is not certain that these were the Twelve (see note in loc.). 11. οἱοὖνἸουδαῖοιἐζήτουναὐτόνκτλ ., “ So the Jews (i.e. the hostile leaders; see on 1:19) were looking for Him at the feast” ; οὖν perhaps being not merely conjunctival, but having reference to the fact that Jesus, having gone up to Jerusalem privately, was not in public view. ποῦἐστινἐκεῖνος ; “ Where is He?” So at 9:12. ἐκεῖνος , ille, does not carry with it any suggestion of rudeness or hatred, as Chrysostom supposed. It occurs very often in Jn. (see on 1:8). 12. καὶγογγυσμὸςπερὶαὐτοῦἦνπολὺςἐντοῖςὄχλοις . The order of the words is uncertain, but the variants are of no consequence. For γογγυσμός , the murmuring of a crowd, not necessarily hostile, see on 6:61, and cf. v. 32. The plural of οἱὄχλοι occurs only here in Jn. The reference is to the different groups of people that were gathered in the city, the Galilæ an visitors among them. א D have ἐντῷὄχλῳ , but the plural is probably right. As might have been expected, the gossip of the crowds was partly favourable, partly hostile. Some said ἀγαθόςἐστιν (cf. vv. 40, 43). This was an adjective of which He had deprecated the application to Himself, as really saying too little (Mark 10:18). Others said πλανᾷτὸνὄχλον , “ He leads the people astray,” probably with allusion to His healing on the Sabbath day at the previous Passover season, and His claim to Divine prerogatives (5:18); cf. v. 47. For τὸνὄχλον , the Leicester cursive 69 has τοὺςὄχλους , an eccentric reading which would hardly call for notice were it not that the Vulgate, in common with the O.L. ef, has turbas. This is one of the instances in which Jerome has been supposed to have used Greek manuscripts no longer extant. 13. οὐδεὶςμέντοιπαρρησίᾳἐλάλειπερὶαὐτοῦ . For παρρησία , see on v. 4; and for παρρησίᾳλαλεῖν , cf. 7:26, 16:29, 18:20. διὰτὸνφόβοντῶνἸουδαίων . The phrase is repeated 19:38, 20:19, in both cases, as here, the reference being to the ecclesiastical authorities who terrorised the people; cf. 9:22, 12:42. The common people were afraid to express any opinion in favour of Jesus, recollecting that, on His last visit, “ the Jews” had been anxious to put Him to death (5:18). Jesus Teaches in the Temple: He Attracts the People, But the Sanhedrim Seek His Arrest (Vv. 14, 25-36) 14. ἤδηδὲτῆςἑορτῆςμεσούσηςκτλ ., “ When the feast was half over.” The Feast of Tabernacles lasted for eight days (see on v. 2), so that this note of time (see Introd., p. cii, for Jn.’ s liking for such notes) means that it was about the fourth day of the feast that Jesus presented Himself publicly in the Temple. The verb μεσοῦν is not found again in the N.T., but it occurs in the LXX; cf. μεσούσηςτῆςνύκτος (Exodus 12:29, Judith 12:5). ἀνέβηἸησοῦςεἰςτὸἱερόν . The Temple was on a hill, so that ἀνέβη is the appropriate word (cf. Luke 18:10). The art. ὁ is omitted before Ἰησοῦς here by א BLT, appearing in DNWΓΔΘ (but see on 1:29). καὶἐδίδασκεν , “ and began to teach” ; cf. v. 28, 8:20; 18:20. This is the first notice of the public teaching of Jesus in Jerusalem, as distinct from the answers to objectors recorded in c. 5. 7:15. We have given above (see Introd., p. xix) the reasons for taking vv. 15-24 of c.7 as following directly on 5:47. Jesus has appealed to the γράμματα of Moses as establishing His claims, and had probably (see on 5:47) quoted specific passages, commenting on them as He went along. This amazed the Jewish leaders, who had thought that such learning was confined to those trained in the Rabbinical schools, and they had never heard of Jesus as a disciple of any prominent Rabbi. ἐθαύμαζονοὖν , “ So they began to express wonder” ; cf. v. 46 and Mark 12:17, Luke 2:47, Luke 4:22. πῶςοὗτοςγράμματαοἶδενμὴμεμαθηκώς ; It was not so much the wisdom of His words that astonished them as His knowledge of the Jewish writings, which probably included the Rabbinical traditions that had gathered round the Old Testament, as well as the Old Testament itself. In Isaiah 29:12 μὴἐπιστάμενοςγράμματα means a man who cannot read, an “ illiterate.” For ἀγράμματος in Acts 4:13, see Introd., p. xxxvi. But in the present passage, μὴμεμαθηκώς seems to mean rather “ not having been the μαθητής of a recognised teacher.” The tradition of His scribbling upon the ground [8:6] shows that Jesus was not illiterate in the strict sense; and it is unlikely that this would have been suggested by the Jewish Rabbis who had engaged in controversy with Him. 16. Ἡἐμὴδιδαχὴοὐκἔστινἐμήκτλ . Here only does Jesus call His message διδαχή , a “ teaching” ; it is a significant word, as He is now dealing with the professional διδασκάλοι . That His teaching is not His own, but the Father’ s, is repeated often (8:28, 12:49, 14:10, 24); and this has already been said in effect at 5:30. διδαχή occurs again in Jn. only at 18:19; cf. 2 John 1:9, 2 John 1:10. The answer of Jesus to the Jews’ objection that He had never learnt from a recognised Rabbi is remarkable. He does not say (which might seem to us the natural answer) that He needed no Master. Indeed, Mk. reports that it was a feature of His teaching to the multitudes that it was given “ with authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22), i.e. that He appealed in His popular teaching to no Rabbinical precedents; and the Synoptic discourses sufficiently illustrate this. But in Son_5 and 7:15-24 we have the report of a long-drawn-out argument with the Rabbis, and it is conducted throughout (see on 5:31) in the style of the Jewish schools. If Jesus had said, in reply to their implied question “ Whose disciple are you?” that He was no man’ s disciple, but that He spoke of His own authority, they would at once have told Him that He was an impostor and adventurer. But, exactly as at 5:31, He follows their line of thought. He does not claim to be self-taught, which would only have aroused contemptuous indignation; but He claims that His teacher was the Father who had sent Him, as He had said so often before (cf. especially 5:36-38). 17. ἐάντιςθέλῃτὸθέλημααὐτοῦποιεῖνκτλ ., “ If any man set his will (θέλῃ , is expressive of deliberate purpose) to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, etc.” The Synoptic form of this saying is to the effect that it is only the man who does God’ s will who can enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21). That right conduct is a necessary preliminary to accurate belief about Divine things, and conversely that the cause of unbelief is often a moral cause, are propositions which are repeated frequently in Jn. They are specially pressed in this controversy with the Jewish leaders. Jesus had claimed that He sought, not His own will, but τὸθέληματοῦπέμψαντόςμε (5:30); and He goes on to suggest that it is just because this could not be said of the Rabbis that they had failed to accept His Divine mission. It is their moral nature that is at fault (5:38, 42). Cf. for similar teaching 8:31, 32, 47, 14:21; it is all summed up in the tremendous assertion, “ Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (18:37). Cf. Psalms 25:14. πότερονἐκτοῦθεοῦἑστινἢἐγώκτλ . The classical constr. πότερον … ἢ … occurs only here in the N.T. πότερον is found again in the Greek Bible only in the Book of Job (cf., e.g., Job 7:12). ἐκθεοῦ is the reading of א D, but BLTWΘ have ἐκτοῦθεοῦ , which is the regular Johannine form (1 John 4:1, 1 John 4:2, 1 John 4:3, 1 John 4:4, 1 John 4:6, 1 John 4:7). That Jesus did not “ speak from Himself” is repeated 12:49, 14:10, al. it is also said of the Spirit, “ He shall not speak from Himself” (16:13). Jesus, again and again, repudiates the idea that He does or says anything apart from the Father (cf. 5:30, 7:28; and see 8:28). The repeated disclaimer of originality for His teaching is foreign to modern habits of thought. But originality, or departure from precedent, or the idea that there is any merit in being self-taught, were all equally distasteful to Jewish scholasticism. 18. ὁἀφ ʼ ἐαυτοῦλαλῶντὴνδόξαντὴνἰδίανζητεῖκτλ . He returns to what He has said at 5:41 (where see note), and He repeats it again 8:50, 54. The contrast is between the teacher who represents himself as the fount of knowledge, and him who speaks as a herald and ambassador of a superior from whom he has what he has. The former seeks his own honour (for δόξα means “ honour” here, see on 1:14); the latter is only concerned to proclaim the truth that he has received, and in proclaiming it he seeks to bring honour to him from whom he received it. The former, therefore, may be under suspicion of false teaching; but the latter has no self-interest to further, οὗτοςἀληθήςἐστιν . There is no ἀδικία “ unrighteousness,” in him, such as is several times contrasted by Paul with “ truth” (Romans 2:8, 1 Corinthians 13:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:12). For the emphatic use of οὗτος , cf. 6:46. The special form of ἀδικία with which Jesus had been charged was that of Sabbath-breaking (5:10, 18), and He now brings the discussion back to this, by making a direct attack on His Jewish critics. They blamed Him for a technical breach of the Sabbath, but it was their own practice to condone such breaches in special circumstances (v. 23). His argument from v. 19 to v. 24 is ad hominem. Psalms 40:8 provides a parallel for the sequence of thought, vv. 17-19, which perhaps is fortuitous: τοῦποιῆσαιτὸθέλημάσου , ὁθεόςμου , ἐβουλήθην , καὶτὸννόμονσουἐνμεσῷτῆςκαρδίαςμου . In Psalms 40:8 τὸννόμονσου in the second line corresponds, after the fashion of Hebrew poetry, to τὸθελημάσου in the first line. The argument, implied but not explicitly stated, of vv. 17-19, is that if a man does not will to do God’ s will, he has not God’ s law in his heart, and does not keep it. 19. οὐΜωϋσῆςἔδωκενὑμῖντὸννόμον ; Moses gave the Law in all its bearings for a Jew (see on 1:19), but here the reference is specially to the Mosaic law of the Sabbath (v. 23). Jesus turns their appeal to the authority of Moses against themselves, as at 5:46. καὶ (καὶ being used for καίτοι , as at 5:38, 40; see on 1:10) οὐδεὶςἐξὑμῶν (cf. 16:5, 17:12: Mark 11:1, Luke 14:24 preferring to omit ἐκ in similar constructions; cf. 13:28, 21:12, and see on 1:40) ποιεῖτὸννόμον . No one, He urges, keeps the Mosaic law of the Sabbath with minute scrupulosity in all circumstances, and He goes on to mention an admitted exception (v. 23). τίμεζητεῖτεἀποκτεῖναι ; See on 5:18, where it has been recorded, ἐζήτουναὐτὸνοἱἸουδαῖοιἀποκτεῖναι . 20. ἀπεκρίθηὁὄχλοςκτλ . The crowd had been listening with eagerness to the controversial discussion between Jesus and the Rabbis (οἱἸουδαῖοι , v. 15); and they interrupt now to disclaim the idea that there was any thought of killing Him. This is a lifelike touch. It was not the “ people,” but the “ Jews,” who had begun the plot; the people knew nothing of it. δαιμόνιονἔχεις . The same thing was said of John the Baptist, as an explanation of his asceticism (Matthew 11:18); and later on, Jn. records that the Jewish leaders, or some of them, accused Jesus of being possessed with a demon (8:48, 49, 10:20; cf. Mark 3:22). But here it is the people who say “ Thou hast a demon,” meaning not to impute moral blame but mental infirmity. It is a well-known sign of insanity to believe that other people are in league against one. “ Who seeks to kill you?” It is only your disordered imagination which makes you suspect it (cf. Mark 3:21). See Introd., p. clxxvii. 21. Jesus does not answer the insulting suggestion that He is out of His mind. He goes back to His statement that no Jew keeps the Sabbatical law after a fashion which admits of no exception. ἓνἔργονἐποίησακαὶπάντεςθαυμάζετε . This has generally been interpreted as meaning, “ I did one miracle, and you all marvel.” But such a pronouncement is not in harmony with the context. Nothing has been said throughout 5:1-47 or 7:15-24 to indicate that the observers, whether the simple folk or the Jewish leaders, had seen anything extraordinary in the cure of the impotent man, or had expressed any wonder. Indeed, 5:20 suggests that “ greater works” would be necessary, if their wonder was to be aroused. Nor, again, would an appeal made by Jesus at this point to the miraculous nature of what He had done be apposite to the argument which He is developing. That argument has to do with one point only, sc. His alleged breach of the Sabbath; and it would be no answer to the charge of breaking the Sabbath to tell His critics that what He had done had been miraculous, and to remind them that they had been astonished. We have seen above (5:20) that Jn. frequently speaks of the wonderful works of Jesus as His ἔργα ; but there is no instance of a specific miracle being referred to as ἔργον in the singular (as σημεῖον is used, 4:54), unless 10:32 be regarded as an exception: πολλὰκαλὰἔργαἔδειξαὑμῖν … διὰποῖοναὐτῶνἔργονλιθάζετέμε ; ἔργον in the sing. occurs again in Jn. only at 4:34, 17:4 (of the work which the Father prescribes to the Son) and at 6:29 (of the work which God desires of man). Furthermore, stress is laid here on the singularity of the “ work” that has been “ done” by Jesus. “ I did one work.” But in the course of the preceding argument He had appealed to the “ works,” in the plural, which bore witness to His claims (5:36, where see note). There would be no point in now singling out one ἔργον only, as having excited wonder because of its extraordinary character; and it would be surprising if that one were singled out, of which it is not recorded that it caused any astonishment. Accordingly we render ἓνἔργονἐποίησα , “ I did one work,” sc. of labour, and interpret it as having reference to the matter originally in dispute, sc. that He had broken the Sabbath.1 The law was, πᾶςὃςποιήσειἔργοντῇἡμέρᾳτῇἐβδόμῃ , θανατωθήσεται (Exodus 31:15, Exodus 35:2). Jesus admits, in terms, that He has broken this law on the particular occasion to which His critics refer. ἓνἔργονἐποίησακτλ ., “ I did one work,” sc. on the Sabbath, “ and you are all astonished,” θαυμάζειν indicating that they were puzzled, as at 3:7, 4:27. Their astonishment was not caused by the extraordinary nature of the cure, but by the circumstance that Jesus had ventured to cure the man on a Sabbath day. We take θαυμάζετε with διὰτοῦτο which follows: “ you are all astonished by this.” Cf. ἐθαύμασενδιὰτὴνἀπιστίαναὐτῶν (Mark 6:6), where the reason of astonishment is indicated by διά with the acc., as here. διὰτοῦτο is often used by Jn. in relation to what follows (see on 5:16); while the more common usage, in accordance with which it relates to what has gone before, is also adopted several times in the Gospel (see on 9:23), although there is no other instance in Jn. Of διὰτοῦτο coming at the end of a sentence. The tendency of the versions is to take διὰτοῦτο as beginning the next sentence: “ Therefore Moses, etc.” But, in that case, διὰτοῦτο is difficult to interpret, and involves a very elliptical construction. It would mean “ For this very cause, Moses gave you the ordinance of circumcision, knowing that it would conflict with the strict law of the Sabbath; sc. in order that he might teach you that the Sabbatical precepts admit of exceptions and are not always to be enforced literally.” This would give a tolerable sense, but it strains the force of διὰτοῦτο too far, and introduces a very subtle reason (not suggested elsewhere) for the rule that circumcision must always be on the eighth day after birth. It is simpler to take πάντεςθαυμάζετεδιὰτοῦτο as one sentence, “ You are all astonished at this act of mine.” א * Omits διὰτοῦτο , thus cutting the knot of the difficulty by treating the words as a later gloss. 22. Μωϋσῆςδέδωκενὑμῖντὴνπεριτομή . περιτομή does not occur elsewhere in the Gospels; but we have περιτέμνειν (Luke 1:59, Luke 2:21). The ordinance of circumcision on the eighth day after birth is re-enacted, Leviticus 12:3. οὐχὅτιἐκτοῦΜωϋσέωςἐστὶνἀλλ ʼ ἐκτῶνπατέρων . This is an evangelistic comment on the words of Jesus, interpolated exactly as at 12:6, οὐκὅτι … ἀλλ ʼ (see Introd., p. xxxiv). The covenant of circumcision went back to Abraham (Genesis 17:10, Genesis 21:4, Acts 7:8). For τῶνπατέρων , see on 6:58. καὶἐνσαββάτῳκτλ . B om. ἐν , but ins. א DLTΘ W (cf. 5:16). Even if the eighth day after the birth of the child fell on a Sabbath, the act of circumcision was performed. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) cites the Rabbinical rule: “ Rabbi Akiba saith, ‘ Work that may be done on the eve of the Sabbath must not be done on the Sabbath, but circumcision … may be done on the Sabbath.’ ” 1 Justin uses the argument of the text in the Dialogue with Trypho (§ 27), appealing to the injunction to circumcise on the Sabbath. 23. εἰπεριτομήνκτλ . “ If a man receives circumcision on a sabbath, in order that the law of Moses (sc. the law relating to circumcision, Leviticus 12:3) may not be broken, are you angry with me because on a Sabbath I made the whole man healthy?” A somewhat similar idea appears in the Rabbinical writings: “ Circumcision, which has to do with one member only, breaks the Sabbath; how much more the whole body of a man?” 2 The contrast is between the treatment of one member, and of the whole body . If the lesser thing is permitted, why not the greater? The argument is comparable with that of Mat 12:11, Luke 13:15, by which a technical breach of the Sabbath is defended, but is unlike that of 5:17, where see the note. For λύειν , of “ breaking” a law, see on 5:18. ὁνόμοςΜωϋσέως is a comprehensive term for the whole Jewish law, or for a particular enactment: cf. Luke 2:22, Luke 24:44, Acts 15:5 (this passage referring to the law of circumcision), 1 Corinthians 9:9 etc. λύειν is used at 5:18 of breaking the law of the Sabbath. The word ὑγιής goes back to 5:9, 14. 24. μὴκρίνετεκατ ʼ ὄψιν , “ do not judge by looks,” i.e. superficially, the too frequent weakness of the Pharisees, which is rebuked again ὑμεῖςκατὰτὴνσάρκακρίνετα (8:15). Cf. Isaiah 11:3 οὐκατὰτὴνδόξανκρινεῖ , and 2 Corinthians 10:7. ὄψις occurs again in the N.T. only at 11:44 and Revelation 1:16, and then in the sense of “ face.” ἀλλὰτὴνδικαίανκρίσινκρίνατε , “ but judge righteous judgment,” i.e. be fair. The expression is used of the judgments of God, Tob. 3:2. Cf. also Zechariah 7:9 κρίμαδίκαιονκρίνατε . The constr. κρίσινκρινειν is common (Isaiah 11:4) and is also classical (Plato, Rep. 360 E). 25. The section introduced by v. 14, and then including vv. 25-36, has no reference to the Sabbatical Controversy.1 The discussion about the breach of the Sabbath by Jesus, begun in c. 5, and ending with 7:15-24, is not continued on this visit to Jerusalem, which took place some months after the former one (see on 7:1). About the fourth day of the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:14) Jesus began to teach publicly in the Temple, and His teaching attracted the attention of the citizens, who began to ask themselves if He might not be the Messiah after all, although the Jewish leaders were seeking to arrest and silence Him (7:25-27). At this point, Jesus declares openly that His mission is from God, and that in a short time He will return to Him (7:28-33). His strange language about Himself disconcerts the Pharisees, who say scornful words (7:35, 36), but they do not arrest Him on this occasion. Some of the Jews were impressed by the public teaching now begun (v. 14). τινεςἐκτῶνἹροσολυμειτῶν , sc. the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as distinct from the multitudes of country folk who had come up for the feast. The term Ἱεροσολυμεῖται is found in N.T. only here and Mark 1:5 (cf. 4 Macc. 4:22, 18:5). The Vulgate has ex Hierosolymis here instead of ex Hierosolymitanis, which the Oxford editors suggest may be due to the use by Jerome of some Greek text now lost. But Hierosolymitanis appears in d f q as Hierosolymitis, from which the transition is easy to Hierosolymis. These shrewd townsmen were surprised that their religious leaders were seeking the death of One who spoke with such power. With ὅνζητοῦσινἀποκτεῖναι , Cf. v. 1. 26. καὶἴδε . For ἴδε , see on 1:29. παρρησίᾳ . For this word see on v. 4, and for παρρησίᾳλαλεῖ , the openness with which Jesus taught, see on 18:20. The citizens were surprised that He had been allowed to teach without interference from the rulers, καὶοὐδὲναὐτῷλέγουσιν . μήποτε is not used elsewhere by Jn. Cf. its similar use in Luke 3:15, where the people are wondering about John the Baptist, μήποτεαὐτὸςεἴηὁΧριστός . So here: “ Can it be that the rulers in truth know that this is the Christ?” οἱἄρχοντες describes generally the members of the Sanhedrim (for the constitution of which, see below on v. 32). Cf. v. 48, 3:1, 12:42; and see Luke 23:13, Luke 23:35, Luke 23:24:20. The rec. ins. ἀληθῷ before ὁΧριστός , but om. א BDLNWΘ . 27. However, the Jews dismiss as untenable the thought which had passed through their minds that Jesus might be the Messiah (cf. 4:29), and that their “ rulers” knew it. ἀλλά … , Nay, but … τοῦτονοἴδαμενπόθενἐστίν , “ this man, we know whence he is.” Cf. 6:42, where “ the Jews” said that they knew the family of Jesus. There was no mystery about Him now, as they thought. Many people knew His home at Nazareth (Matthew 13:55). Presumably His disciples were with Him hence forward. ὁδὲΧριστόςὅτανἔρχηται , οὐδεὶςγινώσκειπόθενἐστίν . The birthplace of Messiah was held to be known, sc. Bethlehem (see on v. 42), but all else as to the time or the manner of His Advent was believed to be hidden. Westcott quotes a Rabbinical saying, “ Three things come wholly unexpected— Messiah, a godsend, and a scorpion” (Sanhedr. 97a). The phrase “ will be revealed” used of His appearance, 2 Esd. 7:28, 13:32, and in Apocalypse of Baruch xxix. 3, suggests (as Charles has pointed out) an emergence from concealment; and with this agrees the Jewish doctrine described in Justin, Tryph. 110, “ They say that He has not yet come … and that even if He has come, it is not known who He is , but that when He has become manifest and glorious then it shall be known who He is.” At an earlier point (Tryph. 8) the Jewish interlocutor says of the Christ, “ If He be born and is anywhere, He is unknown, and does not even know Himself , nor has He any power until Elijah having come anoints Him and makes Him manifest to all.” These passages show that the evangelist accurately reports here the Jewish doctrine as to the mysterious emergence of Messiah from obscurity. ἔρχηται . So BDLTW; א D*NΘ have ἔρχεται . ὅταν with the pres. subj. is rare in Jn. (cf. 8:44, 16:21), although not uncommon elsewhere (e.g. Mark 12:25, Mark 13:4, Luke 11:2, Luke 11:21). 28. ἔκραξεν . κράζειν is used only once in the Synoptists of Christ’ s utterances, viz. Matthew 27:50, where it is applied to the cry from the Cross. Jn. does not so apply it, but it is used by him three times to describe public and solemn announcements of doctrine by Jesus (7:37, 12:44; cf. also 1:15, where it is used of the Baptist’ s proclamation). Cf. ἐκραύγασεν , 11:43. ἐκραξενοὖνἐντῷἱερῷδιδάσκων … , “ So then (οὖν , in reply to the scepticism displayed by His audience) Jesus cried aloud, as He was teaching in the temple” (cf. v. 14). There was nothing secret about this teaching (cf. 18:20 and Matthew 26:55). κἀμὲοἴδατεκαὶοἴδατεπόθενεἰμί . This is not ironical or interrogative, but affirmative. It was true that they knew Him and His family (v. 27), but there was more to know. There is no inconsistency with 8:14, where see note. καὶἀπ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦοὐκἐλήλυθα , “ and yet I have not come of myself.” καί is used for καίτοι as it is in v. 30 below, in accordance with an idiom frequent in Jn. (see on 1:10). The phrase ἀπ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦαὐκἐλήλυθα is repeated 8:42 (where see note). Cf. 5:30, 8:28, 12:49, 14:10. ἀλλ ʼ ἔστινἀληθινὸςὁπέμψαςμε , “ but He that sent me is genuine” . The mission of Jesus was a genuine mission; He did not come to earth of Himself, but was sent by the Father (see on 3:17). The Father was genuinely His Sender. ὅνὑμεῖςοὐκοἴδατε . Despite the fact that the Jews “ knew what they worshipped” (4:22), they did not know God’ s character and purposes, and this scathing rebuke is addressed to them again (8:19, 55). That it might be said of heathen was not surprising (Galatians 4:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:8), and the persecutions of Christians in the future were mainly to spring from this ignorance (cf. 15:21); but here the sting of the words “ whom ye know not,” is that they were addressed to Jews, the chosen people. 29. After ἐγώ , א DN add δέ ; but om. BLTWΓΔΘ . ἐγὼοἴδααὐτόν . This is repeated verbally 8:55, and again at 17:25 in the form ἐγὼδέσεἔγνων . These three words contain the unique claim of Jesus, which is pressed all through the chapters of controversy with the Jews. But it is not more explicit, although it is more frequently expressed, in Jn. than in Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22. ὅτιπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦεἰμι , “ because I am from Him.” See on 6:46 for similar phrases in Jn., which imply a community of being between the Father and the Son (cf. 1:14 and 16:27, 28). κἀκεῖνόςμεἀπέστειλεν . This sentence is not dependent upon ὅτι . “ I know Him, because I am from Him,” is the first point. “ And He sent me” is the second (see on 3:17), ἐκεῖνος emphasising the main subject of the sentence, as so often in Jn. (see on 1:8). For ἀπέστειλεν (BLTNW), א D have ἀπέσταλκεν . 30. ἐζήτουνοὖναὐτὸνπιάσαι , “ Then (sc. in consequence of the claims for Himself made by Jesus, vv. 28, 29) they (sc. the Jewish leaders already indicated as His opponents, vv. 1, 25) sought to arrest Him.” This had been their purpose ever since the healing at the pool of Bethesda on a Sabbath day (5:16), their desire being to put Him to death (5:18, 7:1, 25). The impf. ἐζήτουν marks in each case that the action was not completed; and so again at 7:44 and 10:39 . The original offence, of breaking the Sabbath (5:16, repeated 9:16), comes less into prominence now, because of the greater offence of blasphemy (5:18) with which they henceforth charge Him. πιάζειν , to “ take,” is not found in the Synoptists; Jn. uses it again vv. 32, 44, 8:20, 10:39, 11:57 of “ arresting” Jesus (cf. Acts 12:4, 2 Corinthians 11:32), and at 21:3, 10 of “ catching” fish. καὶοὐδὲςἐπέβαλενἐπ ʼ αὐτὸντὴνχεῖρα , “ and yet (καί being used for καίτοι , as often in Jn.; see on 1:10) no one laid his hand on Him,” the ecclesiastical authorities, no doubt, fearing to arrest one who had won attention from the people (cf. Matthew 21:46). These words are repeated almost verbatim at v. 44 τινὲςδὲἤθελονἐξαὐτῶνπιάσαιαὐτόν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐδεὶςἐπέβαλενἐπ ʼ αὐτὸντὰςχεῖρας : cf. also 8:20, 10:39. Jn. is at pains to bring out at every point that the persecution and death of Jesus followed a predestined course. The Jews could not hasten the hour determined in the Divine purpose, and so the evangelist adds here, ὅτιοὔπωἐληλύθειἡὥρααὐτοῦ , the same words being added in a similar context at 8:20 (cf. vv. 6, 8; and see on 2:4). 31. ἐκτοῦὄχλουδὲπολλοὶἐπίστευσανεἰςαὐτόν . Those who “ believed on Him” (see for the phrase on 4:39) were of the common people rather than of the upper classes (cf. vv. 48, 49). See 9:16. καὶἔλεγονκτλ ., “ and they were saying, When the Christ shall come, will He do more signs than this man did?” (cf. Matthew 12:23). Jesus had not yet told them plainly that He was Messiah (10:24). After ἔλεγον the rec. ins. ὅτι recitantis, but om. א BDLWΘ . After ὅτανἔλθῃ the rec. has μήτι , but the better reading is μή (א BDLTW). After σημεῖα the rec. has τούτων , but om. א BDLTNWΘ . For ἐποίησεν (א cBLTNW), א *DΘ and some vss. have ποιεῖ . πλείονασημεῖα . Jn. does not profess to tell of all the “ signs” which Jesus wrought, but he alludes here (and at 2:23) to some which he has left undescribed. πλείονασημεῖαποιήσει ; Messiah was expected to be a miracle worker. The prophet had declared that in His kingdom “ the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing” (Isaiah 35:5, Isaiah 35:6). A corresponding expectation of Messianic “ signs” is found in the Synoptists as well as in Jn. Thus John the Baptist is stimulated to inquire further when he hears of “ the works of the Christ” (Matthew 11:2; cf. Luke 7:18); and one of the difficulties in the way of detecting “ false Christs” is to be their power of showing “ signs and wonders,” which were a note of the true Messiah (Mark 13:22). It was because Bartimæ us recognised Jesus as “ the Son of David” that he believed He could restore his sight (Mark 10:48). It is therefore a mistake to speak1 of the Messianic significance of miracles as a Johannine peculiarity; it appears also in the Synoptists, although more conspicuously in Jn. (cf. 2:23 4:19). The evangelist is true to the historical situation when he notes that the Jews expected “ signs” from Messiah, as indeed they did from any one claiming to be a prophet (2:18, 3:2, 6:14, 9:17; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:22). And the aim of the Fourth Gospel is to record selected “ signs” of Jesus with the express purpose of proving Him to be the Christ (20:31). 32. οἱφαρισαῖοι : see on 1:24. The Pharisees had heard the whispered talk of the people (cf. v. 12), and they determined to silence Jesus. Accordingly they brought the matter before the Sanhedrim, so that measures might be taken for His arrest. The Sanhedrim was the supreme council or high court of justice in Jerusalem during the period of the Roman occupation, and successive procurators left the administration of the law for the most part in its hands. It had no power to carry into execution a sentence of death, but it was the uniform policy of the Roman administration to support its authority. Three classes of members may be distinguished: (1) The ἀρχιερεῖς , that is, the acting high priest, all ex-high priests, and probably some of their sons.1 They were the political, as well as the ecclesiastical, aristocrats of Jerusalem; and they occupied a position not unlike that of the Holy Synod in Russia before the Revolution, which comprised only the leading bishops, and had as presiding officer a highly placed layman. Their interests were centred in the Temple, and they had little concern for the synagogues, large part as these played in Jewish religious life. They were of the party known as that of “ the Sadducees,” a designation occurring only once in Mk., and not at all in Jn. (2) A second class, also belonging to the Sadducee interest, were known as πρεσβύτεροι or elders: they were not priests, but were generally associated with them in policy, both the ἀρχιερεῖς and the πρεσβύτεροι being in opposition to (3) the third class, who were the Pharisees or scribes or lawyers (the titles γραμματεύς and νομικός are not found in Jn.). They were learned in the Jewish law and in the traditions that had grown up around it, being the party of austere and strict religious observance. Their influence showed itself in the synagogues rather than in the Temple, for the details of the ceremonial worship there did not come within their province. They regarded with apprehension the departure from traditional doctrines which Jesus encouraged, and it was they who first brought His teaching before the Sanhedrim (cf. 12:19). They associated themselves with the priestly or Sadducean party in bringing about His arrest and condemnation (18:3, Matthew 27:62), although the chief priests appear as the principal agents. Cf. 11:49. ἀπέστειλανοἱἀρχιερεῖςκαὶοἱφαρισαῖοιὑπηρέτας . The rec. text has οἱΦαρ . καὶοἱἀρχ ., but א BDLTWΘ place the chief priests first in order, which is obviously right. Without the consent of the ἀρχιερεῖς , the arrest of Jesus could not have been ordered by the Sanhedrim. οἱἀρχ . καὶοἱΦαρ . are coupled together again 7:45, 11:47, 57 (as also Matthew 21:45, Matthew 27:62), and the combination stands for the Sanhedrim as an organised council or court. They now sent officers of the Sanhedrim, or, as we might say, “ Temple police” (ὑπηρέτας ; cf. v. 45, 18:3, 12, 18, 19:6), to make the arrest, which some of them had been seeking (ἐζήτουν , v. 30) to bring about. 33. εἶπενοὖνὁἸη . If we press the causative force of οὖν , the meaning is that Jesus said that He would be only among them a little while longer, so that there was nothing to be gained by arresting Him. οὖν , however (see on 1:22), is not always to be rendered “ therefore,” and may be only a conjunction, “ and so.” The rec. adds αὐτοῖς after οὖν , but om. א BDLNWΘ . ἔτιχρόνονμικρόνκτλ . The end of His ministry was near, and He knew it; it would come in “ a little while” — in fact in about six months. The phrase μικρὸνχρόνον (or μικρόν alone) is repeatedly on His lips henceforth, according to Jn. (12:35, 13:33, 14:19, 16:16). Cf 9:4. The rec. has μικρὸνχρόνον , but א BLTWΘ give the order. χρ . μικρ . καὶὑπάγωπρὸςτὸνπέμψαντάμε . The words are repeated 16:5. For the phrase “ Him that sent me,” frequent in Jn., see on 3:17. This was a saying of mystery, and the Jews could not understand it. ὑπάγειν is a favourite verb with Jn., and it is often used in the Gospel of Jesus “ going to God” (cf. 8:14, 21, 13:3, 33, 36, 14:4, 5, 28, 16:5, 10, 17). It means strictly “ to depart,” and so is specially appropriate of the withdrawal of Christ’ s visible presence from among men, and His “ going to the Father” or “ going home.” See on 15:16, 16:7; and cf. Mark 14:21 ὁμὲνυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπουὑπάγει , καθὼςγέγραπται . 34. ζητήσετε . This is certainly the true text, only two MSS., II and 69, reading ζητεῖτε . None the less, the Vulgate has quaeritis, this being one of the renderings which suggest to some that Jerome followed a type of Greek manuscript of which we know little.1 With vv. 33, 34, must be compared at every point 8:21 and 13:33. ζητήσετέμεκαὶοὐχεὑρήσετε . BTN add μέ after εὑρήσετε :om. א DLWΓΔΘ . “ Seek and ye shall find” (Matthew 7:7) is the promise of Jesus; but the seeking may be so long delayed that the promise cannot be claimed. Cf. Luke 17:22 and Proverbs 1:28. So, here, the warning is of the danger of delay. “ Ye shall seek me,” sc. (not, as at v. 30, to kill me, but) as the Messiah for your deliverance, “ and ye shall not find,” for Jesus will not be present in the body, as He was then. καὶὅπουεἰμὶἐγώκτλ ., “ and where I am,” sc. in my essential being, in the spiritual world, “ you cannot come.” There is no contradiction between μεθ ʼ ὑμῶνεἰμί of v. 33 and this statement; for the former only asserted His visible, bodily presence, whereas the latter spoke of His spiritual home. This can be shared only by those who are in spiritual touch with Him (12:26, 17:24), as the Jews were not (cf. 8:21). Even His disciples, as He reminded them later, could not follow Him to the heavenly places while they were still in the body (13:33, 36). 35. εἶπονοὖνοἱἸουδαῖοιπρὸςἑαυτούς , “ the Jews said among themselves,” i.e. the Jewish leaders or Pharisees of v. 32. ποῦοὗτοςμέλλειπορεύεσθαι ; “ Where is this person (οὗτος suggesting contempt) about to go?” They did not understand what Jesus had said (vv. 33, 34) in words of mystery. μέλλειν here only indicates simple futurity (see on 6:71 for Jn.’ s use of this verb). ὅτιἡμεῖςοὐχεὑρήσομεναὐτόν . They speak ironically, feeling that it will be impossible for Him to escape them. ἡμεῖς is omitted by א D, but ins. BLTNΔΓΘ . Cf. 8:22. μὴεἰςτὴνδιασπορὰντῶνἙλλήνωνκτλ ., “ Will He go to the Dispersion of the Greeks?” i.e. to the Jews who lived among Greek populations. Jews who lived out of Palestine were the διασπορὰτοῦἸσραήλ (Psalms 147:2, Isaiah 49:6), and the term is often applied to them (cf. Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 56:8, Zephaniah 3:10, Jeremiah 15:7, etc.). In 1 Peter 1:1 (where see Hort’ s note), we have διασπορὰΠόντου , Ἀσίας , etc., the place of their residence being thus indicated. So here, ἡδιασπορὰτῶνἙλλήνων is “ the Dispersion among the Greeks.” καὶδιδάσκειντοὺςἝλληνας ; “ and teach the Greeks,” i.e. the heathen Greeks themselves, among whom the Jews of the Dispersion lived. (See on 12:20 for Ἕλληνες as indicating Greek proselytes, which is not the meaning here.) The Palestinian Jews of the stricter sort looked down on the Jews of the Dispersion and despised all Gentiles. There is, then, something contemptuous in their suggestion that Jesus may be contemplating a journey to foreign parts, where He may make disciples of Hellenistic Jews or even of the Greeks themselves. It is an instance of the “ irony” of the evangelist (see on 1:45) that he does not stay to make the obvious comment that what the Jewish critics of Jesus thought so absurd was afterwards accomplished by the first preachers of His gospel, which embraced both Greek and Jew. 36. Yet they are puzzled and uneasy, for they repeat His strange saying of v. 34 again: “ What is this word which He said, You shall seek me and shall not find me, and where I am you cannot come?” BDLNWΘ give ὁλόγ . οὗτ ., as against οὖτ . ὁλόγ . of א ΓΔ . A Special Appeal to the People, Who are Divided in Opinion, to the Indignation of the Pharisees (Vv. 37-49) 37. Jesus seems to have continued His teaching daily, or at any rate continuously, in the Temple; and on the last day of the feast, He made a special and final appeal to His hearers to accept His message. εἱστήκει 1 ὁἸησοῦς . Jesus, like other teachers, was accustomed to sit as He taught (see on 6:3); but at this point, to emphasise the momentousness of His words, He rose and cried out (see on 7:28 for ἔκραξεν , and cf. Proverbs 8:3, Proverbs 8:9:3, Proverbs 8:5), “ If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” Cf. Isaiah 55:1. ἐρχέσθωπρόςμε . So א cBLNTWΘ , but א *D om. πρόςμε . Cf. 6:35. “ The last day, the great day, of the Feast” of Tabernacles was probably the eighth day (see on 7:2), on which were special observances. The ritual on each day, and probably on the eighth day also (although this seems to be uncertain), comprised an offering of water, perhaps (when the rite was initiated) symbolising abundance of rain to ensure a good crop at the next harvest. Rabbi Akiba says as much: “ Bring the libation of water at the Feast of Tabernacles, that the showers may be blessed to thee. And accordingly it is said that whosoever will not come up to the Feast of Tabernacles shall have no rain.” 1 At any rate, a golden vessel was filled with water from the Pool of Siloam, and the water was solemnly offered by the priest, the singers chanting, “ With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3). This water ceremonial may have suggested the words of Jesus: “ If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” 38. καθὼςεἶπενἡγραφήκτλ . ἡγραφή always indicates a specific passage in the O.T. (see on 2:22), although (cf. v. 42 below) the quotation may not always be exact. Here, the source of the quotation cannot be identified with certainty, although, as we shall see, the idea of v. 38 is scriptural. The fact that we cannot precisely fix the quotation makes for the genuineness of the reminiscence here recorded. A writer whose aim was merely to edify, and who did not endeavour to reproduce historical incidents, would not have placed in the mouth of Jesus a scriptural quotation which no one has ever been able to identify exactly. The passage has been punctuated in various ways: (1) Chrysostom confines the quotation to the words “ he that believeth in me,” taking the rest of v. 38 as words of Jesus. Thus the “ scripture” might be Isaiah 28:16, quoted in Romans 9:33 in the form ὁπιστεύωνἐπ ʼ αὐτῷοὐκαταισχυνθήσεται . But this exegesis is a mere evasion of the difficulties. (2) Some ancient Western authorities connect πινέτω with ὁπιστεύωνεἰςἐμέ which follows, putting a stop after ἐμέ : “ If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and let him drink that believeth on me. As the Scripture saith, Out of His belly shall flow rivers of living water.” By this arrangement, αὐτοῦ is understood of Christ, not of the believer. The colometry of the O.L. codices d and e would agree with this punctuation.2 The Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons3 has … τοῦὕδατοςτῆςζωῆςτοῦἐξιόντοςἐκτῆςνηδύοςτοῦΧριστοῦ , Which takes αὐτοῦ as meaning Christ. So also Cyprian has “ clamat dominus ut qui sitit ueniat et bibat de fluminibus aquae uiuae quae de eius uentre fluxerunt.” 1 Many Western Fathers are cited to the same effect by Turner.2 Loisy and some other modern exegetes favour this view. Burney held that this arrangement of clauses represented the sense, the Greek κοιλία being due to a misunderstanding of the underlying Aramaic, and a confusion of מ ְ ע ִ י ן “ belly” (cf. Daniel 2:32) with מ ַ ע ְ י ָ ן “ fountain.” He rendered v. 38 accordingly, “ As the scripture hath said, Rivers shall flow forth from the fountain of living waters,” the allusion being to Ezekiel 47:1. C. C. Torrey3 also appeals to the Aramaic, rendering “ As the Scripture hath said, Out of the midst of her (i.e. Jerusalem) shall flow rivers of living water,” the reference being to Zechariah 14:8. These explanations are ingenious, but they do not disclose any exact citation from the O.T. (3) We prefer the Eastern exegesis here. Origen is explicit in his reference of αὐτοῦ to the believer in Christ: εἰγὰρπερὶτοῦπνεύματοςεἴρηταιὡςὕδωρζῶνποταμῶνδίκηνἐκπορευόμενονἐκτοῦπιστεύοντος … 4 So, too, Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xvi. 2), Basil5 (in Psalms 46:4), and Athanasius (Festal Letters, ix. 7, 44.).6 That Christ is the ultimate source of living water, which represents the Spirit, is common to all interpretations; but these writers understand also that those who receive it from Him hand it on in their turn to others.7 So in the Odes of Solomon (vi.) we have Christ the χείμαρρος 8 or torrent of living water spreading over the world, while the ministers of this draught of the Spirit relieve many. This is the Johannine doctrine of the Spirit, appearing again in another form at 20:23. The reference of ἐκτῆςκοιλίαςαὐτοῦ to the believer is in strict correspondence with the earlier passage 4:10-14, where it is said of the water which Christ gives that it will be in the believer πηγὴὕδατοςἁλλομένουεἰςζωὴναἰώνιον . The imagery of “ If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,” goes back to Isaiah 55:1; and similarly (as at 4:14) the imagery of v. 38 goes back to Isaiah 58:11: “ Thou shalt be like a spring of water whose waters fail not.” As we have seen on 4:14, this idea appears in many places in Hebrew literature, although the actual words cannot be traced. He who has drunk deep of the living waters which are the gift of Christ becomes himself, in his turn and in humbler measure, a fountain from which the water of life flows for the refreshment of others. The κοιλία is regarded in the O.T. as the seat of man’ s emotional nature (Proverbs 20:27). Water is often symbolic of the Divine Law (see on 4:10), and the Law is “ in the heart” (Psalms 40:8) of Yahweh’ s servant, or, as some LXX texts have it, ἐνμέσῳτῆςκοιλίαςμου .The Psalm goes on: “ I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart, I have declared thy faithfulness” (Psalms 40:10). So again in Proverbs 18:4 we have: ὔδωρβαθὺλόγοςἐνκαρδίᾳἀνδρός ,ποταμὸςδὲἀναπηδύεικαὶπηγὴζωῆς . Hence the O.T. conception is that the Divine Law is in the heart of one inspired by the Spirit of Yahweh, like a fountain which cannot be repressed, but which perpetually sends forth a stream of living water. This is the Johannine teaching of 7:38. The use of κοιλία is in accordance with the Semitic habit of expressing emphasis1 by mentioning some part of the body, e.g. “ the mouth of Yahweh hath spoken it,” “ His arm wrought salvation.” “ Out of his belly” is only an emphatic way of saying “ From him shall flow.” The living waters to the thought of the prophets (Zechariah 14:8. Ezekiel 47:1) flowed from a holy place, viz. Jerusalem; but here they are said to flow from a holy man, viz. one who has believed in Christ. There is no difficulty in the construction, ὁπιστεύωνεἰςἐμέ being a suspended subject; cf. 15:5 ὁμένωνἐνἐμοί … οὖτοςφέρεικαρπόν , and see on 1:12. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ THE “ DE ” (7:53-8:11) The section of the Fourth Gospel which contains this incident is contained in many late manuscripts and versions, but it cannot be regarded as Johannine or as part of the Gospel text. It is not found in any of the early Greek uncials, with the single exception of Codex Bezae (D), being omitted without comment in א BNTWΘ . L and Δ omit it, while leaving a blank space where it might be inserted, thus indicating that their scribes deliberately rejected it as part of the Johannine text. A and C are defective at this point, but neither could have contained the section, as the missing leaves would not have had room for it. The section is omitted also in important cursives, e.g. 22, 33, 565 (in which minuscule there is a note that the scribe knew of its existence). The Ferrar cursives, i.e. fam. 13, do not give it in Jn., but place the section after Luke 21:38, where it would be, indeed, in better agreement with the context than before John 8:12. Cursives 1, 1582, and some American MSS. place the section at the end of the Fourth Gospel. Cursive 225 places it after John 7:36. The Old Syriac vss. (whether in Tatian’ s Diatessaron, Syr. sin., or Syr. cur.) betray no knowledge of the passage, nor is it contained in the best MSS. of the Peshitta. In like manner the Coptic vss. omit it, e.g. the fourth century Coptic Q (see p. xvi). Some of the O.L. MSS. are also without it, e.g. a f l* q. Even more significant is the absence of any comment on the section by Greek commentators for a thousand years after Christ, including Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus (in his metrical paraphrase), who deal with the Gospel verse by verse. The earliest Greek writer (Euthymius Zygabenus or Zygadenus) who comments on it lived about 1118, and even he says that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it. Further, the evidence of vocabulary and style is conclusive against the Johannine authorship of the section. The notes which follow demonstrate this sufficiently. Nor in its traditional place does it harmonise with the context. It interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12f.; while 7:53 is not in harmony with what goes before, and has no connexion with 8:12f. The early Greek evidence in favour of the mediæ val view that the section is an authentic part of the Fourth Gospel reduces itself to the witness of Codex Bezae (D), a manuscript with many other Western interpolations. The section is found in the great mass of later uncials and cursives, whatever be the reason of this intrusion into the more ancient text. To be borne in mind, however, is the significant fact that in many of the later MSS. which contain it, the Pericope de adultera is marked with an obelus (e.g. S) or an asterisk . The Latin evidence in its favour is considerable. The section appears in several O.L. texts, e.g. b e (sæ c. v.) and ff2 (sæ c. vii.), as well as in Jerome’ s Vulgate. Jerome says expressly “ in multis graecis et latinis codicibus inuenitur de adultera,” etc. (adv. Pelag. ii. 17). Augustine (de conj. adult. ii. 6) accounts for its omission from some texts, by hinting that the words of Jesus which it records might seem too lenient. The section is found also in some late Syriac and Coptic texts, while omitted in the earlier and better versions. These facts show that the authorities on the side of the Pericope are almost wholly Western, and do not become numerous in any language until after the acceptance by Jerome of the section as Johannine. Jerome seems to have followed here some Greek MSS. not now extant. This evidence is, however, wholly insufficient to justify the inclusion of the narrative in the Fourth Gospel. The ignoring of it by the early Greek MSS., vss., and commentators is thus left unexplained. Nevertheless, the story of the adulteress seems to be an authentic fragment of early tradition as to the sayings and actions of Jesus. The story is mentioned (although not referred to the Fourth Gospel) in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24), a passage which goes back to the fourth century or perhaps even to the third. It must have been current as a tradition in the third century at any rate. Eusebius probably refers to it when he says of Papias that “ he relates another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Eus. H.E. iii. 39). Whether Papias got the story from the extra-canonical “ Gospel according to the Hebrews,” or from some other source, is not certain. But that the Pericope de adultera is the story which Papias told has been accepted by many critics; and, accordingly, in Lightfoot’ s Apostolic Fathers the passage [Jn.] 7:53-8:11 is printed as one of the surviving fragments of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis. This is highly probable, but is not certain. All we can assert with confidence is that the passage is very like the Synoptic stories about Jesus; while its tenderness and gravity commend it as faithfully representing what Jesus said and did when a woman who had sinned unchastely was brought before Him. No reason for the ready acceptance in the West of the story as evangelical, and of its incorporation in the Latin Gospels as early as the fourth century, can be assigned with certainty. It is perhaps significant that in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24), where we find the narrative for the first time, it is cited as a lesson to bishops who are inclined to be too severe to penitents. Now writers like Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian, who discuss at length the problems of discipline for adultery, never mention this case. Like the rest of the Church, East and West, in the second and third centuries, they held that punishment for fornication ought to be very severe, inasmuch as it seemed essential to mark the divergence of Christian ethics from heathen ethics on this point. But by the time we reach the fourth century, ecclesiastical discipline began to be relaxed and to be less austere; and a story which had been formerly thought dangerous because of its apparent leniency would naturally be appealed to by canonists and divines as indicating the tenderness with which our Lord Himself rebuked sins of the flesh. It was but a short step from quoting the story as edifying to treating it as suitable for reading in Church. It would thus get into lectionaries, and in the Greek Menology it is the lection for St. Pelagia’ s day. From its insertion in Evangelistaria, it readily crept into Gospel texts, from which Jerome did not feel it practicable to expel it. Perhaps thus, or somewhat thus, its presence in the textus receptus of the Fourth Gospel is to be explained. The text of the Pericope which is given here is that adopted by Hort. The various readings are more numerous than in any other part of the N.T., and a large number of explanatory glosses were added to the text in ancient times. Hort’ s analysis of these can hardly be improved. We have to do here only with the later uncials, and these are cited by the customary letters (EGH, etc.) as explained by Gregory or Scrivener. We cite the cursive 1071 because of its remarkable agreement with D in this section. (See K. Lake, Texts from Mount Athos, p. 1481.) 7:53. ἐπορεύθησαν . So D, etc., with O.L. and vg.; the rec. has ἐπορεύθη with minor uncials and fam. 13. πορεύεσθαιεἰς … occurs only at 7:35 in Jn., who prefers πορ . πρός (cf. 14:28, 16:28, 20:17); the constr. is common in the Synoptists. 8:1. τὸὄροςτῶνἐλαιῶν is, again, a Synoptic term, not occurring again in Jn. When Jn. introduces a place-name for the first time he is apt to add a word of explanation (4:5, 11:1), but nothing of the kind is here. Mention of the Mount of Olives would fall in with the story referring to the week before the Passion, when Jesus lodged at Bethany; cf. Mark 11:11, Mark 11:19, Mark 11:13:3. 2. ὄρθρου is Lucan (Luke 24:1; cf. Acts 5:21); Jn. does not use it, but has πρωΐ instead (18:28, 20:1, 21:4). The frequent use of δέ in this section to the exclusion of Jn.’ s favourite οὖν (see on 1:22) marks the style as non-Johannine. παρεγένετο . D 1071 have παραγίνεται . The verb occurs in Jn. only once (3:22). ἦλθεν is read by fam. 13. λαός is found in Jn. only twice (11:50, 18:14); he prefers ὄχλος , which some MSS. give here. The clause καὶπᾶςὁλαὸς … ἐδίδασκεναὐτούς is omitted by fam. 13; while D om. καὶκαθίσαςἐδίδασκεναὐτούς . For καθίσας , as describing the attitude of Jesus when teaching, see on 6:3 (cf. Mark 13:3). Jn. generally specifies the nature of Jesus’ teaching in the Temple (cf. 7:28, 8:20), but at 7:14 he writes simply ἐδίδασκεν as here. 3. For ἄγουσινδέ , fam. 13 gives καὶπροσήνεγκαναὐτῷ . οἱγραμματεῖς . There is no mention of scribes in Jn. “ Scribes and Pharisees” is a frequent Synoptic phrase for the opponents of Jesus, whom Jn. prefers to describe briefly as “ the Jews” (see on 1:19). The woman was not brought before Jesus for formal trial, but in order to get His expression of opinion on a point of the Mosaic law, which might afterwards be used against Him (see v. 6), of which other examples are given by the Snyoptists (cf. Mark 12:13, Mark 12:18). Some minor uncials ins. πρὸςαὐτόν before γυναῖκα , but om. D 1071 and fam. 13. ἐπὶμοιχείᾳ is supported by the uncials MSUΓΛ and fam. 13; ἐνμοιχείᾳ is read by EGHKΠ , and is smoothed down in D 1071 to ἐπὶἁμαρτίᾳ . κατειλημμένην . καταλαμβάνειν , “ to overtake,” occurs in John 1:5, John 12:35. Milligan gives from a fourth- or fifth-century papyrus an exact parallel to the present passage, where it is used of detection in sin, viz.: γυναῖκακαταλημφθεῖσανὑπὸτοῦἠδικημένουμετὰμοίχου . στήσαντεςαὐτὴνἐνμέσῳ (ἐντῳμεσῷ , fam. 13). Cf. Acts 4:7 for the phrase descriptive of “ setting” people in the midst of bystanders for the purpose of examining them. 4. After αὐτῳ , D adds ἐκπειράζοντεςαὐτόν , and EGHK 1071 πειράζοντες only. The phrase with ἐκπειράζειν is Lucan; cf. Luke 10:25. For διδάσκαλε , see on 1:38. For κατείληπται (D 1071), MSΛ and fam. 13 have εἰληπται , while EGHKΓΠ give κατειλήφθη . ἐπ ʼ αὐτοφώρῳ , “ in the act.” The phrase does not occur again in the Greek Bible, but is thoroughly classical. Cf. Philo, de spec. leg. iii. 10, μοιχείαςδὲτάςμὲναὐτοφώρους … ἀπέφηνενὁνόμος . Milligan illustrates from a second-century papyrus τοὺςλημφθένταςἐπ ʼ αὐτοφώρῳκακούργους . μοιχεύειν does not occur in Jn., but several times in the Synoptists. 5. ἐνδὲτῷνόμῳκτλ . In an ordinary case of adultery (e.g. Leviticus 20:10) the penalty was death for both parties, but the manner of execution is not specified, the Talmud prescribing death by strangulation. But in the exceptional and specially heinous case of a betrothed woman’ s unchastity, death was to be by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:21). It was an unusual case like this that was put before Jesus. These severe laws were rarely put in force, but nevertheless the dilemma was neatly framed. If He said that the guilty woman should be stoned, He would have been subject to the Roman law for inciting to murder; and although the Roman authorities were lax on occasion about such acts of violence (as in the case of Stephen, Acts 7:58), there would have been a good pretext for handing Him over to them to deal with. If, however, He inclined to more merciful treatment, as was probably expected of Him, He would have been declared by His critics to be a blasphemous person who did not accept the enactments of the sacred law. Cf. Mark 12:14 for the dilemma about the tribute money; and Mark 10:2 for the question about divorce, which, however puzzling, would not involve difficulty with the Roman authorities. Augustine, however, puts the dilemma in a simpler way: “ Si ut iuberet occidi perderet mansuetudinis famam; si autem iuberet dimitti incurreret, tanquam reprehensor legis, calumniam” (Enarr. in Psa_1. § 8). This may be right, but it does not recall the attempts to entrap Jesus recorded by the Synoptists. For the first clause D has Μωυσῆςδὲἐντῷνόμῳἐκέλευσεν . For λιθάζειν (cf. 10:31), which is read by DMSU 1071 and fam. 13, the rec. has λιθοβολεῖσθαι (the verb used Deuteronomy 22:21) with EGHKΠ . After λέγεις ins. περὶαὐτῆς MSUΛ fam. 13 c ff.2 6. From τοῦτοδέ to κατηγ . αὐτοῦ is om. by DM, the clause appearing in the rec. supported by SUL fam. 13 . Such laying of traps for Jesus is often mentioned in the Synoptists, e.g. Mark 8:11, Luke 11:16. κατά is seldom used by Jn., but cf. κατηγορίανκατά followed by a genitive, at 18:29. κάτωκύψας is read here, but κατακύψας at v. 8, “ having stooped down.” κατακύπτειν occurs again in the Greek Bible only at 4 Kings 9:32, in the sense of “ peeping out” ; see, for παρακύπτειν , on 20:5. For κατακύπτειν , “ to stoop,” Milligan cites Aristeas ix. I. κατέγραφεν . So DEGHMS, but KUΓΛ fam. 13 have ἔγραφεν . καταγράφειν does not occur again in N.T., but appears several times in LXX, often meaning “ to register,” a sense also found in papyri. It indicates a record or register of something blameworthy in Job 13:26, Job 13:1 Esdr. 2:16, Ecclus. 48:10; and this meaning is accepted in some ancient comments, both here and at v. 8. In a short recension of the story found in an Armenian MS. of the Gospels of A.D. 989, we have: “ He Himself, bowing His head, was writing with His finger on the earth, to declare their sins; and they were seeing their several sins on the stones.” 1 And again, after εἰςτὴνγῆν in v. 8, U and some cursives add ἕνοςἐκάστουαὐτῶντᾶςἁμαρτίας , as if Jesus was writing down the names and sins of the several accusers. Jerome has the same tradition: “ Jesus inclinans digito scribebat in terra, eorum, uidelicet qui accusabant et omnium peccata mortalium, secundum quod scriptum est in propheta Relinquentes autem te in terra scribentur” (adv. Pelagium ii. 17, citing Jeremiah 17:13). There is, however, no evidence that Jesus was writing anything by way of record. That He was able to write may be assumed, although in no other place in the N.T. is He said to have written anything. But it is probable that on this occasion He was only scribbling with His finger on the ground, a mechanical action which would suggest only an unwillingness to speak on the subject brought before Him, and preoccupation with His own thoughts.2 If, however, the meaning of register for κατέγραφεν is to be pressed, the emphasis must be placed on εἰςτὴνγῆν : “ He began to register the accusation in the dust,” as if He would have no permanent record. After γῆν the rec. adds, with EGHK, the gloss μὴπροσποιούμενος , “ affecting that it was not so,” sc. “ as though He heard them not.” This is a classical use of προσποιεῖσθαι with a neg. (cf. Thucyd. iii. 47); the verb occurs again in the N.T. only at Luke 24:28 (cf. 1 Samuel 21:13, προσεποιήσατο , “ feigned himself,” sc. to be mad). 7. ἐπέμενονἐρωτῶντες , “ they went on asking,” as at Acts 12:16 ἐπέμενενκρούων . ἐπιμένειν does not occur in Jn. D om. αὐτόν , ἐρωτῶντες then being used absolutely or intransitively, as in the (unusual) instance of Joh 17:9. ἀνέκυψενκαί . So D 1071. The rec., with EGHK, has ἀνακύψας (cf. v. 10), while fam. 13 give ἀναβλέψας . In the N.T. ἀνακύπτειν is found again only Luke 13:11, Luke 13:21:28, “ to lift oneself up” ; ἀναβλέπειν is in all the Gospels. εἶπεναὐτοῖς . So DSUΓ 1071 fam. 13. M om. αὐτοῖς . EGHK have πρὸςαὐτούς , the rec. reading. ὁἀναμάρτητοςκτλ ., “ Let him that is faultless,” etc. This is the true Synoptic note. ἀναμάρτητος does not indicate only innocence of overt sins of the flesh, but freedom from sinful desire cherished and indulged in. Cf. Matthew 5:28. ἀναμάρτητος does not occur again in N.T., but is found Deuteronomy 29:19, Deuteronomy 29:2 Macc. 8:14, 12:42. For πρῶτος (D 1071), EGH give πρῶτον . βαλέτωλίθον . So D and fam. 13. Other uncials read τὸνλίθον , to bring out the point that the casting of the first stone was the duty of the witnesses who certified to the crime (Deuteronomy 17:7). But the allusion is the same, even if τόν is omitted. The question of Jesus asks, in fact, who is to be the executioner in this case? (cf. Augustine, Sermo xiii. § 4). 8. καὶπάλινκτλ . Jesus again indicates His unwillingness to discuss the matter with the Pharisees. He begins to scribble on the dust for the second time. τῷδακτύλῳ is ins. here after κατακύψας by D 28, 74, 1071 ff2; but om. fam. 13. As at v. 6, fam. 13 support ἔγραφεν for κατέγραφεν (so D 28, 31). 9. The rec., following EGHKS, after ἀκούσαντες interpolates the explanatory gloss καὶὑπὸτῆςσυνειδήσεωςἐλεγχόμενοι : om. DMUΓΛ fam. 13, 1071 and the Lat. vss. For the whole clause οἱδὲἀκ … καθ ʼ εἷς , D gives only ἕκαστοςδὲτῶνἸουδαίωνἐξήρχετο , while fam. 13 have only ἐξῆλθονεἶςκαθ ʼ εἶς . After πρεσβυτέρων the rec. adds, with SUΛ fam. 13, ἕωςτῶνἐσχάτων , while D 1071 add ὥστεπάνταςἐξελθεῖν , but both additions are om. in EGHKMΓ , etc. Westcott-Hort suggest that πάντεςἀνεχώρησαν (cf. M 264) originally followed πρεσβυτέρων as an independent clause. The glosses are unnecessary, although doubtless right in the explanations they offer. The elder men (πρεσβύτεροι , a word not occurring in Jn.; cf. 3 John 1:1) were naturally the first to leave, having taken the lead in trying to ensnare Jesus, and having been silenced by His suggestion that they must have felt the power of the temptation which had overcome the woman. If the scene is to be placed in the week following the Triumphal Entry, their acquiescence in the moral authority which Jesus exercised is more readily intelligible. They dared not press the moral issue before the admiring and awestruck people. For εἷςκαθ ʼ εἷς , cf. Mark 14:19; it is not a Johannine phrase. καὶκατελείφθημόνος . μόνος is om. by fam. 13. Perhaps some disciples were present, and nothing is said of their going away, but the words may mean that Jesus and the woman were left quite alone (as the rec. text indicates), the onlookers feeling the painfulness of the scene. Augustine says: “ Remansit magna miseria et magna misericordia” (Enarr. in Psa_1. § 8). Yet the woman remained ἐνμέσῳ , which suggests the presence of a little group; and, furthermore, the words that Jesus said to her were overheard and were preserved. κατελείφθη . The verb καταλείπειν is not used by Jn. 10. For ἀνακύψας (cf. v. 7), fam. 13 with Λ has ἀναβλέψας . After ὁἸης . the rec., with EGHK, adds the gloss καὶμηδέναθεασάμενοςπλὴντῆςγυναικός , but om. DMS and fam. 13. πλήν is never used by Jn. D 1071 have εἶπεντῇγυναικί , but MSUΓ fam. 13 have εἶπεν , Γυναί . The rec., with cursive support, has εἶπεναὐτῇ , Ἡγυνή , the nom. with the article being used for the vocative, a Hebraic use that occurs Mark 14:36, Matthew 11:26, Luke 10:21, but not in Jn. (see on 17:21). ποῦεἰσίν ; The rec. adds ἐκεῖνοιοἱκατήγοροίσου , and fam. 13 has the gloss, omitting ἐκεῖνοι ; but om. DMΓΛ 1071. οὐδείςσεκατέκρινεν ; The compound κατακρίνειν is not Johannine. In this verse, Jesus is represented as waiting for a little before He spoke. “ Has no one proceeded to condemn you?” is His question at last. 11. Οὐδείς , κύριε . “ No one, sir.” That is all the woman says from beginning to end. Indeed, she has no excuse for her conduct. Οὐδὲἐγώσεκατακρίνω . The verbal similarity of these words to ἐγὼοὐκρίνω of 8:15 (where see note) may have suggested the position which the interpolated section occupies in the rec. text, viz. at the beginning of c. 8. But κατακρίνειν conveys condemnation in a degree which the simple verb κρίνειν does not connote. Jesus does not say here that He does not pass judgment, even in His own mind, upon the woman’ s conduct, but that He does not condemn her judicially or undertake the duty of a judge who had to administer or interpret the Mosaic law (cf. Luke 12:14). Still less does His reply convey forgiveness; the woman who was forgiven in Luke 7:48 was a penitent, but there is no hint of penitence in this case. Probably, the apparent leniency of the words οὐδὲἐγώσεκατακρίνω (which could readily be misunderstood) led to their omission in the tenth-century Armenian MS. quoted above on v. 6, and also in a Syriac paraphrase given by Dionysius Barsalibi.1 The Armenian codex ends, “ Go in peace, and present the offering for sins, as in their law is written,” while the Syriac paraphrase has only, “ Go thou also now and do this sin no more.” The warning μηκέτιἁμάρτανε is found also at 5:14, where (as here) the person addressed has not confessed any sin. The woman had still time to repent. ἀπὸτοῦνῦν is om. by fam. 13, but ins. DMSUΓ 1071. The phrase is Lucan (Luke 1:48, Luke 5:10, Luke 12:52, Luke 22:69) but not Johannine. Jesus Declares Himself the Light of the World (8:12-20.) 8:12. πάλινοὖναὐτοῖςἐλάλησενὁἸησοῦς .1 The introductory πάλιν does not fix the context of the discourse which follows, for it is merely resumptive or indicative of the beginning of a new section, as at v. 21 (see on 1:35). Verses 12-20 have points of contact with c. 7 (cf. 7:28 and 8:14), and it is possible (although not certain; see on 7:45) that they should be taken in continuation of the sayings 7:28-38. If vv. 12-20 follow directly on 7:52, as we take them, we must suppose the words of 8:12 to be addressed to the Pharisees, who proceed (8:13) to find fault with them. This, indeed, is implied in αὐτοῖς . Nevertheless, the proclamation “ I am the Light of the World” recalls such sayings as 7:37, 38, which were addressed to all and sundry. ἐλάλησενλέγων , λέγων introducing the words spoken; see on 3:11, and cf. Matthew 14:27. ἐγώεἰμιτὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου . This is one of the great “ I am’ s” of the Fourth Gospel, for which see Introd., p. cxviii. Just as the word of Jesus about the Living Water (7:37, 38) may have been suggested by the water ceremonial at the Feast of Tabernacles, so it has been thought that the claim “ I am the Light of the World” may also have a reference to the festal ceremonies. On the first night of the feast, there was a ceremony of lighting the four golden candlesticks in the Court of the Women (see v. 20), and there is some evidence for the continuance of the ceremony on other nights. This may have provided the occasion for the words of Jesus about light and darkness. But Philo’ s account of the Feast of Tabernacles would furnish an equally plausible explanation. He says that this feast is held at the autumnal equinox, in order that the world may be full, not only by day but also by night, of the all-beautiful light , as at that season there is no twilight (de septen. 24). We have in this passage a close parallel to τὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου , but no stress ought to be laid upon such verbal coincidences. The passage of Philo shows, however, that the Feast of Tabernacles suggested the idea of light to some minds.2 The Hebrews had thought of God as giving them light, and as being their light. “ The Lord is my Light” was the confession of a Psalmist (Psalms 27:1); “ the Lord shall be thy everlasting Light” was the promise of a prophet (Isaiah 60:19). The later Rabbis applied the thought to the Messiah: “ Light is the Name of Messiah,” they said.1 The vision of Deutero-Isaiah was larger, for he proclaimed that the Servant of Yahweh would be a Light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6, 49:6; cf. Luke 2:32). But the saying ἐγώεἰμιτὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου goes far beyond this, for the κόσμος (see on 1:9) includes all created life.2 There is no Hebraic parallel to be found for such a thought,3 the expression of which here is thoroughly Johannine in form. See Introd., p. cxviii. In the Prologue, the Word of God is spoken of as the Light. John the Baptist was not the Light, but he came to bear witness of the Light (1:8), which was τὸφῶςτὸἀληθινόν , lighting every man (1:9). In the Person of Jesus, the Light came into the world (3:19), as Jesus Himself said, ἐγὼφῶςεἰςτὸνκόσμονἐλήλυθα (12:46). And so here (8:12) and at 9:5, the majestic phrase ἐγώεἰμιτὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου is put into the mouth of Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew 5:14, Jesus said to His hearers ὑμεῖςἐστετὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου . This is apparently to say more than Paul said to his converts when he called them φωστῆρεςἐνκόσμῳ (Philippians 2:15); and it is not certain that Mt.’ s Greek rendering of our Lord’ s words is accurate here.4 But if it is precise, the application of the words τὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου to faithful citizens of the kingdom of heaven must be wholly different from its application when Christ used it of Himself and said, “ I am the Light of the World.” This is to make an exclusive claim, such as could be made by no other speaker, although others might claim to share in the assurance of Christ that His people are, as contrasted with non-Christians, the world’ s light. Cf. 7:38 and the note thereupon. ὁἀκολουθῶνμοιοὐμὴπεριπατήσῃἐντῇσκοτίᾳ . To “ follow” Jesus is to walk in the light. It is the first act of discipleship (1:37), and the last precept in the Gospel enjoins it as the essential thing (21:22). See 12:26. Jesus Himself is “ the Way” (14:6). The Hebrew verb ה ָ ל ַ ך ְ “ to walk” is often used in the O.T. figuratively of conduct in general (e.g. 2 Kings 20:3), and is sometimes, when used in this sense, rendered in the LXX by περιπάτειν (e.g. Proverbs 8:20, Ecclesiastes 11:9). This use of περιπάτειν is found only once in the Synoptists (Mark 7:5; cf. Acts 21:21), but occurs over 30 times in Paul, and frequently in Jn. (see 12:35, 1 John 1:6, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 1:2:6, 11; cf. 2 John 1:6, 3 John 1:3, 3 John 1:4). It is, in fact, a Hebraism. The contrast between the Two Ways, of Darkness and of Light, is not peculiar to Jn. (cf. Barnabas, § 18), but it is a favourite topic in his Gospel (see, for “ walking” in light or in darkness, 11:9, 12:35, 1 John 1:6, 1 John 1:7). Job (29:3) speaks of the days when God watched over him: “ and by His light I walked through darkness” (cf. Micah 7:8). This is part of the thought in “ he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” ; but it is less explicit. The Light of God is the Light of Life . The Odes of Solomon several times express the idea of the believer walking in the Light of Christ, e.g. “ He set over [His way] the footprints of His light, and I walked therein” (7:17; cf. 29:7, 32:1). The phrase τὸφῶςτῆςζωῆς may mean the Light which imparts life or illuminates life; or it may mean the Light which issues from Life. We have seen that in 6:35 the primary meaning of “ I am the Bread of Life” is understood by the evangelist to be “ the Bread which gives life” (6:33), but the deeper meaning of “ the Living Bread” is not excluded (6:51). So here we must allow for a double suggestiveness in the phrase τὸφῶςτῆςζωῆς . When we apply such concepts as ζωή , φῶς , to God or to Christ, we cannot treat them as if we knew them to be fundamentally distinct. They are qualities or aspects of Absolute Being, and it is beyond our powers to define them adequately or explain their mutual relation. In the Fourth Gospel, Christ is the Light: He is also the Life (11:25, 14:6). Perhaps Light is Life, in its essence; perhaps Life, truly understood, is Light. See on 1:4, and Introd., p. cxl. 13. εἶπονοὖναὐτῷοἱφαρισαῖοι . For the “ Pharisees,” see on 7:32, and cf. 1:24. Their objection was that the testimony of Jesus to His own claims was not admissible, according to the rules of evidence which governed the controversies of the Rabbis (see on 5:31). Self-witness was always suspect, and might be disregarded as being untrue. 14. The answer of Jesus κἂνἐγὼμαρτυρῶπερὶἐμαυτοῦ , ἀληθήςἐστινἥμαρτυρίαμου is in formal contradiction with His former admission ἐὰνἐγὼμαρτυρῶπερὶἐμαυτοῦ , ἡμαρτυρίαμουοὐκἔστινἀληθής (5:31, where see note); but there is no real contradiction, for here he takes higher ground, so to speak, than on that occasion, and claims that the Divine origin and dignity of which He is conscious justify Him in bearing witness to Himself. This is the very badge of Deity (see v. 18), although it is true that no individual man could claim it (as He had said, 5:31). He alone could be called ὁἀμήν , ὁμάρτυςὁπιστὸςκαὶἀληθινός (Revelation 3:14). ὅτιοἶδαπόθενἦλθον , “ because I know (with complete knowledge) whence I came,” sc. at the Incarnation (cf. 1:1, 13:3, 16:28). καὶποῦὑπάγω , “ and whither I go” ; see on 7:33 for ὑπάγειν used of “ going to the Father.” The words which follow, ὑμεῖς … ὑπάγω , do not appear to have been present in the texts known to Origen, but the omission is readily explicable by homoioteleuton, ὑπάγω … ὑπάγω . ὑμεῖςδὲοὐκοἴδατεπόθενἔρχομαι . That is, they did not know of His heavenly origin, although (like the Jewish interlocutors of 7:28) they may have known that He was of the family at Nazareth. ἢποῦὑπάγω . See on 7:33. BDNT support ἤ ; the rec., with א LWΘ , has καί . 15. The Pharisees had complained that the self-witness of Jesus was unsupported and therefore untrustworthy (v. 13). In v. 14 Jesus has answered that their objection, however sound if applied to a mere man, fails in His case: they do not know His origin or His home. He now adds that their judgment is superficial because of this ignorance of His true being. ὑμεῖςκατὰτὴνσάρκακρίνετε , “ you judge superficially” ; cf. for κατὰτὴνσάρκα , 1 Corinthians 1:26, 2 Corinthians 5:16. The Pharisees had done just what He had previously warned them not to do, when He said μὴκρίνετεκατ ʼ ὄψιν (7:24). ἐγὼοὐκρίνωοὐδένα . The ultimate purpose of His coming into the world was to save it, not to judge it (3:17); and if an individual man would not obey His word, Jesus did not judge him then: the spoken word would judge him at the Last Day (12:48). At that Great Assize, the Son of Man will be the Judge (see on 3:17, 5:22, and Introd., p. clviii). But the saying ἐγὼοὐκρίνωοὐδένα refers to the action of Jesus during His public mission on earth, and not to the future judgment of the world. There is a sense in which He did judge, or discriminate between one man and another, during His earthly ministry (see vv. 16, 26); but ἐγὼοὐκρίνωοὐδένα expresses not only that this was not the purpose of His mission (see 3:17), but that it was not His habit. It was a charge made against Him that He did not discriminate sufficiently, that He consorted with publicans and sinners (Mark 2:16, Luke 15:2), that He did not repel the sinful woman at the Pharisee’ s house (Luke 7:39). Even in the case of the adulteress whose guilt was proved, when judgment must have been condemnation, He said οὐδὲἐγώσεκατακρίνω [8:11]. His example was consonant to His own precept μὴκρίνετε (Matthew 7:1). This saying of Christ ἐγὼοὐκρίνωοὐδένα is found only in Jn., but its genuineness becomes the more apparent the more closely it is examined. It is a paradox, for it is seemingly contradicted in the next verse, but it is one of those terse, pregnant paradoxes of which the Synoptists have preserved many examples.1 16. For ἀληθινή (BDLTW 33) the rec. has ἀληθής . For ἀληθινός , see on 1:9. ἐὰνκρίνωδέκτλ ., “ but if I judge, my judgment is sound,” i.e. not merely true, but soundly based and complete. Cf. ἡκρίσιςἡἐμὴδικαίαἐστίν (5:30, where see note). The judgment of Christ is not that of a single individual, for μόνοςοὐκεἰμί , ἀλλ ʼ ἐγὼκαὶὁπέμψαςμε . Cf. vv. 26, 29, for the same thought, and again 16:32 οὐκεἰμὶμόνος , ὅτιὁπατὴρμετ ʼ ἐμοῦἐστίν . The consciousness of this perpetual association with the Father is explicitly claimed by the Christ of Jn.; but it is implied, too, in the bitterness of the cry “ Why hast Thou forsaken me,” which is recorded only by Mk. and Mt. Herein was the anguish of the Cross, as they picture it. The general principle to which the Pharisees appealed, sc. that judgment, like testimony, must not depend on one individual, is well illustrated in a Jewish saying (Pirke Aboth, iv. 12, quoted by Westcott), “ Judge not alone, for none may judge alone save One.” For the conception of Jesus as “ sent” by the Father, see on 3:17, 4:34. After ὁπέμψαςμε א cBLTΘ W add πατήρ , but πατήρ is omitted by א *D, and it probably comes from v. 18. 17. γέγραπται . Jn. generally has γεγραμμένονἐστίν where the Synoptists would have γέγραπται (see on 2:17). But γεγραμμένονἐστίν here is attested by א only; all other authorities give γέγραπται , which must therefore be regarded as the true reading. Abbott (Diat. 2588a) suggests that γέγραπταιὅτι is used here to introduce a quotation not given exactly. ἐντῷνόμῳκτλ . This is a free reference to the maxim of evidence in Deuteronomy 19:15 (cf. Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6; and see 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19). For another reference by Jesus to this legal maxim, cf. Matthew 18:16. The phrase “ your law” challenges scrutiny. Jesus accepted the “ law,” i.e. the Old Testament scriptures, very explicitly (see Introd., pp. cxlvii, clv); and it is unlike the way in which He was accustomed to speak of it, that he should say “ your law, ” thus dissociating Himself, as it were, from any recognition of its authority. He is represented in 10:34 as again using this expression, and in 15:25 as speaking to His disciples of Scripture as “ their law,” i.e. the law of the Jews. It is true that in 8:17 and 10:34 the phrase appears in controversy with the Jews, and it might be thought that it supplied an argumentum ad hominem. Those who disputed with Jesus were shown to be in the wrong, on their own principles. But in the equally argumentative passage 7:19, 23, He speaks of “ the law” and “ the law of Moses” ; and no such explanation can be given of the phrase “ their law” in 15:25, which would definitely dissociate Him from the people of Israel, by suggesting that their Scriptures were not His Scriptures. In every place where ὁνόμος is mentioned by Him in the Synoptists, whether it refers to the law which He came “ not to destroy, but to fulfil,” or in a wider sense to the O.T. books, He always says “ the Law” (cf. Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:7:12, Matthew 5:11:13, Matthew 5:12:5, Matthew 5:22:40, Matthew 5:23:23, Luke 2:22, Luke 2:24, Luke 2:27, Luke 2:39, Luke 2:10:26, Luke 2:16:16; the word νόμος does not occur in Mk.). It is difficult to think that in these Johannine texts (8:17, 10:34, 15:25) the words of Jesus have been exactly reproduced.1 18. The use of ἐγώεἰμι in solemn affirmation has been discussed in Introd., p. cxviii; and the present passage provides an instructive example of this usage. ἐγώεἰμιὁμαρτυρῶνπερὶἐμαυτοῦ . This is the style of Deity. As the Pharisees had urged, a man’ s witness about himself is not trustworthy (v. 13); but Jesus replies to this by expressing Himself in terms which suggest His Divinity. This, however, is not said explicitly; and the point of His answer which the Pharisees understand is that He says that there is a second Witness, sc. His Father who sent Him (cf. 5:32). There is a prophetic passage, Isaiah 43:10, which has close verbal relations with this and v. 28: γένεσθέμοιμάρτυρες , καὶἐγὼμάρτυς , λέγεικύριοςὁθεός , καὶὁπαῖςμουὃνἐξελεξάμην , ἵναγνῶτεκαὶπιστεύσητε , καὶσυνῆτεὅτιἐγώεἰμι . The thought in Isaiah 43:10, however, is of witness being borne to Yahweh (1) by the people, (2) by His Servant, and, according to the LXX interpolation, (3) by Himself. For the witness of the Father to the Son, see on 5:37. 19. ποῦἐστινὁπατήρσου ; This is the rejoinder of the Jewish objectors. They understand that by ὁπατήρ (v. 16) Jesus means God the Father, and they do not ask “ Who is He?” But they say “ Where is He?” This second Witness, of whom Jesus had spoken, is not visible, and therefore (according to the Rabbinical doctrine of evidence) no appeal can be made to Him. The answer of Jesus is, in effect, that their ignorance is invincible. God cannot, of course, be perceived by the senses. He is appealing to the witness of One whom no man can see. οὔτεἐμὲοἴδατεοὔτετὸνπατέραμου . There is no inconsistency with 7:28 κἀμὲοἴδατε , for there Jesus speaks only of the Jews’ knowledge of Him as man, and of the family at Nazareth; here He speaks of their ignorance of His true Personality, which is Divine (cf. v. 14). Being ignorant of this, and therefore of His relation to the Father, they betray ignorance also of the Father Himself. Cf. οὐκἐγνώκατεαὐτόν (v. 55), and οὐκἔγνωσαντὸνπατέραοὐδὲἐμέ (16:3). See Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22. εἰἐμὲᾔδειτε , καὶτὸνπατέραμουἄνᾔδειτε . This principle is repeated 14:7, εἰἐγνώκειτέμε , καὶτὸνπατέραμουἄνᾔδειτε (cf. 12:45 and 14:9), and it is deep rooted in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus came to reveal the Father, not only by His words but by His life. Note that εἰἐμὲᾔδειτε of this verse is replaced by εἰἐγνώκειτέμε at 14:7, showing what precarious ground we are on when an attempt is made to distinguish οἶδα from γιγνώσκω (see on 1:26). 20. ταῦτατὰῥήματα . Emphatic, and therefore placed at the beginning of the sentence. ἐλάλησενἐντῷγαζοφυλακίῳ . The γαζοφυλάκιον was the name for the treasure-chamber of the Temple (cf. Mark 12:41, Luke 21:1, and 2 Macc. 3:6, 4:42). It abutted on the Court of the Women, and against its walls were placed chests, trumpet-like in form, as receptacles for the offerings of the worshippers. It is not probable that Jesus was teaching within a treasure-chamber, and so it seems that ἐν should be taken as denoting proximity only, “ near the treasury” (cf. ἐνδεξιᾷτοῦθεοῦ , Romans 8:34). Hence ἐντῷγαζοφυλακίῳδιδάσκωνἐντῷἱερῷ means “ teaching in the Temple precincts (see on 2:14) near the treasury chamber,” i.e. in the colonnade between it and the open court (cf. Mark 12:41). The hall where the Sanhedrim met was hard by, and probably within earshot of the place where Jesus was teaching. καὶοὐδεὶςἐπίασεναὐτόνκτλ ., “ and yet” (καί being used for καίτοι , as often in Jn.; see on 1:10) “ no man took Him, because His hour was not yet come.” This is almost verbally repeated from 7:30, where see note. For οὔπωἐληλύθειἡὤρααὐτοῦ , see also on 2:4. Jesus Develops His Lofty Claims: Some of the Jews Who Hear Believe (vv. 21-30) 21. The occasion of the discourse which follows is not mentioned. It may be a continuation of what precedes (see on v. 26), and if so οὖν may be causative, having reference to the fact that Jesus had not been arrested (v. 20; cf. 7:33). But perhaps οὖν is used as a mere conjunction (see on 1:22), and πάλιν only marks (as in v. 12) the beginning of a new discourse. It is not possible to assign every discourse in Jn. to its original occasion; and one of the many rearrangements of the Gospel (that of F. W. Lewis) would place 8:21-59 after 7:52. Ver. 21 reproduces, though not verbally, the warning of 7:33, 34, and its last clause is addressed in identical terms to the disciples at 13:33 (where see note). But πάλιν is not to be taken as an allusion to the repetition of 7:34; as has been said, it may only mark the opening of a new discourse or paragraph (v. 12, 10:7; and see on 1:35). εἶπενοὖνπάλιναὐτοῖς . NΓΔΘ add ὁἸησοῦς (from 7:33), but om. א BDLTW. ἐγὼὑπάγω . For this verb and its usage in Jn., see on 7:33. “ I go away,” sc. to God. καὶζητήσετέμε . As in 7:34, this is the search of despair; they will seek Jesus as their Messiah, when it is too late. καὶοὐκεὑρήσετέμε is added by a few manuscripts from 7:34, where it is part of the text; but it is implied in any case. καὶἐντῇἁμαρτίᾳὑμῶνἀποθανεῖσθε , “ and ye shall die in your sin,” an O.T. phrase (cf. Ezekiel 3:18, Ezekiel 18:18, and especially Proverbs 24:9 ἀποθνήσκειδὲἄφρωνἐνἁμαρτίαις , of which LXX rendering the phrase in the text may be a reminiscence). It is repeated v. 24, where see note. Those who too late seek Jesus as the Messiah, shall die in a state of sin, unredeemed by Him. ὅπουἐγὼὑπάγωὑμεῖςοὐδύνασθεἐλθεῖν , “ whither I go ye cannot come” : this is repeated verbally at 13:33, where it is addressed to the disciples. Cf. 7:34, where the same thing (in substance) was said to the Jews, and see the note there. 22. ἔλεγονοὖνοἱἸουδαῖοι , sc. the Jewish objectors. μήτιἀποκτενεῖἑαυτόνκτλ ., “ Is He going to kill Himself, that He says, ‘ Whither I am going you cannot come’ ?” This is a quite different rejoinder from that of 7:35, made in reply to the same warning, the occasion and the interlocutors both being different. It has often been suggested that the rejoinder carries a scornful allusion to the belief that the depths of hell were reserved for suicides ; but this is not certain. In any case, the Jews speak ironically: “ If we cannot follow you, it must be because you will be no longer alive.” The saying of mystery, “ Whither I go you cannot come,” which was uttered more than once (7:34, 13:33), naturally provoked different comments from different persons. 23. καὶἔλεγεν . The rec. has εἶπεν , but א BDLNTWΘ have the imperfect ἔλεγεν , which suggests that what follows was a habitual saying of Jesus. He leaves their taunt unanswered, but adds that His origin and natural home were different from the origin and home of “ the Jews.” It was not surprising that they did not understand Him when He said that He was moving to a region where they could not follow. Cf. Matthew 6:21. ὑμεῖςἐκτῶνκάτωἐστέ , “ You are from beneath,” i.e. “ of the earth.” Cf. ἐπὶτῆςγῆςκάτω (Acts 2:19). κάτω does not occur again in Jn. (but cf. 8:8). ἐγὼἐκτῶνἄνωεἰμί . The contrast is the same as that of 3:31. The implied argument, sc. that the Jews’ failure of understanding has its root in moral causes, has met us before (5:38f., 7:17f.), and is repeated 8:42. ὑμεῖςἐκτούτουτοῦκόσμουἐστέ . BT give the emphatic τούτουτοῦκόσμου here, but the more usual τοῦκόσμουτούτου in the second clause of the verse (so W in both clauses). א DLΓΔ give τοῦκόσμουτούτου in both clauses, and ὁκόσμοςοὗτος is the order in every other N.T. passage where the expression occurs. So, too, we always find ὁαἰὼνοὗτος (except Matthew 12:32). The idea of imperfection which the word κόσμος , the totality of created being, suggests in Jn. has been noted on 1:9. This idea is specially brought out in the phrase ὁκόσμοςοὗτος . When thus limited, the word does not embrace any plane of creation other than that of earth (11:9), and “ this world” is contrasted with the spiritual or heavenly world, as being in a special degree affected by evil powers (16:11) and as awaiting the Judgment (9:39, 12:31). The kingdom of Jesus is not of “ this world” (18:36), from which He passed after His Passion (13:1). It is the place of our earthly discipline (1 John 4:17), in which he who hates his life shall keep it to life eternal (12:25). The phrase occurs with a like hint of evil, 1 Corinthians 3:19, 1 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 7:31.1 Corinthians 7:1 So here it is said of the Jews ὑμεῖςἐκτοῦκόσμουτούτουἐστέ . Cf. for the same construction εἶναιἐκ , 1 John 4:5 αὐτοὶἐκτοῦκόσμουεἰσί . ἐγὼ (emphatic) οὐκεἰμὶἐκτοῦκόσμουτούτου . Cf. 17:14, 16. It is the perpetual theme of the Fourth Gospel that He who was not “ of the world” came “ into the world” for its rescue. 24. εἰπονοὖνὑμῖν , sc. at v. 21, where see note. ἀποθανεῖσθεἐνταῖςἁμαρτίαιςὑμῶν , the singular τῇἁμαρτίᾳ being changed to the plural. To this no significance is to be attached, as when phrases are repeated in Jn., there are generally slight verbal alterations (see on 3:16). ἐὰνγὰρμὴπιστεύσητεὅτιἐγώεἰμι , ἀποθανεῖσθεκτλ . Jesus repeats with an awful solemnity that if His hearers do not accept Him for what He is, they will die in their sins. ὅτιἐγώεἰμι may mean “ that I am from above,” as He had just asserted of Himself, ἐγὼἐκτῶνἄνωεἰμί . But if this be the construction, it is very elliptical. It is more probable that we should take ἐγώεἰμι absolutely, “ I am He,” i.e. “ I am the Divine Deliverer,” as at vv. 28, 58, and 13:19. For this use of ἐγώεἰμι as the equivalent of the Hebrew א ֲ נ ִ י ־ ה ו ּ א , see Introd., p. cxx, where the expression is more fully discussed. We may here particularly compare Isaiah 43:10 ἳναπιστεύσητε … ὃτιἐγώεἰμι (see on v. 18). Jesus had uttered His message; henceforth they had no excuse for their sin (15:22). 25. ἔλεγονοὖναὐτῷΣὺτίςεἶ ; The Jews are puzzled by the last words of Jesus. They sounded like the Divine proclamations in the prophetical books. Who is this, that says I AM ? And they ask Him, “ Who art Thou?” (cf. 1:19). But He gives no direct or simple answer (cf. 19:9). Cf. 10:24 for a similar question, and a similar indirectness of reply. τὴνἀρχὴνὃτικαὶλαλῶὑμῖν , “ Primarily (in essence), what I am telling you,” i.e. “ I am what my words reveal.” We have already noted (see on 3:11; and cf. 10:6, 12:49, 14:10, 16:18) that λαλεῖν cannot always be sharply distinguished from λέγειν ; and the constr. ὃτιλαλῶ is similar to ὁλόγοςὃνἐλάλησα of 12:48, or ταῦταλαλῶ of v. 28. τὴνἀρχήν is never used in Jn. for “ from the beginning,” which is expressed by ἐξἀρχῆς (16:4), or more frequently by ἀρ ʼ ἀρχῆς (15:27, 1 John 1:1 and passim). In the LXX τὴνἀρχήν often stands for “ at the beginning,” “ at the first” — e.g. Genesis 43:20, Daniel 9:21 (LXX), and Daniel 8:1 (Theod.)— which is a sound classical construction. But in the present passage the rendering “ I have spoken at the beginning” is inadmissible, inasmuch as the verb is in the present and not in the aorist . These considerations seem to rule out the R.V. “ Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning.” The R.V. margin treats the sentence as a question, and for the relative ὃτι substitutes ὃτι . Thus τὴνἀρχὴνὃτικαὶλαλῶὑμῖν ; is translated “ How is it that I even speak to you at all?” This rendering has the support of Chrysostom, and there is no doubt that τὴνἀρχήν may stand for ὃλως , omnino, especially in negative sentences. An apposite parallel to such a use is found in Clem. Hom. vi. II, εἰμὴπαρακολουθεῖςοἷςλέγω , τίκαὶτὴνἀρχὴνδιαλέγομαι ; (a sentence in which some have found an echo of v. 25). The answer of Jesus, according to this view, is a severe rebuke, which has a note of impatience, comparable to Mark 9:19, “ O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you!” But it is difficult to connect a rebuke of this kind with the words which immediately follow in v. 26, πολλὰἔχωπερὶὑμῶνλαλεῖν . The Latin and Syriac vss. take the sentence as affirmative, not as interrogative; and herein they are probably right. But neither can be followed in detail. Syr. sin. gives “ The chief is that I should speak myself with you, seeing that I have much that I should speak concerning you and judge” ; but this provides no answer to the question “ Who art thou?” Some O.L. texts give “ initium quod et loquor uobis,” i.e. “ I am the Beginning (cf. Revelation 21:6), that which I am saying to you” ; but τὴνἀρχήν could not be attracted to ὃτι in this way. The Vulgate has “ principium quia et loquor uobis,” which is still farther from the Greek. We come back to the rendering, “ Primarily, I am what I am telling you,” as the least open to objection of the many renderings that have been offered of this difficult passage. τὴνἀρχήν means fundamentally or originally, or, in colloquial English, “ at bottom.” In reply to the question “ Who art thou?” Jesus declares to the Jews that He is essentially what His words reveal, in particular such words as ἐγὼἐκτῶνἄνωεἰμί (v. 23), and (above all) ἐγώεἰμι (v. 24). 26. πολλὰἓχωπερὶὑμῶνλαλεῖνκαὶκρίνειν . This seems to take up the teaching of v. 16 above. Jesus does not dwell upon His answer to the question “ Who art thou ?” He goes on with His discourse, as there was much still to say. With πολλὰἔχωλαλεῖν cf. πολλὰἔχωλέγειν of 16:12, a comparison which confirms the conclusion (reached in the note on 3:11) that λαλεῖν and λέγειν are not sharply distinguished by Jn., and that they are sometimes interchangeable. καὶκρίνειν . His discourse was of judgment. He had already said twice to the Jews that they would die in their sins (vv. 21, 24), a κρίσις to which the words of v. 16 lead up. ἀλλ ʼ ὁπέμψαςμεἀληθήςἐστινκτλ . This is again resumptive of v. 16, where Jesus had said that His judgment was true, because it was not His own, but reflected the judgment of the Father who had sent Him. The adversative ἀλλά points back to the objection which He continually rebuts, sc. that He has no authority behind Him. “ Whatever objection you raise to my claim to judge, you must remember that He who sent me is true.” See on v. 16 above; and cf. 3:33, 7:28. κἀγὼἃἤκουσαπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦ , ταῦταλαλῶεἰςτὸνκόσμον . Cf. 15:15 πάνταἃἤκουσαπαρὰτοῦπατρόςμουἐγνώρισαὑμῖν , and see vv. 38, 40. Here the sayings “ heard from the Father” were sayings of judgment, as at 5:30, καθὼςἀκούωκρίνω . And, unlike those of 15:15, they were spoken “ to the world” (cf. 18:20). To speak εἰςτὸνκόσμον is a constr. that is not found again in Jn.; but cf. 1 Corinthians 14:9 εἰςἀέραλαλοῦντες , Mark 13:10 εἰςπάντατὰἔθνηδεῖκηρυχθῆναιτὸεὐαγγέλιον . ταῦταλαλῶ . So א BDLNTWΔΘ , but minor uncials substitute λέγω for λαλῶ . 27. οὐκἔγνωσανὅτιτὸνπατέρααὐτοῖςἔλεγεν . This is one of the evangelist’ s comments on his narrative (see Introd., p. xxxiv), and it seems to confirm what has been said on v. 25 about the Jews’ misunderstanding of the words of mystery which Jesus had uttered. 28. εἶπενοὖνὁἸησοῦς , “ Jesus therefore said,” sc. because of their misunderstanding. א DNΓΔΘ add αὐτοῖς , but om. BLTW; א D further add πάλιν . ὅτανὑψώσητετὸνυἱὸντοῦἀνθρώπου , “ When you shall have lifted up,” sc. on the Cross, “ the Son of Man.” See on 3:14 for ὑψοῦν in John 12:32. In the present passage ὑψοῦν must relate to the lifting up on the Cross, and not to the “ lifting up” of the Ascension, for the latter was not in any sense the act of the Jews, as the Crucifixion was (cf. Acts 3:14). For the title “ the Son of Man,” see Introd., p. cxxxi. τότεγνώσεσθεὅτιἐγώεἰμι , “ then ye shall know that I am (the Son of Man),” the predicate of ἐγώεἰμι being understood from the preceding clause of the sentence. Otherwise, we must take ἐγώεἰμι as used absolutely, as in v. 24 (cf. 8:58, 13:19), the phrase being then identical with the self-designation of Yahweh in the prophets, א ֲ נ ִ י ־ ה ו ּ א “ I (am) He” (see Introd., p. cxx). On either interpretation, the style of the sentence is that of Divine proclamations: cf. Ezekiel 11:10 ἐπιγνώσεσθεὅτιἐγὼκύριος . Too late, the pressure of facts, the fall of Jerusalem and the like, would convince them of the truth of His words: “ cognoscetis ex re, quod nunc ex uerbo non creditis” (Bengel). This, rather than the conviction of sin wrought by the Holy Spirit (16:8f.), seems to be the force of τότεγνώσεσθε . ὅτι governs not only ἐγώεἰμι , but also the next clause ἀπ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦποιῶοὐδένκτλ . This had been said before, 5:30 (cf. 12:49). For its significance, see note on 5:19. Ignatius (Magn. 7) has ὁκύριοςἄνευτοῦπατρὸςοὐδὲνἐποίησεν , a reminiscence of these Johannine phrases. ἀλλὰκαθὼςἐδίδαξένμεὁπατήρ . Cf. v. 26, and see 7:16. 17 After πατήρ , BΓΔ add μου , but om. א DLNTΘ . W om. ὁπατήρ . ταῦταλαλῶ : ταῦτα referring to the specific teachings of this section. Cf. 12:36 ταῦταἐλάλησενὁἸησοῦς , and v. 30 ταῦταλαλοῦντος . With the sentence καθὼςἐδίδαξεν … λαλῶ , cf. the parallels 12:50 and 14:31. 29. καὶὁπέμψαςμε (see on 3:17 for the mission of the Son) μετ ʼ ἐμοῦἐστινκτλ . This has already been said at v. 16, ὅτιμόνοςοὐκεἰμί , ἀλλ ʼ ἐγὼκαὶὁπέμψαςμε , and is repeated 16:32 in a different context. Much more is implied here than in the saying of Peter that “ God was with Him” (Acts 10:38), for all through Jn. the ineffable union of the Son with the Father is behind the narrative (cf. 10:38). οὐκἀφῆκένμεμόνον . ΓΔ N add ὁπατήρ unnecessarily; om. BDLTWΘ . The union of the preincarnate Son with the Father (17:5) was continued after the Incarnation. ὅτι is causal, “ because I do the things pleasing to Him.” Thus at 15:10 Jesus tells His disciples that by keeping His commandments they will abide in His love, even as He by keeping His Father’ s commandments abides in the Father’ s love. The adj. ἀρεστός occurs again in Jn. only at 1 John 3:22, and there, as here, of doing the things that are pleasing to God, i.e. of keeping His commandments. See, for a similar use of ἀρεστός , Exodus 15:26, Wisd. 9:18, Isaiah 38:3. For the thought that the continual aim of Jesus was to do the will of the Father, cf. 4:34, 5:30, 6:38. Here He claims always to do that which is pleasing to the Father, a claim which implies a consciousness of sinlessness (cf. v. 46 below). The language of Ignatius (Magn. 8), ὃςκατὰπάνταεὐηρέστησεντῷπέμψαντιαὐτόν , seems to rest on this verse. 30. ταῦτααὐτοῦλαλοῦντος , “ As He was saying these things.” The gen. absolute is infrequent in Jn., partly because of his fondness for parataxis; he never uses it in his report of the words of Jesus. πολλοιἐπίστευσανεἰςαὐτόν . For this favourite phrase of Jn., see on 4:39, where (as here) belief in Christ is due to what He said rather than to the “ signs” which He wrought. Those who “ believed in Him ” were fewer in number than those who “ believed Him” — a larger body who are addressed in the next verse, and of whom some, as the sequel shows, soon began to cavil at His teaching. Jesus Tells the Jews Who are Inclined to Believe Him, that Truth Would Emancipate Them from the Slavery of Sin (vv. 31-34) 31. ἔλεγενοὖν … πρὸςτοὺςπεπιστευκόταςαὐτῷἸουδαίους , “ So He began to say to the Jews that believed Him,” i.e. those who had been impressed by His recent utterances (but cf. vv. 33 and 40). πιστεύειν followed by a dative does not represent so high a degree of faith as πιστεύεινεἴςτινα ; but it indicates a stage on the way to discipleship. You must believe what a man says before you can believe in him. For the constr. πιστεύεινεἴςτινα , see on 1:12; and cf. the note at 6:30 on πιστεύειντινί . For the constr. ἔλεγενπρόςτινα , see on 2:3. ἐὰνὑμεῖςμείνητεἐντῷλόγῳτῷἐμῷκτλ . Cf. 2 John 1:9, where we have μὴμένωνἐντῇδιδαχῇτοῦΧριστοῦθεὸνοὐκἔχει . In v. 37 and at 5:38 a different metaphor is employed, sc. that of the λόγος of God abiding in the believer. But (see on 5:38) the two expressions “ abiding in His word” and “ His word abiding in us” come to the same thing. See also on 6:56, 15:7. ἀληθῶςμαθηταίμούἐστε . This is the highest rank among Christians, sc. those who have reached the stage of discipleship. See on 15:8, where this is repeated. 32. καὶγνώσεσθετὴνἀλήθειαν . For the conception of ἀλήθεια in Jn., see on 1:14; and cf. vv. 40, 44, 45. καὶἡἀλήθειαἐλευθερώσειὑμᾶς . The words express a great principle, which is applicable in many directions, and which has been enunciated by Jewish and heathen teachers as well as by Christian. It was a Stoic paradox ὅτιμόνοςὁσοφὸςἐλεύθεροςκαὶπᾶςἄφρωνδοῦλος (Cicero, Parad. 5). This was repeated in another form by Seneca, “ unum studium uere liberale est quod liberum facit, hoc est sapientiae” (Ep. lxxxviii. 2). Philo, in the same spirit, wrote a book to prove that the σπουδαῖος is free (quod omnis probus liber sit). In another book (de confus. ling. 20) he asks τίςοὖνἐλευθερίαβεβαιοτάτη ; to which he gives the answer ἡτοῦμόνουθεραπείασοφοῦ . But there is no trace of generalisations of this kind either in O.T. or N.T. The freedom which truth brings (in the view of Jn.) is emancipation from the slavery of sin. This appears from v. 34, where see note. In v. 36 the Son is said to be the Agent of this emancipation and the juxtaposition of vv. 32, 36 is instructive, when the great utterance ἐγώεἰμιἡἀλήθεια (14:6) is recalled. The purpose of the self-consecration of Jesus is declared (17:19) to be that His disciples may be ἡγιασμένοιἐνἀληθείᾳ . There is, perhaps, a hint of the emancipating influence of truth at 1:17: “ The law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ.” See note in loc. 33. ἀπεκρίθησανπρὸςαὐτόν . So א BDLWΘ 33 (see for the constr. on 2:3); but NΓΔ have ἀπεκρ . αὐτῷ . Those who made the answer which follows were not the Jews who “ believed Him” (v. 31), but the Jewish objectors, with whom throughout the rest of this chapter Jesus is engaged in controversy. He could not have charged “ the Jews who believed Him” with seeking His life (vv. 37, 39). ΣπέρμαἈβραάμἐσμεν (cf. Psalms 105:6, Isaiah 41:8). This was the proudest boast of the Jews, that they were the heirs of the covenant with Abraham, because of their direct descent from him. Cf. Genesis 22:17, Luke 1:55. καὶοὐδενὶδεδολεύκαμενπώποτε . This was, of course, not true. The captivity in Babylon was only one instance of the contrary; and they were under the yoke of Rome even while they were speaking. But they would not admit, even to themselves, that they were not a free people. They were not bondslaves , indeed, but Jesus had not used the word δοῦλος yet. Their petulant retort really marked the uneasy consciousness that they were not as free as they would like to be: “ How sayest thou, Ye shall become free men?” 34. ἀπεκρ . αὐτοῖςὁἸησοῦς . B omits the art. before Ἰησοῦς here (see on 1:29, 50). αὐτοῖς refers to the hostile Jews who are in view throughout the rest of the chapter. ἀμὴνἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν , calling attention to a solemn pronouncement summing up what He has just said. Cf. vv. 51, 58; and see on 1:51. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ Cure of a Man Blind from His Birth (9:1-13) 1. καὶπαράγωνεἶδενκτλ . This is an abrupt beginning, but the introductory καί is thoroughly Johannine. παράγειν does not occur again in the Fourth Gospel; but cf. 1 John 2:8, 1 John 2:17. τυφλὸνἐκγενετῆς . Probably the man was a well-known figure, as he begged for alms (v. 8) near the Temple or at some other much-frequented place. γενετή does not appear again in the N.T., but the phrase τυφλὸςἐκγενετῆς is common in secular writers (see Wetstein). It is not reported of any other case of healing in the Gospels that the person cured had been sick, blind, or lame from his birth (cf. Acts 3:2, Acts 14:8), and some critics have found here an instance of Jn.`s alleged habit of magnifying the miraculous element in the ministry of Jesus (see Introd., p. clxxx). This healing goes beyond any of the healings of blind men recorded by the Synoptists, Jn., after his wont, selecting one typical and notable case for record (see below on v. 6). Diseases of the eye are common in the East, and it is not surprising that blind folk should have been brought for cure to Jesus. There is no mention in the O.T. of a blind person being cured (unless the case of Tob. 11:11 be reckoned as such); but to the prophet the blessings of the Messianic age included the opening of the eyes of the blind (Isaiah 35:5), and the Baptist was reminded of this in connexion with the cures wrought by Jesus (cf. Matthew 11:5). Mk. records two special cases, sc. at Mark 8:23 (to which further reference must be made) and Mark 10:46 (cf. Matthew 20:29, Luke 18:35). See also Matthew 9:27, Matthew 12:22 (cf. Luke 11:14) 15:30, 21:14. But the singularity of the case recorded by Jn. is that the blindness is said to have been congenital. There is a passage in Justin (Tryph. 69) which seems to presuppose a knowledge of this verse. Justin has quoted Isaiah 35:1-7, and he proceeds: πηγὴὕδατοςζῶντοςπαρὰθεοῦἐντῇἐρήμῳγνώσεωςθεοῦ … ἀνέβλυσεν , sc. Christ, τοὺςἐκγενετῆςκαὶκατὰτὴνσάρκαπηροὺςκαὶκωφοὺςκαὶχωλοὺςἰάσατο (cf. Apol. i. 22). πηρός is used of blindness, as well as of other bodily disabilities; but, apart from that, the phrase ἐκγενετῆς indicates a knowledge of Joh 9:1, for it occurs nowhere else in the Gospels, nor is the circumstance that Jesus healed men of congenital infirmities mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. 2. ἠρώτησαναὐτὸνοἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ . These disciples may have been His Jewish adherents, as distinct from the Twelve, or the Twelve or some of them may be indicated (see on 2:2). But the nature of the question which they put betrays an intimate relation of discipleship (note the word Rabbi, and see on 1:38); and the close connexion of c. 9 with c. 10, in which the discourse about the Good Shepherd seems specially appropriate to the inner circle of His followers, suggests that οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ here at any rate includes the Twelve. τίςἥμαρτενκτλ . The question is as old as humanity. The first of the alternative answers suggested is that the man himself had sinned and that his blindness was a punishment divinely sent. As to this, it may be true in an individual case, but the whole drift of the Book of Job is to show that suffering is not always due to sin, and with this may be compared the words of Jesus at Luke 13:2, Luke 13:4 (see on 5:14 above). In this particular instance which drew forth the disciples` question, as the man had been blind from birth, if his blindness was a punishment for his own sin, it must have been prenatal sin. This was a possibility, according to some Rabbinical casuists (see Bereshith, R xxxiv, cited by Wetstein). Cf. v. 34. It is hardly likely that the questioners had in view sins committed in a former body, although the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was not unknown to later Judaism; cf. Wisd. 8:19, 20. The other alternative answer, as it seemed to the disciples, was that the man’ s blindness was divinely sent as a punishment for the sins of his parents, a doctrine which is frequently stated in the O.T. (Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Psalms 79:8, Psalms 109:14, Isaiah 65:6, Isaiah 65:7). This was the doctrine of punishment which Ezekiel repudiated, declaring that justice is only to be found in the operation of the principle, “ The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). The question of the relation between sin and suffering was discussed by the Gnostic Basilides in a passage quoted by Clem. Alex. (Strom. iv. 12), but although the problem raised is similar to that in the text, the discussion does not contain any allusion to the story before us. 3. ἀπεκρίθηυΙησοῦς . See for the omission of ὁ before Ἰης . on 1:50. The answer of Jesus to the questioners approved neither of the alternatives which they put before Him. His answer, as set forth by Jn., is that the man’ s blindness was foreordained so that it might be the occasion of the exhibition of Divine power in his cure, ἵναφανερωθῇτὰἔργατοῦθεοῦἐναὐτῷ .1 Cf. 5:36 for the witness borne to the Divine mission of Jesus by His ἔργα ; and 11:4 (where see note), where the sickness of Lazarus is said to have been “ for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.” The doctrine of predestination is apparent at every point in the Fourth Gospel, every incident being viewed sub specie aternitatis, as predetermined in the mind of God. See on 2:4 and 3:14. 4. ἐμὲδεῖἐργάζεσθαιτὰἔργατοῦπέμψαντόςμε . So א aACNΓΔΘ , the Lat. and Syr. vss. (including Syr. sin.). But א BDLW read ἡμᾶςδεῖ , and for τοῦπέμψαντόςμε , א LW read τοῦπέμψαντοςἡμᾶς . The latter variant may be rejected, both on the MS. evidence and because the phrase “ He that sent me” is characteristically Johannine (see on 4:34), while “ He that sent us” would be foreign to the phraseology of the Gospels. But ἡμᾶςδεῖἐργάζεσθαι , etc., would give a tolerable sense (see on 3:11). It is adopted by Westcott-Hort, and by the R.V., as having the weight of uncial authority, the combination of א BD (and also apparently the evidence of Origen) being strong. Yet although it is true of all of us that “ we must work while it is day” (cf. Ecclus. 51:30), “ the works of Him that sent me” in this passage has special reference to the ἔργατοῦθεοῦ , such as were made manifest in the cure of the blind man, which could not be wrought by the disciples, but were the “ signs” of Jesus alone. In the doing of such ἔργα Jesus never associated others with Himself. Nor, again, is it in the manner of Jn. to report a mere maxim of experience, such as “ We must all work while it is day” would be. The force of δεῖ goes deeper, for the words of Jesus here (vv. 3, 4) express that Divine predestination of events which is so prominently brought out in Jn. (see Introd., p. clii, and on 2:4). The man ’ s blindness had been foreordained in the Divine purpose ἵναφανερωθῇτὰἔργατοῦθεοῦἐναὐτῷ (v. 3); and in like manner there was a Divine necessity that Jesus should do the works of “ Him that sent Him” (see on 4:34 for this phrase). The only reading that brings out the force of the passage and gives consistency to the sentence is the rec. reading ἐμὲδεῖἐργάζεσθαιτὰἔργατοῦπέμψαντόςμε . Some expositors find in these words an allusion to 5:17 ὁπατήρμουἕωςἄρτιἐργάζεται , κἀγὼἐργάζομαι (see note in loc.); this healing at Siloam, like the healing at Bethesda, having been wrought on a Sabbath (v. 14). But the allusion to 5:17 is doubtful. ἕωςἡμέραἐστίν . The day is the time for labour, while the night is for rest (Psalms 104:23); and the day is none too long for its appointed task. Jesus had already spoken of the shortness of His time (see on 7:33). The “ night” was coming for Him in this sense only, that when His public ministry on earth was ended, the “ works” which it exhibited would no longer be possible. ἕως with the pres. indic. occurs in Jn. only here and at 21:22, 23 (but cf. 12:35), and is in these passages to be rendered “ while” . ἔρχεταινύξκτλ .: cf. 11:9, 12:35. 5. ὅτανἐντῷκόσμῳὦ , φῶςεἰμὶτοῦκόσμου . We had in 8:12 the majestic claim ἐγώεἰμιτὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου (see note in loc.). Here it reappears, but not in so universal or exclusive a form: ἐγώ is omitted; so is the article before φῶς , and it is introduced by a clause which seems to limit its application to the time of the ministry of Jesus upon earth. “ While I am in the world, I am a light of the world,” He says; and He proceeds to impress His meaning upon His hearers by restoring his sight to the blind man. When Jn. says that Christ was “ in the world” (1:10) he refers quite definitely to the period of His historical manifestation in the flesh (cf. also 17:11); and the context in the present passage shows that the same meaning must be given here to ἐντῷκόσμῳ . Christ is always, and always has been, and will be, τὸφῶςτοῦκόσμου ; but that thought is not fully expressed by ὅτανἐντῷκόσμῳὦ , φῶςεἰμὶτοῦκόσμου . The thought here is that it had been eternally ordered in the Divine purpose that He should “ work the works of God” during His earthly ministry; and another way of expressing this is to say that while He is in the world He is, inevitably, a light of the world, whose brightness cannot be hidden. 6. Jesus is represented here (as also at 5:6) as curing the sufferer without waiting to be asked. This is unlike the Synoptic narratives of healing, e.g. Mark 8:23, the cure of the blind man at Bethsaida, who was brought to Jesus by his friends. In that case, however, as in this, Jesus is said to have resorted to the use of physical means for the recovery of the patient, sc. the eyes were treated with spittle (cf. also Mark 7:33). The curative effects of saliva (especially of fasting saliva) have been, and still are, accepted in many countries. “ Magyars believe that styes on the eye can be cured by some one spitting on them.” 1 A blind man who sought a cure from Vespasian asked “ ut … oculorum orbes dignaretur respergere oris excremento” (Tacitus, Hist. iv. 81). Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) quotes a Rabbinical story which embodies the same idea. It was, apparently, a current belief in Judæ a that spittle was good for diseased eyes, and that Jesus accommodated Himself to that belief is reported both by Mk. and Jn., although in neither case is it stated that He Himself accepted it as well founded. This tradition of Jesus curing blindness by means of His spittle is not found in Mt. or Lk. It is evidently the oldest tradition. Severus Sammonicus, a second-century physician, quoted by Wetstein, prescribes the use of clay for smearing bad eyes, “ turgentes oculos uili circumline caeno.” 2 These strange remedies may be compared with those mentioned in a second-century inscription:3 ΟὐαλερίῳἌπρῳστρατιώτῃτυφλῷἐχρημάτισενὁθεὸςἐλθεῖνκαὶλαβεῖναἷμαἐξἀλεκτρυῶνοςλευκοῦμετὰμέλιτοςκαὶκολλυρίουσυντρῖψαι (cf. the mixture of clay and spittle) καὶἐπὶτρεῖςἡμέραςἐπιχρεῖσαιἐπὶτοὺςὀφθαλμοὺς (cf. ἐπέχρισεν … ἐπὶτοὺςὀφθαλμούς , v. 6) καὶἀνέβλεψενκαὶἐλήλυθενκαὶηὐχαρίστησενδημοσίᾳτῷθεῷ .1 ἔπτυσενχαμαί . πτύειν occurs again only Mark 7:33, Mark 7:8:23; it should be noted that at Mark 8:23 Jesus spat into the eyes of the blind man, πτύσαςεἰςτὰὄμματααὐτοῦ . χαμαί only occurs again 18:6. ἐπέχρισεν . So א ADNWΘ ; BC* give ἐπέθηκεν . In the N.T. ἐπιχρίω occurs again only at v. 11. The true text proceeds: αὐτοῦτὸνπηλὸνἐπὶτοὺςὀφθαλμούς , i.e. “ and smeared its clay” (sc. the clay which He had mixed with His spittle) “ on the eyes.” The rec. text after ὀφθαλμούς adds τοῦτυφλοῦ , “ He smeared the clay on the eyes of the blind man.” Irenæ us has a curious comment on the use of clay. He says (Hæ r. v. xv. 2) that the true work of God (cf. v. 3) is the creation of man, “ plasmatio hominis,” and he quotes Genesis 2:7 of God making man out of the dust of the earth. He concludes that the use of clay for the cure of the blind man was similar to this; being blind from his birth, he had virtually no eyes, and Jesus created them out of the clay. 7. ὕπαγε . See on 7:33 for ὑπάγειν , a favourite verb with Jn. νίψαι . For the aor. imperative, see on 2:5. εἰςτὴνκολυμβήθραν . The man interpreted this command (v. 11) as meaning, “ Go to the Pool, and wash.” νίψαιεἰςτήνκτλ ., however, may be translated as “ wash in the Pool,” εἰς being often used where the verb of motion is not expressed but only implied, e.g. ἐλθὼνκατῴκησενεἰςπόλινκτλ . (Matthew 2:23; cf. Matthew 4:13), and cf. ἐντετυλιγμένονεἰςἕνατόπον (20:7). See, further, on 19:13. The man, apparently, was not directed to bathe in the Pool, but only to go there to wash off the clay with which his eyes had been smeared. The Egyptian vss. render νίψαι as meaning “ wash thy face” (cf. v. 10). The Pool of Siloam (there are two pools) is situated to the south of the Temple area, at the mouth of the Tyropœ on Valley. It is mentioned Isaiah 8:6, where “ the waters of Shiloah that go softly” are contrasted with “ the waters of the Euphrates, strong and many,” which typify the Assyrian power; cf. also Nehemiah 3:15, Luke 13:4. The waters which gather in the Pool are connected by a subterranean tunnel or conduit with the Virgin’ s Well (see on 5:2). ש ׁ ָ ל ַ ח , misit, is the root of the name Shiloah, or Siloam, which thus means, etymologically, “ sent,” this name having been given to the Pool because the water is “ sent” or “ conducted” thither by the artificial aqueduct which goes back to the time of Hezekiah, or even earlier.1 In the note ὃἑρμηνεύεταιἈπεσταλμένος we observe the tendency to interpret Hebrew proper names for his Greek readers, of which we have many instances in Jn. (see on 1:38). ΣιλωὰμὃἑρμηνεύεταιἈπεσταλμένος is exactly parallel to ΚηφᾶςὃἑρμηνεύεταιΠέτρος (1:42). Hence it is unnecessary, and even perverse, to seek esoteric symbolism in the note ὃἑρμ . Ἀπεσταλμένος , such as is suggested by commentators who call attention here to the fact that Jesus was “ sent” by God (6:29 etc.). The evangelist knew that the name Siloam was given to the Pool because the water was conducted or “ sent” there artificially; and he naturally passes on the information to his readers.2 The word “ Siloam” is not strictly a proper name, and this Jn. indicates by prefixing the article, τοῦΣιλωάμ , as in Isaiah 8:6, Luke 13:4. ἀπῆλθενοὖνκαὶἐνίψατο , καὶἦλθενβλέπων . B omits οὖν … ἦλθεν , an omission due to homoioteleuton . The man did as he was bidden. He was able to find his way to the Pool of Siloam, for he was no doubt familiar with the streets near the place where he was accustomed to solicit alms. Apparently, he had some confidence in the power of Jesus to heal him, for he did not hesitate, as Naaman did when bidden to bathe in the Jordan. ἦλθενβλέπων . The mention of his neighbours in the next verse suggests that ἦλθεν means that he went home after he had visited the Pool. At any rate, it is not clearly said that the cure was instantaneous (but cf. v. 11). The restoration or improvement of sight may not have been observed for a day or more; and some days may have elapsed between v. 7 and v. 8. See v. 13 τόνποτετυφλόν . 8. The lively account which follows, of the experiences of the blind man who had recovered his sight, may go back to the evidence of the man himself. οἱθεωροῦντεςαὐτὸνὅτικτλ . θεωρεῖν is used here (see on 2:23) of “ taking notice,” as at 10:12, 20:6 etc. They noticed the man because he was a familiar figure, as a blind beggar. Burney urges that ὅτι must mean “ when,” and that it is a misrendering of the Aramaic particle ד ּ ְ , which might be translated either “ that” or “ when.” But this is unnecessary. They had noticed the man formerly because he used to beg from them; cf. 12:41. For προσαίτης the rec. has τυφλός . With ὁκαθήμενοςκαὶπροσαιτῶν cf. Mark 10:46 τυφλὸςπροσαίτηςἐκάθητοπαρὰτὴνὁδόν . A blind man begging by the wayside is a common figure in the East. 9. His neighbours and those who had formerly noticed the poor man, were not sure of his identity, now that his sight had been restored. His appearance would naturally be changed. Some said he was the man, others thought not. But he himself (ἐκεῖνος , cf. vv. 11, 12, 25, 36) set them right. ἐγώεἰμι , “ I am the man.” This is a simple affirmation of identity, not to be confused with the mystical use of ἐγώεἰμι in Jn. (see Introd., p. cxx). 10. πῶςοὖνἠνεῴχθησάνσουοἱὀφθαλμοί ; The fact that the man’ s sight had been restored is not challenged; it is only the manner of the cure that is in question. See vv. 15, 19, 26. 11. Ὁἄνθρ . ὁλεγόμενοςἸησοῦςκτλ ., “ the man who is called Jesus,” etc. He does not yet acknowledge Jesus as the Christ (cf. v. 36). ὕπαγεεἰςτὸνΣιλωὰμκαὶνίψαι . Some Latin and Syriac renderings give “ wash thy eyes” ; the Egyptian versions have “ wash thy face.” (See on v. 7 above.) νιψάμενοςἀνέβλεψα . For ἀναβλέπειν of recovering sight, see Tob. 14:2, Matthew 11:5, Mark 10:51, Luke 18:41; and cf. Luke 4:18. The aor. ἀνέβλεψα would suggest that the man was cured immediately after the washing at the Pool of Siloam; but cf. v. 7 above. Strictly speaking, the verb is inappropriate to the case of congenital blindness; but a parallel is cited from Pausanias (Messen. iv. 12. 10), in which a man, who is described as τὸνἐκγενετῆςτυφλόν , after an attack of headache recovers his sight , although only temporarily. 12. Ποῦἐστινἐκεῖνος ; See on 7:11 for the same question. The Pharisees Investigate the Cure of the Blind Man on the Sabbath (vv. 13-34) 13. The cure was so striking, and the technical breach of the Sabbath so obvious, that some of those who had been interesting themselves in the case brought the man that had been cured before the Pharisees, as the most orthodox and austere of the religious leaders (see on 7:32). This was not on the day of the cure, but on a later day. Note τόνποτετυφλόν . 14. ἦνδὲσάββατον (cf. 5:9) ἐνᾗἡμέρᾳτὸνπηλὸνἐποίησεν . It was the kneading of the clay that primarily called for notice, as it was obviously a work of labour and so was a breach of the Sabbath. 15. πάλινοὖνἠρώτωνκτλ . The questioning (see v. 10) had to begin all over again, for this was an official inquiry, and the brevity and sharpness of the man’ s answers now show that he is tired of replying to queries as to the manner and circumstances of his cure. 16. There was a division of opinion among the Pharisees who heard the story of the man whose sight had been restored. The strict legalists among them fastened on one point only, viz. that the Sabbath had been broken. οὐκἔστινοὗτοςπαρὰθεοῦὁἄνθρωπος , “ this person is not from God,” i.e. has not been sent by God, has no Divine mission. For παρά cf. 1:6, also 1 Macc. 2:15, 17; and see on 6:46 for the deeper meaning which παρὰθεοῦ has elsewhere. ὅτιτὸσάββατονοὐτηρεῖ . This was the charge that had been made against Jesus on a former occasion, when He healed the impotent man at Bethesda and told him to carry his mat away (5:10). There was a twofold violation of the Sabbath laws apparent in this case, for not only had the clay been kneaded (v. 14), but it was specially forbidden to use spittle to cure bad eyes on the Sabbath: “ As to fasting spittle; it is not lawful to put it so much as upon the eyelids.” 1 It is curious that the phrase τὸσάββατοντηρεῖν does not occur again in the Greek Bible; but τηρεῖν is a favourite verb with Jn. (see on 8:51). Others among the Pharisees took a larger view of the situation, probably such men as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathæ a. They called attention to the σημεῖα of Jesus as wonderful, no matter what the day was on which they were wrought. πῶςδύναταιἄνθρωποςἁμαρτωλὸς (this word “ sinner” is only found in Jn. in this chapter) τοιαῦτασημεῖα (see on 2:11) ποιεῖν ; How could a sinner do such things? καὶσχίσμαἦνἐναὐτοῖς . Cf. for similar divisions of opinion, 7:43, 10:19; and see also 6:52, 7:12. 17. λέγουσινοὖντῷτυφλῷπάλιν , “ they,” sc. the Pharisees collectively who were present, “ say again to the blind man,” i.e. they resume their inquiry, to get more details. τίσὺλέγειςπερὶαὐτοῦ ; “ What do you say about Him?” ὅτιἠνέῳξέν implies that as Jesus had opened his eyes, the man’ s opinion was worth having. “ What do you say, inasmuch as it was your eyes that He opened?” conveys the sense. For the constr., cf. 2:18. Burney suggested that ὅτι is here a mistranslation of the Aramaic relative ד ּ ְ , and points to the Vulgate qui aperuit. But it is not necessary to appeal to an Aramaic original here. See Abbott, Diat. 2183. The man’ s answer was προφήτηςἐστίν . He did not say that Jesus was “ the prophet,” as the multitude said after the miracle of the loaves (6:14), but only that He was “ a prophet,” a simple answer like that of the Samaritan woman (4:19), i.e. that He was an extraordinary person who could do extra-ordinary things. 18. Up to this point the Pharisees have not directly challenged the statement that the man’ s sight had been restored, having confined themselves to the question about the breach of the Sabbath which was involved. But the answer of the man, προφήτηςἐστίν , leads the more hostile of them (οἱἸουδαῖοι , see on 5:10) to suspect collusion between Jesus and the patient, and so they summon the parents for further inquiry as to their son’ s blindness and its cure. γονεῖς occurs in Jn. only in this chapter: the word in the N.T. is always used in the plural. 19. The Pharisees now cross-examine the parents, in strict fashion. “ Is this your son? the son whom you say was born blind? How is it that he now sees?” ἄρτι is a favourite word with Jn., and signifies “ at this moment,” as distinct from the vaguer νῦν , “ at the present time.” Cf. v. 25, 13:7, 33, 37, 16:12, 31. 20. ἀπεκρίθησανοὖνοἱγονεῖςκτλ . א B support οὖν , which is omitted in the rec. text, αὐτοῖς being put in its place (om. א BLW). The parents were anxious to avoid responsibility in the matter of the cure, being afraid of the Jewish leaders (v. 22). They admit, of course, that the man was their son, and that he had been born blind, but they disclaim all knowledge of the manner of his cure. Perhaps they had not been present when Jesus smeared the man’ s eyes. At any rate, they repudiate with special emphasis any knowledge of who it was that healed him: τίςἤνοιξεναὐτοῦτοὺςὀφθαλμοὺςἡμεῖςοὐκοἴδαμεν . 21. αὐτὸνἐρωτήσατε , ἡλικίανἔχει , “ ask him, he is of age,” and therefore a legal witness. ἡλικία in the Synoptists always means “ stature,” but in this passage and at Hebrews 11:11 it means “ age.” ἡλικίανἔχει is a good classical phrase, and is found in Plato. αὐτὸςπερὶἑαυτοῦλαλήσει , “ he will tell you about himself.” The parents were much alarmed. αὐτὸνἐρωτήσατε is omitted by א *W b and the Sahidic vss. (including Q), a remarkable combination. 22. ταῦταεἶπαν … ὅτιἐφοβοῦντοτοὺςἸουδαίους . The fear of “ the Jews” (see 1:19, 5:10), the Jewish opponents of Jesus, whose leaders were the Pharisees, was very definite (cf. 7:13). They were determined to check His success, and to put down His popularity. Cf. 7:44f. ἤδησυνετέθειντο , they had formed a compact (cf. 7:32, 47-49), and decided that strong measures must be taken against any one confessing (see on 1:20) Jesus as Christ. He had not yet declared Himself openly in Jerusalem (10:24), but it had been debated whether He were not indeed the Christ (7:26f.). Except when Jn. is interpreting Μεσσίας (1:41, 4:25), this is the only place in the Gospel where we find Χριστός without the def. article: “ if any one should confess Him as Christ.” Cf. Romans 10:9 for a similar constr.: ἐὰνὁμολογήσῃςΚύριονἸησοῦν , “ if thou shalt confess Jesus as Lord.” ἀποσυνάγωγος , “ excommunicate.” The word is found in the Greek Bible only here and at 12:42, 16:2. Full excommunication involved a cutting off from the whole “ congregation of Israel” (cf. Matthew 18:17); but it is probable that the lesser penalty of exclusion from the synagogue for a month (the usual period) is all that is indicated here. That he who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah was to be treated as ἀποσυνάγωγος is mentioned again 12:42.1 23. διὰτοῦτο , “ wherefore,” referring (as generally in Greek) to what precedes; cf. 13:11, 15:19, 16:15, 19:11, 1 John 4:5. For διὰτοῦτο as referring to what follows, see on 5:16. ὅτιἩλικίανἔχει , αὐτὸνἐπερωτήσατε (so א BW). ὅτι is recitantis, purporting to introduce the actual words spoken. Note that the order of the words has been changed, for in v. 21 we have αὐτὸνἐρωτήσατε , ἡλίκιανἔχει . Jn. is not punctilious in his narrative about reproducing the exact words or the order of words (see on 3:16). 24. The Jewish leaders summon the man himself for re-examination (ἐκδευτέρου , cf. v. 17). They now press him on the point of his former evidence, which they suggest was not true. δὸςδόξαντῷθεῷ . This does not mean here “ Thank God” (cf. Luke 17:18), but it is a form of adjuration meaning “ Speak the truth,” as at Joshua 7:19 (cf. 1 Ezr 9:8). ἡμεῖςοἴδαμενὅτιοὗτοςὁἄνθρωποςἁμαρτωλόςἐστιν , “ we know,” speaking with ecclesiastical authority, “ that this man is a sinner,” although the blind man had said (v. 17) that He was a prophet. They suggest that the man was lying, and was in collusion with Jesus. 25. The shrewdness and obstinacy of the man reveal themselves in his answer. He refuses to discuss their assertion that Jesus was a sinner. “ One thing I know, that being a blind man, now I see.” That is all he will say. 26. Accordingly his questioners attempt a further cross-examination, hoping to elicit some damaging admission. After αὐτῷ , the rec. text has πάλιν , but om. א *BDW. 27. The man who has recovered his sight now becomes irritable, and turns on his questioners: εἶπονὑμῖνἤδηκαὶοὐκἠκούσατε , “ I told you already (v. 15), and you did not hear,” i.e. you did not heed. Fam. 13 have ἐπιστεύσατε for ἠκούσατε , and the O.L. r has creditis, an attempt to interpret ἠκούσατε . μὴκαὶὑμεῖςθέλετεαὐτοῦμαθηταὶγενέσθαι ; “ Surely you do not wish to become disciples of His?” He could not refrain from this ironical gibe, which he must have known would irritate the Pharisees. καί before ὑμεῖς , “ you also,” suggests that it was known that Jesus had made some disciples already, and that the Pharisees were aware of it. 28. καὶἐλοιδόρησαναὐτόν , “ and they reviled him.” Having failed to get anything out of the man which might be damaging to Jesus, they angrily accuse him of being on the side of Jesus. Σὺμαθητὴςεἶἐκείου , “ you yourself are a disciple of that fellow.” ἐκεῖνος conveys a suggestion of contempt; and, as Bengel says, “ hoc vocabulo remouent Iesum a sese.” ἡμεῖςδέκτλ ., “ we, on the contrary, are disciples of Moses,” as all orthodox Rabbis claimed to be. 29. ἡμεῖςοἴδαμεν (cf. v. 24) ὅτιΜωϋσεῖλελάληκενὁθεός (cf. Hebrews 1:1): that was why they were proud to be disciples of Moses. τοῦτονδὲοὐκοἴδαμενπόθενἐστίν . They profess complete ignorance of the antecedents of Jesus. Some of the people of Jerusalem knew, indeed, whence He came, τοῦτονοἴδαμενπόθενἐστίν (7:27, where see note), although there was a deeper sense in which none of the Jews knew it (8:14). But the Pharisees would not admit that they either knew or cared what was His origin or who were His kindred. 30. The man whose sight had been restored is now thoroughly angry, and he goes on to argue in his turn, shrewdly enough, beginning with a mocking retort. ἐντούτῳγὰρτὸθαυμαστόνἐστινκτλ ., “ Why, then, here is an astonishing thing, that you (ὑμεῖς , whose business it is to know about miracle-workers) do not know whence He is, and yet He opened my eyes!” Syr. sin., with a b c ff2, om. γάρ , D and e replacing it by οὖν ; but γάρ must be retained. Blass says that we should treat the sentence as an interrogative, “ Is not this, then, an astonishing thing?” (see Abbott, Diat. 2683). But it is simpler to take γάρ as referring back to what had just been said, “ Why, if that be so, etc.” On καί for καιτοί , see on 1:10. 31. The argument is clear. God does not hear the prayers of sinners. Miracles are granted in answer to the prayers of a good man. Jesus has worked a miracle. Therefore Jesus is a good man. οἴδαμεν , “ we all know,” introducing a maxim which no one will dispute; cf. 3:2, 1 John 5:18. ἁμαρτωλῶνὁθεὸςοὐκἀκούει , “ sinners are not heard by God,” ἁμαρτωλῶν being put in the first place (with א ALNWΓΔ , but BDΘ have ὁθε . ἁμ .) for emphasis. ἀκούειν here takes the genitive, because it implies a hearing with attention; see on 3:8. The principle that God does not hearken to the prayers of sinners appears frequently in the O.T.; cf. Job 27:9, Psalms 66:18, Isaiah 1:15, Isaiah 59:2, Ezekiel 8:18, Micah 3:4, Zechariah 7:13. For the converse principle, that God hears the prayer of a godly man, cf. Psalms 34:15, Psalms 145:19, Proverbs 15:29, James 5:16. θεοσεβής is not found again in the N.T. (it occurs in the LXX, e.g. Job 1:1); but cf. 1 Timothy 2:10 for θεοσέβεια . ἐάντις … τὸθέλημααὐτοῦποιῇ , τούτουἀκούει . That Jesus “ did the will of God” is a frequent thought in Jn.; see on 4:34. For the answer always given to His prayers, cf. 11:22, 41. 32. ἐκτοῦαἰῶνος . The phrase ἀπὸτοῦαἰῶνος or ἀπ ʼ αἰῶνος occurs Luke 1:70, Acts 3:21, Acts 15:18, and is common in the LXX (1 Chronicles 16:36, Psalms 25:6, Psalms 90:2, Ecclus. 14:17, Jeremiah 2:20, etc.), as it is in the papyri. But ἐκτοῦαἰῶνος does not occur again in the Greek Bible, the nearest phrase being ἐξαἰῶνος , Proverbs 8:21. (Wetstein illustrates it freely from non-Biblical authors.) We have here an instance of the interchangeability of ἐκ and ἀπό which we have already observed in Jn. (see on 1:44, 6:38). ἐκτοῦαἰῶνοςκτλ ., “ Since the world began it was unheard of that any one opened the eyes of one who was born blind.” It is this point, viz. that the blindness was congenital, that is insisted on throughout; whereas in the case of the cure of the man at Bethesda, the circumstance that he had been infirm for thirty-eight years (5:5) passes out of view at once, and attention is concentrated on the fact that he was cured on a Sabbath day. 33. εἰμὴἦν … ποιεῖνοὐδέν . This was a principle recognised by Nicodemus (3:2), to which reference is made again at 10:21. “ If this man were not sent from God , He could do nothing,” sc. of this wonderful nature. 34. The Pharisees will not stoop to refute a low person who ventures to argue with them; but the retort ascribed to them is weak, for it admits what they had previously questioned (v. 19), viz. that the blindness was congenital, and assigns as a reason for it the man’ s prenatal sin (cf. v. 2). ἐνἁμαρτίαις (the emphatic words beginning the sentence) σὺἐγεννήθηςὃλος . Cf. Psalms 51:5; and for ὅλος cf. 13:10. σὺδιδάσκειςἡμᾶς ; Every word is scornfully emphatic. καὶἐξέβαλοναὐτὸνἔξω . This does not signify “ they excommunicated him” (v. 22), a formal act which could only be done at a formal sitting of the Sanhedrim. It only means “ they put him out,” sc. of their presence; cf. note on 6:37, where ἐκβάλλεινἐκ is shown to be a Johannine phrase. The Man Who Was Cured Accepts Jesus as the Son of Man (vv. 35-38) 35. ἤκουσενἸησοῦς א *B omit ὁ before Ἰησοῦς , perhaps rightly; see on 1:29, 50. When Jesus heard of the repulse of the man by the Pharisees, after his courageous utterances, He sought him out. With εὑρὼναὐτόν cf. 1:43, 5:14. σὺπιστεύειςεἰςτὸνυἱὸντοῦἀνθρώπου ; The form of the question presupposes an affirmative reply, “ Thou, at least, believest in the Son of Man?” The man’ s simplicity and constancy, in the presence of those whom he had good reason to fear, show Jesus that he is already on the way to become a disciple. Not only did he assert before the Pharisees that his Healer must have a Divine mission (παρὰθεοῦ , v. 33), but his faith was beginning to go deeper. He was on the point of believing in (see on 1:12 for the force of πιστεύεινεἰς … and cf. 4:39) the Son of Man (see Introd., p. cxxxi). This is the criterion of Christian discipleship which was placed before him. We follow א BDW and Syr. sin. in reading τὸνυἱὸντοῦἀνθρώπου But ALΘ and most vss. read τὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦ , which is the usual title in Jn. when confession of faith is in question. See, e.g., 1:34, 49, 11:27; and cf. Matthew 16:16. According to 20:31, the purpose of the Fourth Gospel is that readers may believe that “ Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” But if “ the Son of God” were the original reading here, it is surprising that scribes should have altered it to “ the Son of Man,” which does not appear in any of the other confessions of faith; while the change from the unusual “ Son of Man” to “ Son of God,” the usual title in similar contexts, is easily explicable (see 6:69 for a similar alteration by scribes). Further, v. 36 shows that the would-be disciple did not understand who was meant by “ the Son of Man” or that Jesus was claiming such a title for Himself. As we have seen (1:49), the Messiah was popularly designated “ the Son of God,” but “ the Son of Man” was not a recognised Messianic title (see Introd., p. cxxx). The man to whom Jesus spoke was evidently puzzled (cf. 12:34). 36. ἀπεκρίθηἐκεῖνοςκαὶεἶπενκαὶτίςἐστιν , κύριε ; For this BW have the shorter form καὶτίςἐστιν , ἔφη , κύριε ; The man had accepted Jesus as a prophet (v. 17), and so he was ready to act on whatever Jesus bade him. He will put his trust in the “ Son of Man” if he is told who He is, and where he may find Him. καὶτίςἐστιν ; “ Who then is He?” For the initial καὶ , cf. καὶτίςδύναταισωθῆναι ; (Mark 10:26, Luke 18:26) and καὶτίςἐστίνμουπλησίον ; (Luke 10:29). Cf. also 14:22. He addresses Jesus with respect: κύριε , “ sir” (see on 12:21). κύριε generally comes at the beginning of the sentence, but here and at v. 38 it comes at the end. ἵναπιστεύσωεἰςαὐτόν , taking up the words of Jesus in the preceding verse. There is an ellipsis before ἵνα , which has full telic force. “ Who is He?” for I want to know in order that I may put my trust in Him.” Cf., for a similar constr., 1:22. 37. The reply of Jesus, beginning καὶἑώρακαςαὐτόν , has a special force as addressed to a man who had been blind from his birth. “ You have seen Him.” This was one of the first blessings which came to him through “ the opening of his eyes.” In his case, faith followed immediately on the “ seeing” of Jesus, in marked contrast with the case of those to whom it was said ἑωράκατέ [με ] καὶοὐπιστεύετε (6:36, where see note). καὶὁλαλῶνμετὰσοῦἐκεῖνόςἐστιν , “ He who is talking with you is He.” Cf. 4:26 for a similar discovery of Himself to the Samaritan woman. For ἐκεῖνος , used by the speaker or narrator of himself, see on 19:35. 38. The man’ s response is unhesitating: πιστεύω , κύριε , “ I believe, Lord” ; κύριε being now used with a respect which has passed into reverence (see on 1:38, 4:1), for the narrator adds καὶπροσεκύνησεναὐτῷ “ and he worshipped Him.” προσκυνεῖν (see on 4:20) is always used in Jn. to express divine worship. The man who has been cured of his blindness now passes out of the story. The whole of v. 38 and the words καὶεἶπενὁἸησοῦς in v. 39 are omitted in א *W, the O.L. b, and the fourth-century Coptic MS. described as Q. The O.L. l also omits the clause, with the exception of καὶπροσεκύνησεναὐτῷ . Such a consensus of Greek, Coptic, and Latin authorities for this omission is remarkable, as a textual phenomenon; but the omission cannot be original. The Inner Meaning of the Healing, and the Condemnation of the Pharisees (vv. 39-41) 39. Here is given, in brief, the interpretation of the story, for this miracle was a σημεῖον (v. 16). The cure of the man’ s blindness was symbolic of the giving of spiritual vision to those conscious of their spiritual blindness, who are therefore willing to be healed. But some do not feel the need of a Healer. This is the dividing line between man and man. And the mission of Jesus leads up to judgment, according as men do or do not recognise their Deliverer in Him. εἰςκρίμαἐγὼεἰςτὸνκόσμοντοῦτονἦλθον . Cf. 16:28, 18:37 for the saying “ I am come into the world” ; and cf. also 6:14. For the phrase “ this world,” see on 8:23. It means the earthly world, the home of fallen man, which is therefore imperfect. κρίμα (a word not found again in Jn.) is the result of a κρίσις or act of distinguishing between good and bad, and so of judging. So the sentence means, “ It was with a view to that ultimate decision which shall distinguish man from man that I came into this world,” special emphasis being laid on ἐγώ . There is no mention of the Agent of this Judgment, i.e. of the Personality of the Judge, and so there is no inconsistency with 3:17 (cf. 8:15). Jesus does not say here that He came to execute Judgment (cf. 5:22), but in order that by His coming men might be tested and so judgment reached at last. The supreme test, as always (cf. v. 35, and see on 3:15), is faith in Himself. Those who recognise Him for what He is are in one category; those who fail to do so, in another. He came, not only to give recovery of sight to the physically blind (Isaiah 61:2, quoted by Himself Luke 4:18), but to open the eyes of the spiritually blind. It was the challenge of a prophet, “ Look, ye blind, that ye may see” (Isaiah 42:18); and Jesus came to bring this illumination to those conscious of their blindness, ἵναοἱμὴβλέποντεςβλέπωσιν . There is also a severer purpose in the coming of Jesus. It was ἵνα … οἱβλέποντεςτυφλοὶγένωνται , “ that those who see should become blind” (cf. Mark 4:12). There is a darkening of moral vision which is caused by complacent satisfaction with the light that is already enjoyed (cf. Revelation 3:17, Revelation 3:18). Those who see only dimly, and do not desire to see more clearly, lose the power of sight wholly; they become blind. This was the end of the Pharisees (the “ blind guides” of Matthew 23:16), who did not see anything exceptional in Jesus. They could not see at first, because they would not; and so the judgment of blindness fell upon them. See further on 12:40. 40. Some Pharisees who were near overheard what Jesus said, and interjected the scornful question, “ Are we also blind?” ἐκτῶνφαρισαίων … οἱμετ ʼ αὐτοῦὄντες . The Sinai Syriac renders “ who were near Him,” μετά indicating proximity in place, but not necessarily any attachment of discipleship. See τοὺςπτωχοὺςγὰρπάντοτεἔχετεμεθ ʼ ἑαυτῶν (12:8); and cf. Matthew 9:15. The crushing reply of Jesus (v. 41) to their question forbids the hypothesis that these Pharisees are to be reckoned among the half-believing Jews mentioned at 8:31. μὴκαὶἡμεῖςτυφλοίἐσμεν ; “ Are we also spiritually blind,” we who are the recognised religious teachers of the nation? The form of the question, μὴκαὶἡμεῖς … , suggests that a negative answer is believed by the questioners to be the obviously true answer See on 6:67. 41. The answer of Jesus is as overwhelming as it was unforeseen. The Pharisees had expected that He would say, “ Yes, you are blind, despite your authoritative position as religious guides” (cf. Matthew 23:16). But instead of that, He said, “ No, you are not wholly blind; that is the worst feature of your case.” εἰτυφλοὶἦτε , οὐκἂνεἴχετεἁμαρτίαν . If they were wholly and involuntarily blind to the presentation of the Divine which Jesus embodied, they would not be blameworthy for refusing to acknowledge it. Cf. εἰμὴἦλθονκαὶἐλάλησααὐτοῖςἁμαρτίανοὐκεἴχοσαν (15:22). But this was not their situation. The perpetual reproach with which Jesus challenged them (cf., e.g., 8:47) was that their failure to accept Him was a moral failure. Their self-satisfaction prevented them from seeing what they ought to have seen in Him (see on v. 39 above). Their claim to “ see,” βλέπομεν , was arrogant, and shut them out from the larger vision which had offered itself (cf. Proverbs 26:12). So “ your sin abides,” i.e. is not removed. For the Johannine constr. ἔχεινἁμαρτίαν , cf. 15:22, 19:11 and 1 John 1:8. ἡἁμαρτίαὑμῶνμένει . There is a sin against light which is eternal in its consequences. Cf. Mark 3:29 for the Synoptic form of this tremendous judgment. 1 For the ellipse in ἀλλ ʼ ἵνα , cf. 13:18, 15:25, 1 John 2:19. א Ԡ Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv. A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50-8:52 are missing. C Ephræ mi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn. N Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε 19). Dispersed through the libraries of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Vienna, and British Museum. vi. Some pages are missing. Edited by H. S. Cronin in Cambridge Texts and Studies (1899). Γ̠ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix-x. Contains Son 1:1-13 8:3-15:24 19:6 to end. Δ̠ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix-x. Græ co-Latin. Θ̠ Koridethi (ε 050). Tiflis. vii-ix. Discovered at Koridethi, in Russian territory, and edited by Beermann &Gregory (Leipzig, 1913). The text is akin to that of fam. 13, fam. 1, and the cursives 28, 565, 700 See Lake and Blake in Harvard Theol. Review (July 1923) and Streeter, The Four Gospels. Cf. also J.T.S. Oct. 1915, April and July 1925. B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv. D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v-vi. Græ co-Latin. Cc. 18:14-20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (Dsupp). L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2-20 21:15-25 are missing. W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv-vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912). 1 See ERE xi. 102, s.v. “ Saliva.” 2 See, for other illustrations, Trench, Miracles, p. 294. 3 See Moulton-Milligan, s.v. ἐπιχρίω . 1 The paratactic style of this inscription, καί … καί , is very like that of vv. 5-8, and shows that a redundance of καί conjunctions does not always point to a Semitic original (cf. Introd., p. lxvii). 1 See G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, i. 102 ff. 2 Grotius tried to identify Siloam with Shiloh, and noted that the Vulgate of Gen 49:10 renders Shiloh by “ qui mittendus est.” 1 Shabb. c. 21, cited by Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on 9:6. Diat. E. A. Abbott’ s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.-X. (1900-1915). 1 See, for Jewish excommunications, Schü rer, History of Jewish People, 11. ii. 61. 10:1. ἀμὴνἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν . For this solemn prelude to sayings or discourses of special significance, see on 1:51. It is never used abruptly to introduce a fresh topic, out of connexion with what has gone before, nor does it begin a new discourse. It always has reference to something that has been said already, which is expanded or set in a new light (cf. 8:34, 51, 58). Thus it introduces here the allegory of the sheep in the fold who recognise their shepherd, which arises out of the pronouncements in vv. 26-29. To begin this allegory by “ Verily, verily,” is exactly in the Johannine manner. Verses 1-5 are a παροιμία of general application, of which Jesus explains the reference to Himself and His flock in vv. 7-16. The αὐλὴντῶνπροβάτων is the open courtyard in front of the house, where the sheep were folded for the night. The word is used thus in Homer, where the Trojans are compared to ὄϊεςπολυπάμονοςἀνδρὸςἐναὐλῇ (Iliad, iv. 433). So Josephus represents Abraham as sitting παρὰτῇθύρᾳτῆςαὐτοῦαὐλῆς , where the LXX has σκηνῆς (Genesis 18:1; cf. Antt. 1. xi. 2). A shepherd, who had access to the courtyard, would naturally come in and go out by the θύρα . See on v. 16; and cf. 18:15, 16 for these terms. ἀλλὰἀναβαίνωνἀλλαχόθεν , “ but one climbing up another way,” sc. a man who gets over the wall into the courtyard. ἀλλαχόθεν (4 Macc. 1:7) is a legitimate form for ἄλλοθεν , and is found in the papyri (see Moulton-Milligan, s.v.). It does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. ἐκεῖνος , inserted for explicitness, as Jn. so frequently uses it (see on 1:8). κλέπτηςἐστὶνκαὶλῃστής , “ is a thief and a robber” ; he has, presumably, come to steal the sheep and to carry them off with violence. See further on v. 8. κλέπτης is used again of Judas (12:6) and λῃστής of Barabbas (18:40). Cf. Obadiah 1:5 for κλέπται and λῃσταί coming by night. 2. ὁδὲεἰσερχόμενοςκτλ . On the other hand, a man coming into the court or fold by the door presumably is entitled to do so. He is a shepherd, whose business it is to look after the sheep. He is ποιμὴνπροβάτων (Genesis 4:2). The application of this to Jesus comes later. So far the picture is true of all sheepfolds and shepherds. 3. τούτῳὁθυρωρὸςἀνοίγει , “ to him the doorkeeper opens” the door when he comes. This, again, is part of the general picture. It does not appear that in the allegory the θυρωρός is significant. In every parable there are details in which a spiritual meaning is not necessarily to be sought. καὶτὰπρόβατατῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκούεικτλ . The sheep hear his voice with obedient attention (see v. 27 and the note on ἀκούειν with the gen. at 3:8). That is, they recognise his voice as that of a shepherd. τὰἴδιαπρόβαταφωνεῖκατ ʼ ὄνομα . Several flocks under different shepherds might be brought into the same fold for a night. All the sheep might discern the note of authority in the voice of any lawful shepherd. But it is only the sheep of his own flock that a shepherd will call by name. This he does, as he leads them out to pasture; and it is only “ his own sheep” that follow. φωνεῖ . So א ABDLW, as against the rec. καλεῖ . Jn. prefers φωνεῖν to καλεῖν ; but cf. Isaiah 40:26, Isaiah 43:1, Isaiah 45:3 for the use of καλεῖν with ὄνομα . See on 1:48. It is still common for Eastern shepherds to give particular names to their sheep, “ descriptive of some trait or characteristic of the animal, as Long-ears, White-nose, etc.” 1 4. ὅταντὰἴδιαπάνταἐκβάλῃ . So א caBDLΘ , but AΓΔ read πρόβατα for πάντα . The rec. has καὶὅταν , but א BLWΘ omit καί . It probably came in from καὶτὰἴδια in the preceding verse. “ When he has put out (of the fold) all his own” : he is careful to forget none, as he leads his flock to pasture. ἐκβάλλειν suggests a certain measure of constraint, the shepherd thrusting out a sheep that delays unduly in coming forth at his call. The shepherd, having collected his own flock from the fold, goes before them . At 3:28 ἔμπροσθεν is used of priority in time; here it refers to space, as at 12:37. His own sheep follow him (cf. v. 27), because they know his voice (cf. vv. 26, 3). 5. They will not follow an ἀλλότριος , that is, any one who is not their own shepherd, whether he be the legitimate shepherd of another flock, or an impostor and a thief (v. 1) Rather will they run away from him, for they do not know or recognise his voice. This, as we shall see (v. 8), is a specially significant feature of the allegory. Cf. v. 26 above and v. 8 below. ἀκολουθήσουσιν . So ABDΔ , but א LWΘ have ἀκολουθήσωσιν . 6. ταύτηντὴνπαροιμίανεἶπ . κτλ . παροιμία occurs again in N.T. only in John 16:25, John 16:29 (as well as in 2 Peter 2:22, where it introduces a quotation from Proverbs 26:11). On the other hand, παραβολή does not occur outside the Synoptists, except at Hebrews 9:9, Hebrews 11:19. In the LXX both words are used to translate מ ָ ש ׁ ָ ל : in Ezekiel 12:23, Ezekiel 12:18:2, Ezekiel 12:3, the LXX having παραβολή and Symmachus παροιμία . In Ecclus. 47:17 we find Solomon’ s ᾠδαί and παροιμίαι and παραβολαί all mentioned together. Etymologically παραβολή suggests the placing of one thing beside another or a comparison, while παροιμία is derived from παρ ʼ οἶμον , something said “ by the way.” But the distinction sometimes put forward, that παραβολή always stands for a fictitious narrative, intended to instruct the hearer, as in the “ parables” of Christ, while παροιμία is a “ proverb,” a terse saying of wisdom, cannot be sustained. Thus in the passage now under consideration, παροιμία is the description of the allegory of the Shepherd and the Sheep, while at Luke 4:23 the proverbial taunt, “ Physician, heal thyself,” is called a παραβολή (cf. Luke 5:36). And in Ezekiel παραβολή is sometimes descriptive of an allegory (17:2f.), and sometimes signifies a “ proverb” (16:44, 18:2). Cf. Ecclus. 8:8, 39:3, for the παροιμίαι of the wise and their hidden meaning. All that can be said about these two Greek words here is that Jn. uses παροιμία , while the Synoptists prefer παραβολή , both doubtless going back to the Hebrew מ ָ ש ׁ ָ ל , a saying or discourse which, either from its terseness or its veiled significance, may need explanation before it can be fully understood. This παροιμία of the Shepherd and the Sheep was addressed to the Jews (see v. 25): εἶπεναὐτοῖςὁἸησοῦς . They, however (ἐκεῖνοι , for clearness as to the persons indicated; see on 1:8), did not understand its application; and accordingly Jesus proceeds to explain how it bears on what he had told them (v. 26). The idea of a shepherd as a spiritual leader was, of course, quite familiar to them (see on v. 26), as were also the ordinary habits of shepherds and sheep. But what they did not realise was the appositeness of the allegory in vv. 1-5, in relation to their question, “ Art thou the Messiah?” (v. 24). In particular, what was the Door through which Jesus said the true shepherd must come? Jesus is Not Only the Shepherd, He is the Door (vv. 7-10) 7. εἶπενοὖνπάλινὁἸησοῦς . οὖν is here more than a mere conjunction; it was because they did not understand that the explanation which follows was given. “ Accordingly, Jesus said to them again” ; πάλιν also being emphatic (cf. 8:12, 21). The rec. adds αὐτοῖς after πάλιν , but om. א *B. ἀμὴνἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν . Cf. v. 1; and see on 1:51. ὅτι (recitantis) is omitted by BL, but is found in א ADWΘ . ἐγώεἰμιἡθύρατῶνπροβάτων . For the use in Jn. of the dignified prelude ἐγώεἰμι , which marks the style of deity, see Introd., p. cxviii. ἡθύρατῶνπροβάτων must mean primarily the gate by which the sheep enter and leave the αὐλή , and this would also be the gate used by the shepherd. The phrase cannot be translated, however, “ the gate to the sheep,” although that is involved. Cf. ἡπύλητῶνἱππέων , “ the horse gate” (2 Chronicles 23:15), meaning the gate by which the horses enter. “ The sheep gate” (cf. 5:2) in Nehemiah 3:1 is ἡπύληἡπροβατική . Jn. never uses πύλη , while θύρα occurs again 18:16, 20:19, 26. When Jesus announces here that He is ἡθύρατῶνπροβάτων , the primary meaning is that He is the legitimate door of access to the spiritual αὐλή , the Fold of the House of Israel, the door by which a true shepherd must enter. In v. 9 the thought is rather that He is the door which must be used by the sheep. For ἡθύρα , the Sahidic supports ὁποιμήν , which is adopted by Moffatt as the true reading here. But, apart from the fact that ἡθύρατῶνπροβάτων has the weight of MS. authority overwhelmingly in its favour, ὁποιμήν would not fit the argument at this point. The Jewish inquirers could not have failed to understand that Jesus claimed to be the Shepherd (see v. 26); their difficulty was as to the interpretation of the Door which was so important in the allegory of vv. 1-5. Verses 7-10 are taken up with the explanation of this: “ I am the Door,” a figure verbally inconsistent indeed with the image of the Shepherd entering by the door, but being quite intelligible when taken by itself. See further on v. 9.1 8. πάντεςὅσοιἦλθονπρὸἐμοῦκλέπταιεἰσὶνκαὶλῃσταί . So א cABDLW but א * om. πρὸἐμοῦ , with most vss., including the Latin, Sahidic, and Syriac; and Westcott-Hort treat the words as a “ Western and perhaps Syrian” gloss. On the other hand, they may have been omitted by scribes to lessen the risk of the passage being interpreted as if it applied to the O.T. prophets.2 πρὸἐμοῦ must relate to priority in time (cf., e.g., Nehemiah 5:15). But even if the words be omitted, ἦλθον involves a “ coming” in the past; and we must translate “ all that came before me are thieves and robbers.” The reference is, undoubtedly, to v. 1. He who enters the fold by any other way than the “ door” is “ a thief and a robber.” Now Jesus claims to be the Door of the Fold of the Flock of Israel, and hence it follows that all who sought a way of access to the sheep before He was manifested as the “ Door” may be described as “ thieves and robbers.” This, nakedly stated, is a harsh saying. But, if the sequence of the argument be followed from v. 23 onward (see on v. 26), it is not so intolerant as it sounds (see also on 14:6). The distinction that is being drawn out is not that between the ministrations of older prophets and teachers, and the perfect ministration of Jesus, but rather (as Chrysostom points out) between those who falsely claimed to be heaven-sent deliverers and the true Messiah Himself. The methods, e.g., of Judas of Galilee, who instigated the people to revolt against Roman taxation about the year a.d. 6, were violent, and led to murder and robbery (so Josephus, Antt. XVIII. i. 6; cf. B.J. II. viii. 1 and Acts 5:37). According to Acts 5:36, Theudas was an earlier impostor of the same type, although Josephus (Antt. xx. v. 1) seems to put him later, if indeed he is describing the same person. And, apart from Judas and Theudas, we have the testimony of Josephus (Antt. XVII. x. 4, 18) that at the beginning of the first century Judæ a was the scene of innumerable risings and disorders, which were caused, in part at any rate, by current misinterpretations of the Messianic idea, associated by the Zealots with militant activities. It is true that we have no knowledge of any Jew before Barcochba (a.d. 135) who claimed explicitly to be the Messiah. But there were many pretenders to the office of leadership of the nation, and to such the words of Jesus, “ thieves and robbers,” were fitly applied. And the present tense εἰσίν confirms the view that His allusion was to leaders of revolt who belonged to the first century, some of whom were probably living at the time. The convincing proof that none of these was the divinely appointed Shepherd of Israel was: οὐκἤκουσαναὐτῶντὰπρόβατα , “ the sheep,” sc. the true sheep of Israel, who are alone in view throughout this chapter, “ did not listen to them” (cf. vv. 4, 5, where it was pointed out that sheep recognise their true shepherd’ s voice, while they will not listen to one who is only an impostor). It was just because the Jews who were arguing were not the true sheep of Israel that they did not accept Jesus as their Shepherd (v. 26). 9. ἐγώεἰμιἡθύρα . This is repeated from v. 7, a repetition in the Johannine manner (see on 3:16), a slight change being made in the form of the saying. In v. 7 the stress is laid on Jesus being the Door through which a lawful shepherd would enter. But here the thought is simpler. He is the Door through which the sheep must enter the fold, a saying which is not relevant to the allegory of this chapter, but is consonant with the teaching of Jesus as presented by Jn. elsewhere. He is the Door into the spiritual fold, as He is the Way (and the only Way) of access to the Father (14:6; cf. Ephesians 2:18, Hebrews 10:20). The αὐλή (see v. 1) to which He is the Door is the fold of the house of Israel, the Jewish fold; nor has anything been said up to this point which suggests any wider fold (cf. v. 16, where the Gentile fold is indicated for the first time). But the saying I am the Door has always been quoted, from the first century onward, as having as wide an application as the parallel saying I am the Way. Clement of Rome, commenting on Psalms 118:19, Psalms 118:20, speaks of “ that gate which is in righteousness, even in Christ” (§ 48). Ignatius (Philad. 9) speaks of Christ as being θύρατοῦπατρός , “ through whom Abraham and Isaac and Jacob enter in, and the prophets and the apostles, and the Church.” Both these passages seem to carry an allusion to ἐγώεἰμιἡθύρα . So also Hermas (Sim. ix. 12) has: ἡπέτρααὕτηκαὶἡπύληὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , the explanation being added that the Rock is ancient, but the Gate recent , because “ He was made manifest in the last days of the consummation,” … ἵναοἱμέλλοντεςσώζεσθαιδι ʼ αὐτῆςεἰςτὴνβασιλείανεἰσέλθωσιτοῦθεοῦ , words which recall the teaching of v. 9. According to Hegesippus (Eus. H.E. II. xxiii. 8), James, the Lord’ s brother, was asked by inquirers τίςἡθύρατοῦἸησοῦ ; which carries an allusion either to this passage or to a Synoptic precept such as Luke 13:24 ἀγωνίζεσθεεἰσελθεῖνδιὰτῆςστενῆςθύρας . Two reminiscences of the Johannine “ I am the Door” may be quoted from Gnostic sources. In the hymn in the second-century Acts of John (§ 95), we find the phrases θύραεἰμίσοι [τῷ ] κρούοντίμε , ὁδόςεἰμίσοιπαροδίτῃ . The image of one knocking at a door is not identical with that of one entering by it; but it probably goes back to John 10:9. Again, Hippolytus cites John 10:9 from a Naassene writer in the form ἐγώεἰμιἡπύληἡἀληθινή , and he represents the Naassene as adding οὐδύναταισωθῆναιὁτέλειοςἄνθρωπος , ἐὰνμὴἀναγεννηθῇδιὰταύτηςεἰσελθὼντῆςπύλης (Ref. v. viii. 21), a passage which recalls John 3:5 as well as 10:9.1 Probably the proclamation “ I am the Door” should be taken in connexion with the Synoptic saying about the Narrow Door (Matthew 7:13, Luke 13:24). Jn., however, is careful not to suggest that the Door is narrow, while he implies that there is only one Door. The comparison with the Synoptists suggests that the αὐλή or fold of the spiritual Israel represents the kingdom of God. δι ʼ ἐμοῦἐάντιςεἰσέλθῃ , σωθήσεταικτλ . δι ʼ ἐμοῦ comes first for emphasis. The form ἐάντις expresses the catholicity of the implied appeal (cf. 7:17); any one may enter by this Door. And the sheep which enters the fold thus shall, first of all, be safe (σωθήσεται ; see on 3:17). As Jesus had said already, none can snatch His sheep from the Shepherd’ s hand (v. 28). καίεἰσελεύσεταικαὶἐξελεύσεται . The “ going out and coming in” suggests being at home (Deuteronomy 28:6, Psalms 121:8), the daily routine of the sheltered flock (cf. Acts 1:21). Numbers 27:17, which speaks of the shepherd leading the sheep out and bringing them in again, is hardly apposite, for at this point the thought is of the sheep rather than of the shepherd. We must take the words in connexion with καὶνομὴνεὑρήσει . The sheep which has entered the fold by the door is then safe, and he shall find pasture for his needs. Cf. 1 Chronicles 4:40, where the same phrase εὑρίσκειννομήν is found. The shepherd leads the sheep to pasture (v. 3 above; and cf. Psalms 23:1, Psalms 74:1, Psalms 95:7, Psalms 100:3, Ezekiel 34:14); but here the thought is of the happiness of the sheep rather than of the duty of the shepherd. 10. ὁκλέπτηςοὐκἔρχεταικτλ . The thief (cf. Exodus 22:1) comes only to steal and kill (κλέπτειν and θύειν do not occur again in Jn.) and destroy . ἐγὼἦλθονκτλ ., “ I have come (on the contrary) that they may have life.” Cf. v. 28 and 14:6. The Fourth Gospel was written that believers might thus “ have life” in the Name of Jesus (20:31). καὶπερισσὸνἔχωσιν , “ and may have it to the full.” This is the περισσεία of Christ’ s grace (Romans 5:20). So Xenophon (Anab. VII. vi. 31), περισσὸνἔχειν , “ to have a surplus.” Jesus the Good Shepherd (vv. 11-30) 11. We have had the allegory of the Shepherd and the Sheep (vv. 1-5); then the explanation of what is meant by the Door (vv. 7-10); now we come to the great proclamation of Jesus as the Good Shepherd, as contrasted with the hireling. Philo (de Agric. § § 6, 9, 10) draws out a similar contrast between the ἀγαθὸςποιμήν , who does not allow his sheep to scatter, and the mere herd , who permits the flock to do as it likes. But the similarity does not go beyond what may naturally be observed between the words of two writers who are expounding the same image; there is no literary connexion to be traced between Joh_10 and Philo. On ἐγώεἰμι , and the special appropriateness of this phraseology in passages such as this, something has already been said in the Introduction (p. cxviii). Dods quotes, however, a striking parallel from Xenophon (Mem. II. vii. 14), where ἐγώεἰμι is used only to mark a contrast, the sheep-dog being represented as saying to the sheep, ἐγὼγάρεἰμιὁκαὶὑμᾶςαὐτὰςσώζων , ὥστεμήτεὑπ ʼ ἀνθρώπωνκλέπτεσθαι , μήτεὑπὸλύκωνἁρπάζεσθαι . If this had been found in Philo, it would probably have been claimed by somebody as the source from which Jn. derived the language of these verses. But literary parallels do not always imply literary obligation. ὁποιμὴνὁκαλός , “ the Good Shepherd,” Pastor bonus. We have already noticed that Philo calls his good shepherd ἀγαθός ; and it is not possible to draw any clear distinction in such passages as the present between the two adjectives. No doubt, goodness and beauty were closely associated in Greek minds; and, if we please, we can find the thought of the beauty of holiness suggested by the application of καλός to the Good Shepherd (cf. καλὰἔργα in v. 32). But ὁκαλὸςοἶνος in 2:10 is simply good wine, the adjective carrying no allusion either to moral or æ sthetic beauty. In Tob. 7:7 and 2 Macc. 15:12 an “ honest and good man” is καλὸςκαὶἀγαθός , a frequent Greek combination. And when καλός is combined, as here, with the description of a man pursuing a particular business, it simply conveys the idea that he discharges his office or fulfils his calling well, just as we would speak of “ a good doctor.” Thus we have καλοὶοἰκονόμοι , “ good stewards” (1 Peter 4:10); ὁτοῦμισθοῦκαλὸςἀνταποδότης , “ the good paymaster of the reward,” i.e. he who will make no default (Barnabas, xix. II); and “ good priests,” καλοὶκαὶοἱἱερεῖς (Ignatius, Philad. 9), in comparison with the High Priest, who is κρείσσων . Barnabas in another place (7:1) speaks of “ the good Lord,” ὁκαλὸςκύριος . Here, then, ὁποιμὴνὁκαλός is simply the Good Shepherd, One who tends His flock perfectly, without any failure of foresight or tenderness, of courage or unselfishness.1 τὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦτίθησινκτλ . He lays down His life for the sheep. All good shepherds are ready to risk their lives in defence of their flock (1 Samuel 17:35, Isaiah 31:4); He who is uniquely the Good Shepherd lays down His life. For τίθησιν , א *D substitute the more usual δίδωσιν , but τὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦτιθέναι is a characteristic Johannine expression for the “ laying down” of His life by Jesus, occurring again vv. 15, 17, 13:37, 38, 1 John 3:16, and (of a disciple acting as Jesus did) 15:13. It stands in contrast with the Synoptic δοῦναιτὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦ (Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:28). The expression τὴνψυχὴντιθέναι , “ to lay down one’ s life,” ponere animam, is not found in the Greek Bible outside Jn. (cf. 15:13, 1 John 3:16). Nor is it a classical phrase, but from Hippocrates, ψυχὴνκατέθετο , “ he died,” is quoted by Dods, following Kypke. We have, indeed, in Judges 12:3 (cf. 1 Samuel 19:5, 1 Samuel 28:21), ἔθηκατὴνψυχήνμουἐνχειρίμου , “ I took my life in my hand,” i.e. I risked my life; but in Jn. τὴνψυχὴντιθέναι means rather “ to divest oneself of life,” as at John 13:4 τίθησιτὰἱμάτια means “ He divests Himself of His garments.” ὑπὲρτῶνπροβάτων , “ on behalf of the sheep.” The Synoptists in similar contexts have ἀντί (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45), but ἀντί occurs only once in Jn. (1:16), and there it does not mean “ instead of.” In this passage the Death of Jesus is said to be “ on behalf of the sheep” : it is not explicitly declared that it was on behalf of all men, “ to take away the sin of the world,” as at 1:29, 1 John 2:2. But there is no inconsistency with the catholicity of these great pronouncements; and, lest the allegory might be too narrowly interpreted, mention is made in v. 16 of “ other sheep” who must learn to follow the Shepherd. 12. ὁμισθωτὸςκαὶοὐκὢνποιμήν . The rec. with AΓ has δέ after, א DΔΘ have it before, μισθωτός : om. BLW. Syr. cur. has “ the hireling, the false one, ” but this explanatory gloss is not in Syr. sin. Blass (Gram. 255) suggests that οὐκ is a Hebraism, “ since in the case of a participle with the article, the LXX render ל ֹ א by οὐ ” (cf. στεῖραἡοὐτίκτουσα , Isaiah 54:1). But although in v. 1 we have ὁμὴεἰσερχόμενος , “ any one not coming through the door,” at v. 12 οὐκ is preferable to μή before ὤν , because the hireling is certainly not the shepherd. ὁμισθωτός . The term occurs again in the N.T. only at Mark 1:20, where it is used of the “ hired servants” in Zebedee’ s boat. It occurs often in the LXX, and is not necessarily a term of reproach. In Job 7:2 it is used, as here, of a servant who thinks primarily of his wages. The μισθωτός may be an honest man; but the care of a herdsman who comes for wages to look after a flock of sheep can never be equal to that of their own shepherd, who knows each one and is ready to give his life for theirs. In vv. 1-5 the shepherd was contrasted with the thief, nothing being said about the excellence of the shepherd’ s service, the thought being only of his right to enter the fold. Here, in vv. 11-15, we have the contrast exhibited between a good shepherd and a hired man whose only interest in his flock comes from his wages. In vv. 12, 13, the conduct which may be expected from the μισθωτός in the hour of danger is described in terms contrasting strongly with the conduct of the really good shepherd. We must not confuse the “ hireling” with the “ thief” of v. 1, any more than with the “ wolf” of v. 12. He is only blameworthy because his service is perfunctory, as compared with ὁποιμὴνὁκαλός , who is the perfect shepherd. The centre of the picture is the figure of “ the Good Shepherd,” that is, of Jesus Himself. His example of self-sacrifice and watchfulness has always been held up to the “ pastors” of His Church (vv. 1-16 form the Gospel for the Ordering of Priests); but to these lesser pastors there is no direct reference in this passage, while the figure of the “ hired man” supplies a warning to them all. Cf. 1 Peter 5:2, where those who tend the flock of God are warned that they must not do their work “ for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.” οὗοὐκἔστιντὰπρόβαταἴδια , “ whose own the sheep are not.” There is no thought here of the owner of the sheep; that does not come into the allegory. But every true shepherd counts the sheep entrusted to his care as his own in a peculiar sense; this the μισθωτός does not feel. θεωρεῖτὸνλύκονἐρχόμενον , “ notices the wolf coming.” For θεωρεῖν as signifying intelligent perception, see on 2:23, and cf. 9:8. The wolf is the great danger to sheep in a country like Palestine (cf. Matthew 10:16); and that “ grievous wolves would enter in, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29), was a warning to the Church at Ephesus of which its leaders could not mistake the meaning. The μισθωτός is likely to leave the sheep and run away when the wolf appears. Cf. “ ut non derelinquas nos, sicut pastor gregem suum in manibus luporum malignorum” (2 Esd. 5:18). See Zechariah 11:17. ὁλύκοςἁρπάζειαὐτά , “ the wolf snatches them,” as no enemy could snatch His sheep from the care of Jesus (v. 29). That is because He is “ the Good Shepherd.” καὶσκορπίζει . The rec. adds τὰπρόβατα , but this explanatory addition is not necessary, and is not found in א BDW. A consequence of the carelessness of the man in charge of the sheep is described similarly in Jeremiah 10:21 καὶδιεσκορπίσθησαν (cf. Jeremiah 23:1). And in the vision of Eze 34:5, when the shepherds neglected their duty “ the sheep became meat to all the beasts of the field, and were scattered.” For σκορπίζομαι , διασκορπίζομοι , as applied to the “ scattering” of the spiritual flock, cf. 11:52, 16:32. One of the marks of the unworthy shepherd of Zec 11:16 is τὸἐσκορπισμένονοὐμὴζητήσῃ . Cf. also Zechariah 13:7, “ smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” The rec. repeats after σκορπίζει , ὁδὲμισθωτὸςφεύγει , but this unnecessary gloss is omitted by א BDLΘ . W om. this, and also the following ὅτιμισθωτόςἐστιν . 13. οὐμέλειαὐτῷπερὶτ . π . We have the same construction, descriptive of God’ s providence, at 1 Peter 5:7 αὐτῷμέλειπερὶὑμῶν . Cf. Tob. 10:5, οὐμέλειμοι . 14. ἐγώεἰμιὁποιμὴνὁκαλός , repeated after the Johannine manner. Cf. v. 9 for the repetition of “ I am the Door” ; and see on 3:16. καὶγινώσκωτὰἐμά . This has been said already, v. 27, κἀγὼγινώσκωαὐτά . It is one of the marks of a good shepherd; cf. v. 3, where it is noted as a habit of the shepherd to have individual names for his sheep. “ The Lord knoweth them who are His” is a sentence of judgment (Numbers 16:5); but it may also be taken as a benediction (2 Timothy 2:19). Cf. Nahum 1:7. The rec. proceeds καὶγινώσκομαιὑπὸτῶνἐμῶν (see on 14:21), following AΓΔΘ , but א BDLW read καὶγινώσκουσίμετὰἐμά . This, too, has been said or implied before; cf. vv. 27, 3, 4. The sheep know their shepherd’ s voice. 15. καθὼςγιν … κἀγὼγινώσκω … We have seen on 6:57 that the constr. καθὼς … κἀγώ may be taken in two different ways. In the present passage we may either (1) place a full stop after ἐμά , and then we have a new sentence, sc. “ As the Father knoweth me, so I know the Father,” the constr. being the same as that at 15:9, 20:21; or (2) we may treat καθὼςγινώσκει … τὸνπατέρα as explanatory of the preceding words, sc. “ I know mine, and mine know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father,” the constr. then being similar to that at 6:57, 17:21. The A.V. follows (1), the R.V. adopts (2); and both are legitimate renderings of the Greek, and consistent with Johannine usage. The difficulty of (1) is that the words “ As the Father knoweth me, so I know the Father,” would seem to be irrelevant to the context, unless we are to connect them with what is said in v. 17, and understand by v. 15, “ As the Father knoweth me, so I know the Father, and, because I know Him and His will, I lay down my life for the sheep.” 1 But this is to interpolate a thought which is not expressly stated. On the other hand, it may be objected to the rendering (2), that it suggests that the knowledge of Christ by His true disciples is comparable in degree and in kind to the knowledge that He has of the Father. No other statement in the Fourth Gospel or elsewhere claims for His disciples so intimate a knowledge of Christ as this would seem to do (the promise of 14:20 is for the future, not the present). But we have seen (on 6:57) that καθὼς … καί does not, in fact, imply a perfect or complete parallelism with what has gone before. All that is said here, if rendering (2) be adopted, as we believe it must be, is that the mutual knowledge by Christ’ s sheep of their Good Shepherd, and His knowledge of them, may be compared with the mutual knowledge of the Son and the Father; it is not the perfection or intimacy of the knowledge that is in view, it is its reciprocal character. Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3; and see further on 17:18. Adopting rendering (2), the sequence of thought in vv. 14, 15, is plain: “ I am the Good Shepherd, as is shown first by my knowledge of my sheep and theirs of me, and secondly by my readiness to lay down my life on their behalf.” These are the two principal marks of the Good Shepherd which have been noted in the preceding verses. The mutual knowledge of the Father and the Son which is brought in here parenthetically is explicitly stated in the great declaration Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, and is implied at 17:21 and at many other points in the Gospel. That Jesus knew God in a unique manner and in pre-eminent degree was His constant claim (see on 7:29; and cf. also 8:55, 17:25). καὶτὴνψυχήνμουτίθημικτλ . This is repeated, like a refrain, from v. 11, in the Johannine manner. See note on 3:16 for such repetitions. For τίθημι , א *DW have δίδωμι . See the similar variant in v. 11, and the note there. 16. ἄλλαπρόβαταἔχωκτλ . These “ other sheep” were the Gentiles, who “ were not of this fold,” i.e. not of the Jewish Church.1 They were not, indeed, in any fold as yet, being “ scattered abroad” (11:52). Jesus claims them as already His: “ Other sheep I have, ” for such is the Divine purpose, which, being certain of fulfilment, may be spoken of as already fulfilled. κἀκεῖναδεῖμεἀγαγεῖν , “ them also I must lead,” δεῖ expressing that inevitableness which belongs to what is foreordained by God (see on 3:14). Not only had it been prophesied of Messiah that He was to be a “ Light to the Gentiles” (Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 49:6), but there was the explicit promise, “ The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to Him, beside His own that are gathered” (Isaiah 56:8). All this is intelligible from the standpoint of a Christian living at the end of the first century, when it had long been conceded that the gospel was for the Gentile as well as for the Jew. But it is not so easy to be sure how far Jesus taught this explicitly. Had His teaching been clear on so important a point, it is difficult to believe that the apostles could have misunderstood it. Yet Acts and the Pauline Epistles show that acute controversy arose in the apostolic circle about the position of the Gentiles. All were ready to admit that, as Jewish proselytes, they might pass into the Christian Church; but could they be admitted to Christian baptism without passing through the portal of Judaism? For this Paul contended successfully, but his struggle was severe. Had he been able to quote specific words of Christ determining the matter, his task would have been easier; but this, seemingly, he was unable to do. Did Jesus, then, teach plainly that Gentile and Jew were equally heirs of the Gospel promises? In Mk. (excluding the Appendix), the mission of Jesus to those who professed the Jewish religion is the exclusive topic of the narrative, and there is no saying of Jesus recorded which would suggest that He had a mission also to the Gentiles. Indeed, when He crossed the border into the country “ of Tyre and Sidon,” He did not wish His presence to be known (Mark 7:24); and when the Syrophœ nician woman asked Him to cure her daughter He is reported to have said to her, “ Let the children first be filled,” adding that children’ s bread should not be given to “ dogs.” This may have been a proverbial saying (which would mitigate its seeming harshness); but at any rate Mk. gives no hint that Jesus regarded non-Jews as having any claim on His ministry. In Mt. (15:24) Jesus actually says to the woman, “ I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” ; as He had said to the apostles in an earlier passage (10:5, 6), “ Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But these are only seemingly instances of Jewish particularism. They do not explicitly convey more than that Jesus regarded His mission as directed in the first instance to the Jews; and, in fact, there are many indications that both Mt. and Lk. believed the Gentiles to be included within the redeeming purpose of Christ. The prophecies about Messiah being a light to the Gentiles are quoted (Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:12:21; cf. Luke 2:32). The Roman centurion was commended for his faith (Matthew 8:10); so was the Samaritan leper (Luke 17:19); and the example of the Good Samaritan is held up for imitation (Luke 10:37). The saying, “ Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,” is in Mt. (8:11), and, in a different context, also in Lk. (13:28). The command to preach to all nations is in the Marcan Appendix (Mark 16:15) as well as in Matthew 28:19; and, even if it be supposed that we have not in the latter passage the ipsissima verba of Christ, there can be no doubt that it represents one aspect of His teaching (cf. Matthew 24:14, Luke 24:47). In Jn.’ s narrative the Gentiles come without argument or apology within the scope of the Gospel. Jesus stays two days with the Samaritan villagers, to teach them (4:40); He does not admit that descent from Abraham is a sufficient ground for spiritual self-satisfaction (8:39); He is approached by a party of Greeks (12:20f.); He declares that He is the Light of the world (8:12), which implies that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are the objects of His enlightening grace. And in the present passage (10:16) Jesus, in like manner, declares that He has “ other sheep” besides the Jews, while it is not to be overlooked that He puts them in the second place: “ Them also I must lead.” They are not His first charge: that was to shepherd “ the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” He “ came to His own” (1:11) in the first instance. Jn., then, is in agreement with Mt. and Lk. in his representation of the teaching of Jesus about the Gentiles; and this teaching is accurately represented in the saying of Paul that the gospel was “ to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). Mk. is the only evangelist who says nothing about the inclusion of the Gentiles. The significance of what Jesus had said about this was perhaps not appreciated by Mk., any more than it was by those with whom Paul had his great controversy. See further on 11:52, 12:21. καὶτῆςφωνῆςμουἀκούσουσιν . So He says again, v. 27 (cf. 18:37). So Paul said of the Gentiles, when the Jews at Rome had declined to accept his message: τοῖςἔθνεσινἀπεστάλητοῦτοτὸσωτήριοντοῦθεοῦ · αὐτοὶκαὶἀκούσονται , “ they will hear it” (Acts 28:28). Note that ἀκούειν here takes the gen., as it does when it connotes hearing with understanding and obedience. See on 3:8. μίαποίμνη , εἷςποιμήν , “ one flock, one shepherd” : the alliteration cannot be reproduced in another language. A rendering of the Latin Vulgate in this verse has led to so much controversy, that the textual facts must be briefly stated. All Greek MSS. have ἐκτῆςαὐλῆςταύτης … μίαποίμνη , εἷςποιμήν . The O.L. vss.1 correctly preserve the distinction between αὐλή and ποίμνη , by rendering them respectively ouile (fold) and grex (flock). But Jerome’ s Vulgate has ouile in both places. This might be taken for a mere slip, were it not that in his Comm. on Ezekiel (46) he distinctly implies that the Greek word αὐλή is repeated, saying that he is dissatisfied with the old rendering ouile for αὐλή and suggesting atrium. Wordsworth and White (in loc.) regard this as establishing Jerome’ s reliance here on some Greek authority which had αὐλή in the last clause instead of ποίμνη . Into this question we need not enter, further than to note that no such Greek authority is now extant. However Jerome’ s eccentric rendering unum ouile et unus pastor arose, the weight of authority is overwhelmingly against it, although it has caused misunderstanding and perplexity for many centuries. Jesus did not say there would be one fold : He said one flock, which is different. In one flock there may be many folds, all useful and each with advantages of its own, but the Flock is One, for there is only One Shepherd. The unity of the Hebrew people is indicated similarly in Ezekiel by the assurance that one shepherd will be set over them, as ruling over an undivided kingdom, Judah and Israel having come together again: “ I will set up one shepherd over them, even my servant David: he shall feed them” (Ezekiel 34:23; cf. 37:24). The phrase “ one shepherd” is also found in Ecclesiastes 12:11, where it refers to God as the one source of wisdom. Jn., in the next chapter, expresses the thought that the Death of Jesus had for its purpose the gathering into one of the scattered children of God: ἵνατὰτέκνατοῦθεοῦτὰδιεσκορπισμένασυναγάγῃεἰςἕν (11:52). In 10:16 Jesus is to “ lead” the Gentile members of His flock: in 11:52 He is to bring them together . 17. διὰτοῦτο … ὅτι . See on 5:16 for this favourite Johannine construction, διὰτοῦτο referring to what follows. The meaning here is that God’ s love for Jesus is drawn out by His voluntary sacrifice of His life in order that He may resume it after the Passion for the benefit of man. The same idea is found in Paul: “ Wherefore God also highly exalted Him” (Philippians 2:9). See also Hebrews 2:9; and cf. Isaiah 53:12 μεὁπατήρ . So א BDLΘ ; the rec. has ὁπατήρμε . μεὁπατήρἀγαπᾷ . Jn. generally uses ἀγαπᾶν of the mutual love of the Father and the Son (see on 3:16), but at 5:20 we find ὁπατὴρφιλεῖτὸνυἱόν . See also on 3:35, 21:17, as to the alleged distinction in usage between ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν , a distinction which is not observed in the Fourth Gospel. ὅτιἐγὼτίθημιτὴνψυχήνμου , sc. as a good shepherd does for his sheep (see on v. 11 for the phrase). The self-sacrificing love of Jesus for man draws out the love of the Father to Him. Love evokes love. ἵναπάλινλάβωαὐτήν . ἵνα must be given its full telic force. It was in order that He might resume His Life, glorified through suffering, that Jesus submitted Himself to death. Death was the inevitable prelude to the power of His Resurrection Life. It was only after He had been “ lifted up” on the cross that He could draw all men to Himself (12:32). The Spirit could not come until after the Passion (7:39, where see note). The purpose of the Passion was not only to exhibit His unselfish love; it was in order that He might resume His life, now enriched with quickening power as never before. 18. οὐδεὶςἦρεναὐτὴνἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ . א *B read ἦρεν , while the easier reading of the rec. text (א cADWΘ latt.) is αἴρει If the aorist ἦρεν is adopted, “ no one took it from me,” Jn. is representing Jesus as speaking sub specie œ ternitatis. The issue is so certain that He speaks of His death, which is still in the future, as if it were already past. Whether ἦρεν or αἴρει be read, it is the voluntariness of the Death of Jesus which is emphasised; cf. 18:6, Matthew 26:53. ἀλλ ʼ ἐγὼτίθημιαὐτὴνἀπ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦ . This clause is omitted by D, probably because of its apparent verbal inconsistency with 5:19 (cf. 5:30, 7:28, 8:28) οὐδύναταιὁυἱὸςποιεῖνἀφ ʼ ἑαυτοῦοὐδέν . But there is no real inconsistency. ἀπ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦ here does not mean without authority from the Father, for that authority is asserted in the next sentence. It only implies spontaneity, voluntariness, in the use of the authority which Jesus has received from the Father, and in the obeying of the Father’ s commandment. See on 5:19. ἐξουσίανἔχωθεῖναιαὐτήν . For ἐξουσία , “ authority” as distinct from “ power,” in Jn., see on 1:12. The authority which Jesus claimed from the Father was, first, the authority to lay down His life spontaneously (which no one has unless he is assured that his death will directly serve the Divine purposes); and, secondly, the authority to resume it again. That He had been given this latter ἐξουσία is in accordance with the consistent teaching of the N.T. writers that it is God the Father who was the Agent of the Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is not represented as raising Himself from the dead. See on 2:19. ταύτηντὴνἐντολήνκτλ . This was the Father’ s commandment, viz. that He should die and rise again. See further on 12:49 for the Father’ s ἐντολή addressed to Christ. This Johannine expression is recalled in Hermas (Sim. v. vi. 3), δοῦςαὐτοῖςτὸννόμονὃνἔλαβεπαρὰτοῦπατρὸςαὐτοῦ . 10:19. The sequence of ideas brings vv. 19-29 into direct connexion with c. 9 rather than with 10:1-18, and they are printed accordingly at this point. See Introd., p. xxiv, for some considerations which favour the order 9:41, 10:19-29, 10:1-18, 10:30ff. Diversity of Opinion About Jesus (vv. 19-22) σχίσμα . A division of opinion had appeared before among the crowd (7:43), but this was among the Jewish critics of Jesus, the Pharisees, who were not all of one mind about Him. πάλιν refers back to the σχίσμα of 9:16, which had originated in the cure of the blind man, and which is still apparent. 20. δαιμόνιονἔχει . This was an easy way of accounting for the strangeness of the teaching of Jesus, and we have had it before 7:20, 8:48; cf. Wisd. 5:4, and see Introd., p. clxxvii. μαίνεται . This verb occurs only here in Jn. τίαὐτοῦἀκούετε ; “ Why do you heed Him?” ἀκούειν with the gen. always indicating in Jn. a hearing with attention and appreciation (see on 3:8). The question betrays a certain uneasiness on the part of the questioners. 21. Others were less swayed by prejudice. “ These are not the words of one possessed with a devil.” δαιμονίζεσθαι is a familiar verb in Mk. and Mt., but it occurs only here in Jn., who prefers δαιμόνιονἔχειν . “ Can a devil open the eyes of blind people?” Mt. represents the Pharisees as admitting the possibility of miracles wrought by demoniac agency (Matthew 12:24), but this idea does not appear in Jn. To open the eyes of the blind is a Divine prerogative (Psalms 146:8). ἀνοῖξαι , א BLWΘ fam. 13; the rec. has ἀνοίγειν . The Feast of the Dedication: Jesus Admits that He is Messiah, of Which His Words Should Have Been Sufficient Proof (vv. 22-25) 22. ἐγένετοτότετὰἐνκαίνιαἐντοῖςἹεροσολύμοις . τότε is read by BLW, but it has been replaced by δέ in א ADΘ and the rec. text. τότε is not common in Jn., and indicates here that some time had elapsed since the last date mentioned, viz. the Feast of Tabernacles (7:37). Chapters 8 and 9 describe a period of continual controversy with the Pharisees, which was brought to a head by the healing of the blind man and the claims subsequently made by Jesus. The Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated about the month of October, and it was now December. Jn. is forward to give dates when he can (see Introd., p. cii). The Feast of the Dedication was instituted by Judas Maccabæ us to commemorate the purification of the Temple from the pollutions of Antiochus Epiphanes by the dedication of a new altar (1 Macc. 4:36, 59, 2 Macc. 10:5, 6), and was kept at the winter solstice (Chislev, 25); and during the following week Josephus notes that it was customary to light the lamps on the “ candlestick” as a mark of rejoicing, and that the Feast was sometimes called τὰφῶτα (Antt. XII. vii. 6). The ceremonial was similar to that of Tabernacles (2 Macc. 10:6), the idea of light being conspicuous in both festivals. Hence the words “ I am the Light of the World” (8:12, 9:5) would have been equally illustrated by the ritual of Tabernacles or of Dedication. It was not a matter of obligation to attend at Jerusalem for the Feast of τὰἐνκαίνια , which might be observed elsewhere; and Jesus is not represented by Jn. as “ going up” to Jerusalem for it. It happened that the season of the Dedication came on while He was there, and, as Jn. notes, it was winter. Ἱεροσολύμοις . ABLWΘ prefix τοῖς , which א DΓΔ omit. Jn. usually omits the article before Ἱεροσόλυμα (see on 2:23; and cf. 1:19). χειμὼνἦν . The rec. prefixes καί , but om. א BDLWΘ . 23. “ It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the Temple, in Solomon’ s porch.” That is, He was giving His teaching under shelter, because of the severity of the season, in the eastern cloister of the Temple precincts (for τὸἱερόν , the Temple enclosure, see on 2:14). This vivid touch suggests that the writer is thoroughly familiar with the place and the conditions under which instruction was given there. At the time when the Fourth Gospel was written, the Temple had been for some years in ruins; but the note of time and circumstance is easily explicable, if we have here the reminiscence of an eye-witness of the scene. ἡστοὰτοῦΣολομῶνος is mentioned again, Acts 3:11, Acts 5:12. 24. ἐκύκλωσανοὖναὐτὸνοἱἸουδαῖοι . “ The Jews (see on 1:19) surrounded Him,” sc. that they might settle the question as to His claims. ἕωςπότετὴνψυχὴνἡμῶναἴρεις ; “ How long dost thou hold us in suspense?” This rendering of the R. V. is probably accurate, although no exact parallel for ψυχὴναἴρειν in this sense has been produced. We have the phrase at Psalms 25:1, Psalms 86:4, meaning “ lift up my soul,” and so Josephus uses it (Antt. III. ii. 3). Here it is, “ How long do you excite our spirits,” i.e. arouse our expectations?— in other words, keep us in suspense. The expression is idiomatic Greek, and has survived in modern Greek: ὡςπότεθὰμᾶςβγάζειςτὴνψυχήν , “ How long will you plague us?” 1 εἰσὺεἶὁΧριστόςκτλ . “ If thou be the Christ, etc.,” σύ being emphatic, “ If you are really the Christ.” εἰπὸνἡμῖνπαρρησίᾳ . Cf. Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:67; and for παρρησίᾳ , see on 7:4. 25. “ Art thou the Christ?” is one of those questions which cannot be answered by a direct “ Yes” or “ No,” if misunderstanding is to be avoided. If He had said “ Yes,” they would have assumed that He claimed to be the Messiah of Jewish patriotic expectation; and this He was not. But He could not say “ No” without disavowing His mission. So He answers by saying (1) that He had told them already, and (2) that His works sufficiently exhibit Him as the Anointed of God. א *D omit αὐτοῖς , but ins. א cABLWΘ B omits ὁ before Ἰησοῦς , as it frequently does. εἶπονὑμῖν (see on 6:36, 11:40). The only open avowal by Jesus of His Messiahship recorded by Jn. before this point in the narrative is at 4:26, and this was addressed, not to the Jews but to the Samaritan woman. But He had told them indirectly, and more than once (e.g. 5:39, 8:24, 56, 9:37; cf. 2:16); if their thoughts had been in tune with His, they would have understood. καὶοὐπιστεύετε , “ and yet (note καί for καίτοι or ἀλλά ; see on 1:10) you do not believe,” πιστεύειν being used absolutely; see on 1:7. The reason for their unbelief is explained in v. 26. τὰἔργα . For ἔργα used of the “ works” of Christ, see on 5:20. The place of “ signs” as generating faith in Christ has already been discussed (see on 2:11); here He speaks, as at 5:36, of the value of His “ works” as “ witnessing” to His claims, which is the same thing put into different words. His works bear witness as to the kind of Messiah which He is. For the idea of “ witness” in Jn., see Introd., p. xcii. τὰἔργαἃἐγὼ (emphatic) ποιῶἐντῷὀνόματιτοῦπατρόςμου . For the phrase “ the Name of my Father,” see on 5:43. The works of Jesus were done, not only as the ambassador of the Father and sent by Him (see on 3:17), but as by one to whom the “ Name,” that is the providential power of the Father, had been given (see on 17:11, and cf. 14:26). There is no special reference to the invocation of the Name of God comparable with the invocation of names of power common in Gnostic magic. In the Fourth Gospel the ἔργα of Christ are the ἔργα of the Father (cf. v. 37). ταῦτα , the subject of the sentence, repeated for the sake of emphasis; see on 6:46. The Jews Do Not Believe in Jesus, Because They are Not of His Flock. He is Their True Shepherd, Would They But Recognise It; Other Shepherds are False Guides (vv. 26-29, 1-6) 26 ff. In our arrangement of the text we have at v. 26 the first appearance in Jn. of the image of Jesus as the Shepherd, and of His followers as His sheep. The image is introduced without any explanation, but it is apparent from the Synoptic Gospels that it was one which Jesus often used, and which must have been familiar to His disciples. He called them His “ little flock” (Luke 12:32); and He declared His mission to be primarily addressed to “ the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:6, Matthew 15:24). One of the most touching of His parables is that in which He compared Himself with a shepherd seeking a lost and strayed sheep, while the rest of his flock are left temporarily by themselves (Matthew 18:12, Luke 15:4). The wandering crowds move His pity, because they are as “ sheep without a shepherd” (Mark 6:34, Matthew 9:36). He told His disciples, in words from Zechariah, that when their Shepherd was smitten, they would be like sheep scattered abroad (Mark 14:27, Matthew 26:31). This was one of the illustrations by which Jesus was accustomed to describe His own ministry; and the apostolic writers speak of Him in the next generation as the “ Shepherd of souls” (1 Peter 2:25), “ the great Shepherd of the sheep” (Hebrews 13:20), without adding any comment or explanation. This imagery, natural to a pastoral people, was already familiar to the Jews. In the Psalms, Yahweh is the Shepherd of His people (Psalms 23:1, 77:20, 79:13, 80:1, 95:7, 100:3; cf. Ezekiel 34:12-16). And it is particularly to be observed that Messiah is spoken of in the O.T. as a Shepherd. Micah (5:4) and Isaiah (40:11) both speak of the future Deliverer as one who will feed His flock; and in the Psalms of Solomon (xvii. 45) the same picture is found of the Messianic king tending the flock of Yahweh. Cf. 2 Ezr 2:34. This idea of the Messiah as Shepherd is developed in the verses which follow here. The sequence of thought in vv. 26-29, 1-18, must now be set out. In v. 24, the Jews ask Jesus for a plain answer to the question, “ Art thou the Messiah?” In the note on v. 25 it has been pointed out that an answer “ Yes” or “ No” might have been misleading. Jesus first replies that He has in effect, told them already, and then that His “ works should be a sufficient witness. He now goes on to give a fuller answer. The reason why the Jews did not realise at once that He was the Messiah was that they were not His true “ sheep.” Were they His sheep, they would recognise His voice as that of their Shepherd, and would follow Him unhesitatingly (v. 27). He it is indeed who gives His sheep eternal safety, and no one can snatch them out of His hand, or out of the hand of God who gave them to Him (v. 28). They are “ the sheep of His hand,” as the Psalmist has it (Psalms 95:7). It ought to be possible always to recognise a true shepherd. He comes into the fold through the door, and does not climb over the wall, as a thief would do (v. 1). The porter opens the door to him, and the sheep recognise his voice: he calls them by name, and leads them forth (v. 3). He leads and they follow, recognising his voice (v. 4), while they would run from that of a stranger (v. 5). But the Jews did not understand what bearing this allegory had on the question they had asked, sc. “ Art thou the Messiah?” In particular, they cannot perceive what or where is the door into the fold by which the true shepherd enters. So Jesus explains this. “ I am the Door,” He says (v. 7). Accordingly all claiming to be your Messianic shepherds who did not pass through this Door are thieves and robbers (v. 8), as is further established by the fact that the sheep of Israel did not attend to them (v. 8). “ I am the Door,” and not only for the shepherds, but for the sheep. I am the Door for the shepherds because I am the Door for the sheep. It is only through me that you can enter the fold of safety, and be led out into good pastures (v. 9). The thieves and robbers come only to destroy and kill. I am come to give life abundantly (v. 10). And then the main theme is resumed, the metaphor of the Door having been explained. I am the Good Shepherd, who gives His life for the sheep, unlike the hireling who runs away when there is danger (vv. 11-13). I know my sheep, and they know me (just as the Father knows me and I know Him), vv. 14, 15. I have other sheep besides those of the Flock of Israel: them also I must lead, and they too shall hear my voice. So shall there be One Flock and One Shepherd (v. 16). The Father loves me, because I am thus laying down my life, to take it up again (v. 17). My death is voluntary. But the Father knows and approves. Indeed this is His commandment (v. 18). The fact is, that I and my Father are One (v. 30). 26. ἀλλὰὑμε͂ιςοὐπιστεύετε , ὅτιοὐκἐστέκτλ . So א BDLWΘ , but the rec. has οὐγὰρἐστέ . The thought is the same as that at 8:47, where see the note. Those who are not of the flock of Christ have no faith. This is natural, for faith, in the Fourth Gospel, is born of a certain spiritual affinity. The rec. adds at the end of the verse καθὼςεἶπονὑμῖν , with AD; but these words are not found in א BLWΘ , and cannot be regarded as part of the true text. If genuine, they must refer to something that has preceded, and cannot be associated with what follows (Tatian links them with v. 27). It is not easy to find any previous saying of Jesus in Jn., to which καθὼςεἶπονὑμῖν could be referred at this point, if the words were genuine, other than such passages as 8:47 mentioned above (cf. 6:36, 11:40, 14:2). Even if the traditional arrangement of the text be followed, there is nothing in vv. 1-18 which says expressly that those who are not of Christ’ s flock have no faith. Probably καθὼςεἶπονὑμῖν is the interpolation of a scribe working on the displaced text, who wished to connect τὰπρόβατατὰἐμά of vv. 26, 27, with those of whom (as he supposed) vv. 1-18 had already told. 27. τὰπρόβατατὰἐμὰτῆςφωνῆςμουἀκούουσιν , sc. hear with obedient attention. Cf. vv. 3, 16; and see on 3:8. The rec. has ἀκούει (from v. 3), but א BLWΘ give ἀκούουσιν (cf. v. 16). So we have here the plural ἀκολουθοῦσιν , while at v. 4 we have ἀκολουθεῖ . The sheep, in Eastern lands, follow the shepherd, who always goes before and leads. Cf. Ignatius, Philad. 2, ὅπουδὲὁποιμήνἐστιν , ἐκεῖὡςπρόβαταἀκολουθεῖτε . κἀγὼγινώσκωαὐτά . Cf. v. 14. 28. κἀγὼδίδωμιαὐτοῖςζωὴναἰώνιον . (This is the order of the words in א BL.) This was the gift of Jesus to His sheep, i.e. to His faithful disciples, as promised 6:27, 40. Cf. 1 John 2:25, 1 John 5:11. For ζωὴαἰώνιος , see on 3:15, 4:14 above. καὶοὐμὴἀπόλωνταιεἰςτὸναἰῶνα . These sheep of His will not be lost finally. See on 3:16; and cf. 6:39, 17:12, 18:9. The words recall the Synoptic parable of the lost sheep rescued by the Shepherd. καὶοὐχἁρπάσειτιςαὐτὰἐκτῆςχειρόςμου . This had already been promised by Jesus (6:37, 39). For ἁρπάζειν in a similar sense, cf. v. 12; the verb has occurred before at 6:15. 29. ὁπατήρμουὃςδέδωκένμοιπάντωνμείζωνἐστίν . The textual variants are puzzling. For ὅς (AB2ΓΔΘ syrr. sah.), א B*LW latt. have ὅ ; and for μείζων (א DLΓΔ W Syr. sin. sah.), ABΘ latt. have μεῖζον . Thus the weight of MS. authority favours the reading ὃ … μεῖζον . The Vulgate, following the O.L., clearly supports this: “ pater meus, quod dedit mihi maius omnibus est.” But the meaning then must be: “ As for my Father, that which He has given me (i.e. my flock of sheep) is greater than all.” This is quite unsuited to the context, as not only here, but in vv. 1-18, the main thought is of the weakness of the sheep and their dependence on the Shepherd’ s strength. To introduce at this point the idea of the Church as a mighty organisation would be wholly irrelevant, and the reading ὃ … μεῖζον is to be rejected. ὁπατήρμου must be the subject of ἐστίν , and ὅς must be preferred to ὅ . The neuter singular is used several times in Jn. to denote the sum-total of those who have been given by the Father to the Son; and probably through reminiscence of such phrases as πᾶνὃδέδωκένμοι (6:39, and see note on 6:37) and πᾶνὃδέδωκαςαὐτῷ (17:2), ὅ has got into the text at this point. μείζων has then been changed to μεῖζον , so as to agree with ὅ . Burney1 found in the aberrant ὃ … μεῖζον an illustration of his theory that in the Fourth Gospel we have to do with a translation from an Aramaic source, ר ַ ב ּ ָ א … ד ּ ְ being rendered ὃ … μεῖζον , instead of ὃς … μείζων . This ingenious argument is, however, not necessary, as the variants can be explained otherwise. The rendering, then, of the text which we adopt is simple: “ My Father, who gave (them) to me, is greater than all things,” i.e. is all-powerful. For the “ giving” by the Father to the Son, see on 3:35; and cf. 17:11. καὶοὐδεὶςδύναταιἁρπάζεινἐκτῆςχειρὸςτοῦπατρός . Jesus has already given the assurance that “ no one will snatch His sheep away from Him.” They are the sheep which His all-powerful Father has given to Him, and He adds (as self-evident) that “ no one can snatch them away from the Father.” See Deuteronomy 32:39 οὐκἔστινὃςἐξελεῖταιἐκτῶνχειρῶνμου ; and cf. Isaiah 49:2, Isaiah 51:16. This is at the heart of the comfortable saying of Wisd. 3:1 δικαίωνδὲψυχαὶἐνχειρὶθεοῦ . The allegory of the Sheep and the Shepherd follows at this point. No one can snatch the sheep of Jesus from His safe-keeping, and He proceeds to explain with emphasis that it is only with Him that safety is assured (see Introd., p. xxiv). 30. ἐγὼκαὶὁπατὴρἕνἐσμεν . As has been shown (Introd., p. xxv), this great utterance seems to have been made in explanation of v. 18, upon which it immediately follows in our arrangement of the text. None the less, it would not be out of place if it followed on v. 29, in the traditional order. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ The Sickness of Lazarus, and the Discussion of It by Jesus and His Disciples (11:1-16) 11:1. ἦνδέτιςἀσθενῶν . For the constr. of ἦν with a participle, cf. 3:23, 18:25, and see note on 1:28. The name Lazarus, ל ע ז ר , is a shortened form of Eleazar, א ל ע ז ר , and is found again in the N.T. only in the parable of Luk_16. Bethany, which is about 2 miles from Jerusalem, is now called El˒ Azariyeh, from the tradition of the miracle narrated here. Lazarus is described as ἀπὸβηθανίας , ἐκτῆςκώμηςΜαρίαςκαὶΜάρθας . So Philip is described as ἀπὸβηθσαϊδά , ἐκτῆςπόλεωςἈνδρεοῦκαὶΠέτρου (1:44, where see note). It has been suggested that we ought to distinguish “ Bethany” from “ the village of Mary and Martha,” and place the latter (see Luke 10:38) in Galilee. But Lk. does not always arrange the incidents he narrates in such strict order that we can be sure either of the locality or the time at which a given incident is to be placed. It can hardly be doubted (cf. 12:1) that Lazarus, Mary, and Martha lived at Bethany together. The attempt to distinguish between ἀπό and ἐκ , so as to regard ἀπὸΒηθανίας as indicating domicile, while ἐκτῆςκώμηςκτλ . would indicate place of origin (see Abbott, Diat. 2289 f.), is not only without corroborative evidence as to such a use of the two prepositions, but would make the opening sentence of this chapter very clumsy. See on 1:44. Mary is mentioned before Martha, while elsewhere (John 11:19, Luke 10:38) Martha, as the mistress of their house, is named before Mary. At the time the Fourth Gospel was written, Mary was the more prominent of the two in Christian tradition, as is recorded in Mk. (14:9): “ Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.” 2. This verse seems to be an explanatory gloss added by an editor. There are two non-Johannine touches of style. The phrase τὸνκύριον (see on 4:1) appears instead of Jn.’ s usual τὸνἸησοῦν . And, secondly, the characteristically Johannine ἦνἀσθενῶν (v. 1) is altered to the more classical ἠσθένει . The story by which Mary is identified is that of her anointing Jesus, and wiping His feet with her hair, which Jn. tells in the next chapter. But this story is also told of the sinful woman of Luk 7:38. Christian readers of the next generation would not be helped by an explanatory note which might equally be applied to two distinct women; and the conclusion is inevitable that Jn. (or his editor) regarded Mary of Bethany as the same person who is described by Lk. as ἁμαρτωλός .1 The easiest way to identify her for the reader is to recall the singular gesture by which she was best known, and which she had enacted not once only, but twice. She was the best-known member of her family, and the note recalls that it was her brother, Lazarus, who was sick. It is worth observing, in view of the discrepancy between Mark 14:3 and John 12:3, as to whether it was the head or the feet of Jesus that Mary anointed, that this note evades the difficulty by saying simply “ anointed the Lord.” ἀλείφειν , μύρον , ἐκμάσσειν , θρίξ , are words common to this passage with both Luke 7:38 and John 12:3; and the reference is probably to both incidents. ἐκμάσσειν is only found again in N.T. at 13:5, and there, as in Luk_7, Joh_12, of wiping feet. Μαριάμ , rather than Μαρία , seems to be the best-attested spelling of Mary’ s name throughout Jn., although here א ADLWΘ have Μαρία , B 33 alone supporting Μαριάμ .2 This provides another reason for suspecting v. 2 to be non- Johannine. Cf., however, v. 20, 12:3; and see 19:25. 3. ἀπέστειλανοὖναἱἀδελφαὶπρὸςαὐτόν . “ So the sisters sent to Him,” i.e. to Jesus; D b c e support πρὸςτὸνἸησοῦν . κύριε . It is thus that the sisters address Jesus throughout (vv. 21, 27, 32, 34, 39), although Martha speaks to Mary of Jesus as ὁδιδάσκαλος (v. 28), and the disciples address Him as Rabbi (v. 8). See the note on 1:38; and cf. 4:1, 13:13. ἴδε : a favourite word with Jn. (see on 1:29). ὃνφιλεῖςἀσθενεῖ , “ he whom thou lovest is sick.” They feel it unnecessary to send any explicit invitation to Jesus to come and heal their brother: “ Sufficit ut noueris. Non enim amas et deseris” (Augustine). ὃνφιλεῖς . So v. 36 ἴδε , πῶςἐφίλειαὐτόν (cf. 20:2). But at v. 5 we have ἠγάπαὁἸησοῦς … τὸνΛάζαρον . There is no real distinction in meaning between the two verbs. Cf. 3:35, 5:20, and note on 21:17. See Introd., p. xxxvii n. 4. αὕτηἡἀσθένειαοὐκἔστινπρὸςθάνατον . This was the comment of Jesus when the tidings of Lazarus’ illness reached Him. It was not a direct reply to the sisters’ message, and we do not know if it was reported to them (v. 40). The constr. πρὸςθάνατον is unusual, occurring again in the N.T. only at 1 John 5:16 ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον , and in the LXX at 4 Macc. 14:4, 17:1, while εἰςθάνατον is common . If a distinction is to be drawn between the two constructions, perhaps “ this sickness is not πρὸςθάνατον ” is more reassuring than “ this sickness is not εἰςθάνατον .” The latter would mean that the sickness would not have death as its final issue; the former ought to mean that the sick person is not in danger at all, that his sickness is not “ dangerous,” as we would put it. Consequently the meaning that the disciples inevitably took from the words of Jesus was that Lazarus was not dead at the time of speaking, and further that Jesus was convinced he would recover. No doubt, the evangelist means his readers to understand that this was not the real meaning of Jesus’ words (see v. 11). But it is strange that he should translate them by using πρός instead of εἰς ; for, in fact, Lazarus’ sickness was πρὸςθάνατον , although it might plausibly be argued that it was not εἰςθάνατον , as death was not the final issue. Jesus adds that this illness had come upon Lazarus ὑπὲρτῆςδόξηςτοῦθεοῦ , “ on behalf of God’ s glory,” i.e. in order that the glory and power of God might be revealed. The attempt to give ὑπέρ a semi-sacrificial sense here, as if the sickness were a voluntary offering by Lazarus, is fanciful ὑπέρ is used exactly as in 1:30, 10:11, “ on behalf of.” The issue of the sickness and death of Lazarus was the revelation of the glory of God, as exhibited in his miraculous resuscitation. The miracle was more than a “ wonder” ; it was a “ sign” of ἡδόξατοῦθεοῦ . And so Martha was reminded, when it was over, that she had been told that she would see this glory (v. 40). The glory of God was exhibited through the person and works of Jesus; this sickness, with its issue, had for its purpose ἵναδοξασθῇὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , that He might be honoured by this revelation of His Father . We have seen (on 7:39) that the supreme “ glorification” of Jesus is identified by Jn. with the Passion and its sequel, and it has been thought by some that this too is the reference in the present passage. If so, ἵναδοξασθῇὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ would mean here that the final cause of Lazarus’ sickness was that it might lead up to the Passion by making public the power of Jesus and thereby bringing the hostility of his enemies to a crisis (Westcott). But this is over subtle. The true parallel to 11:4b Isaiah 8:54. This revelation of “ the glory of God” was that the Son might be honoured or “ glorified” by so signal a mark of His Father’ s favour as the power to raise a dead man would exhibit. As in the O.T., “ the glory of God” is the visible manifestation of His presence. See also on 9:3, 10:25, 14:13; and cf. 17:1. For the title “ the Son of God,” see on 1:34 and 5:25. Only here and at 5:25, 10:36 is Jesus said to have used this title as descriptive of Himself. 5. Moffatt transposes this verse, placing it after the parenthetical v. 2; and this is the most natural position for it, as it then explains in proper sequence why it was that the sisters sent to Jesus the news that Lazarus was ill. Jesus was their friend, and they hoped that He would come and heal their sick brother. In the traditional position of v. 5, it seems to suggest as the reason why Jesus did not immediately leave Peræ a and start for the sick man’ s house, that because He loved the household at Bethany, He stayed for two days longer where He was. That is, no doubt, a possible explanation of His action or delay, sc. that because He loved them, He wished to exhibit in their case the greatness of His power and the reach of His compassion. But, if that were so, He was content to leave the sisters in the agony of grief for three or four days, in order that the “ glory of God” might be more signally vindicated in the end. There is no textual authority for Moffatt’ s transposition of the text, and I have left v. 5 in its traditional position. It is possible, however, that v. 5 is an explanatory gloss added by an editor which has got into the wrong place (see 4:44 for a like case of displacement). Two small points suggest that v. 5 is not from the pen of the author of vv. 1, 3. In v. 1 we have Mary and her sister Martha, while in v. 5 we have the more usual order, Martha and her sister,1 a sudden change (but cf. v. 19). Again, the verb twice used in this chapter for the affection which Jesus had for Lazarus is φιλεῖν (vv. 3, 36), while in v. 5 it is ἀγαπᾶν . We must not, indeed, sharply distinguish these verbs (see on 21:17); but we should expect the same verb to be used in v. 3 and v. 5. It is possible that v. 5 is a non-Johannine gloss, which ought to be placed where Moffatt places it, after v. 2. 6. ὡςοὖνἤκουσενκτλ . οὖν is resumptive, and looks back to v. 4, “ And so, when He heard, etc.” It was because of His confidence that the sickness was not πρὸςθάνατον , and that the issue of it would be for the glory of God, that He did not hasten to the bedside of His friend. For ὡςοὖν , see on 4:40. ὅτι is recitantis: what the messenger from Bethany had said was ἀσθενεῖ . τότεμὲνἔμεινενκτλ . He remained where He was for two days. Jn. consistently represents Jesus as never being in haste. He always knew when the time to move had come (cf. 2:4, 7:6, 8). Jn.’ s tendency to indicate the time between one event and another has been already mentioned (see Introd., p. cii). He notes here that Jesus remained in His Peræ an retreat for two days (cf. 4:40) after the condition of Lazarus had been reported. From Bethany or Bethabara beyond Jordan (see on 1:28), whatever its exact situation, it would be a long and rough day’ s walk to Bethany near Jerusalem, and the journey may well have occupied part of a second day. When Jesus reached the tomb, Lazarus had been dead more than three days (v. 39). Jn. may intend to convey that the patient was dead at the time that the message reached Jesus; but, on the other hand, Martha’ s words in v. 21 suggest that she thought that if Jesus had started at once, He would have arrived while Lazarus was yet alive. 7. ἔπειτα (only here in Jn.) μετὰτοῦτο , i.e. deinde postea. μετὰτοῦτο implies a short interval: cf. v. 11 and 2:12, 19:28. See Introd., p. cviii. After μαθηταῖς , ADΓΔ add αὐτοῦ , but א BLWΘ omit. For οἱμαθηταί used absolutely, see on 2:2; and cf. vv. 8, 12, 54. ἄγωμεν . This intransitive form occurs again 11:15, 16 and 14:31 (so Mark 14:42, Matthew 26:46): “ let us go.” So in Homer we have ἄγε used intransitively “ go.” εἰςτὴνἸουδαίανπάλιν , “ back to Judæ a,” whence they had come to avoid the danger caused by the hostility of the Jews (10:39, 40). 8. Ῥαββεί . So the disciples called Him. See on 1:38 for the use of this title in Jn. νῦνκτλ ., sc. “ quite recently (10:31, 39), the Jews (see on 1:19) were seeking to stone Thee” : cf. 7:1, 8:59. καὶπάλινὑπάγειςἐκεῖ ; “ and are you going back there?” For the Johannine use of ὑπάγειν , see on 7:33. Probably their apprehension of danger was on their own account, as well as on that of their Master. 9. ἀπεκρίθηἸησοῦς . See on 1:29 for the omission of the article before Ἰησοῦς in this phrase. οὐχὶδώδεκαὧραίεἰσιντῆςἡμέρας ; “ Are there not twelve hours in the day?” That is, Jesus tells them that their anxiety is premature. The hour of danger had not yet come. Jesus never acted before the appropriate time (see on v. 6). This saying is the counterpart of 9:4. There Jesus had said that work must be done during the day, and that it could not be postponed until night without failure, and that this law applied to Him as well as to mankind at large. He implied that but a short time remained to Him. But in this passage the thought is different. The hour of His Passion was near, but it had not yet arrived. There was no need for undue haste. The “ twelve hours” of His day were not yet exhausted. For the twelve hours of the Jewish day, see on 1:39. ἐάντιςπεριπατῇἐντῇἡμέρᾳκτλ . We have already had the contrast between walking in the light and walking in darkness (see note on 8:12 for its significance). Here this solemn aphorism is put in connexion with what goes before. The disciples were apprehensive. But Jesus assured them that the night had not yet come. So long as men walk in the light of day they are safe, but it is the night that is the time of hazard. Here, however, a mystical meaning lurks behind the literal meaning of the words employed. It is literally true that a man walking in the daytime does not stumble, because he sees τὸφῶςτοῦκόσμουτούτου , that is, the sun (see for the expression ὁκόσμοςοὗτος on 9:39). But Jesus had already spoken of Himself as the Light of the World (see on 8:12), and the suggestion is the same as in the former passage, sc. that he who walks by the light that Jesus gives does not walk in darkness. The answer of Jesus to the disciples, then, in these verses implies first that there is no danger yet, for the day— His day— is not yet over; and suggests also that danger need not be dreaded by those who follow Him on His appointed way. 10. ἐὰνδέτιςπεριπατῇἐντῇνυκτίκτλ . In this second clause it is the mystical and not the literal sense which is most clearly expressed. For we should expect v. 10 to run, “ If any one walk in the night, he stumbles because he has no light,” or, as it is expressed at 12:35 (a parallel passage), “ He that walketh in the darkness knoweth not whither he goeth” (cf. 1 John 2:11). But instead we have ὅτιτὸφῶςοὐκἔστινἐναὐτῷ (not ἐναὐτῇ , which D reads in an attempt to simplify the passage). This departs from the literal application of the illustration of a guiding light, and directs the thought of the reader to the idea of spiritual enlightenment. Cf. 8:12 and Matthew 6:23. With the picture of one stumbling in the darkness, cf. Jeremiah 13:16. 11. ταῦταεἶπεν , i.e. vv. 9, 10, which but for this explicit statement might be treated as a comment of the evangelist (see on 3:16) rather than as words spoken by Jesus on this occasion. καὶμετὰτοῦτο . Some interval between vv. 8-10 and v. 11 is implied; see on v. 7 above. Λάζαροςὁφίλοςἡμῶν . Lazarus was the friend of the disciples, as well as of the Master; and it is implied that if Jesus ventured into Judæ a to visit him, they also ought to be ready to do so. Lazarus was within the circle of those whom Jesus called His “ friends” (see 15:14, Luke 12:4; and cf. v. 3 above). κεκοίμηται , “ has fallen asleep.” The natural interpretation of this verb would be that put upon it by the disciples, sc. that the sick man had fallen into a refreshing slumber. In ordinary Greek, as throughout the LXX, κοιμᾶσθαι is generally used in this, its primary, meaning. But in poetry it is sometimes used of the sleep of death, e.g. in Homer, Il. xi. 241; in Job 3:13, Job 3:14:12, Job 3:21:13, Job 3:26, Ezekiel 32:19, Ezekiel 32:20, Ezekiel 32:27, as well as in the oft-repeated phrase, “ he slept with his fathers.” Cf. also 2 Macc. 12:45. In the N.T. this euphemistic use is found 13 times, as against 3 occurrences of the verb in the sense of ordinary sleep (Matthew 28:13, Luke 22:45, Acts 12:6). Although this use was not original to Christianity, or even to Judaism, κοιμᾶσθαι (and κοιμητήριον ; see Moulton-Milligan, s.v.) came to be more frequently applied to the sleep of death after the Christian era than before. The verb does not occur again in Jn.; but its interpretation by the disciples here as indicating physical sleep was no stupid misunderstanding but natural, and almost inevitable, having regard to the circumstances. ἀλλὰπορεύομαιἵναἐξυπνίσωαὐτόν , “ but I am going to wake him up.” ἐξυπνίζω is a Hellenistic word, not occurring again in the N.T. We find it in the LXX (1 Kings 3:15), and may especially note Job 14:12, where, as here, it is associated with κοίμᾶσθαι , used of the sleep of death: ἄνθρωποςδὲκοιμηθεὶς … οὐκἐξυπνισθήσονταιἐξὕπνουαὐτῶν . 12. εἶπανοὖνοἱμαθηταὶαὐτῷ . So BC*Θ against the rec. οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ : א DW have αὐτῷοἱμαθηταί . κύριε . For this mode of address, see on 1:28 and 13:13. εἰκεκοίμηται , σωθήσεται , “ if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” They understood Jesus to mean that the sick man had fallen into a natural sleep— not the sleep of death. This was a favourable symptom, and suggested that Lazarus would get well. It puzzled them to think that Jesus would wish to wake him from health-giving sleep. No doubt, they were glad of another argument by which they might dissuade their Master from facing the dangers of Judæ a. The journey would be to no good purpose. σωθήσεται , “ he will get well.” For this use of σώζειν , see on 3:17. 13. εἰρήκειδὲὁἸησοῦςκτλ ., “ But Jesus had been speaking about his death.” This is one of those parenthetical comments which are so frequent in the Fourth Gospel (see Introd., p. xxxiv), the writer calling attention to a misunderstanding by the disciples of the words of Jesus. They thought that Jesus was using the word κοιμᾶσθαι of natural sleep, whereas he was really using it of death. ἐκεῖνοιδὲἔδοξανκτλ ., “ but they thought, etc.,” ἐκεῖνος being employed to mark distinctly the subject of the verb. It is often used by Jn. to make his point, just as an English writer may resort to italics for the sake of clearness (see on 1:8). κοίμησις does not occur again in the N.T. It is used euphemistically at Ecclus. 46:19, 48:13 of the sleep of death, but not elsewhere in the LXX in any sense. 14. τότεοὖνκτλ . “ At this point, Jesus said plainly, Lazarus died” ; He no longer spoke enigmatically to the disciples. For παρρησίᾳ , see on 7:4. 15. καὶχαίρωδι ʼ ὑμᾶς , ἵναπιστεύσητε , ὅτιοὐκἤμηνἐκεῖ , “ And I rejoice for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe.” The implication is that the recovery of Lazarus from death would be a more remarkable “ sign” than his recovery from a sick-bed would have been. The disciples were already “ believers,” or they would not have been “ disciples” ; but faith is always growing, if it be alive, and the Twelve knew that theirs was susceptible of increase (cf. Luke 17:5). Although His friend has died and the sisters are in grief, Jesus rejoices because of His confidence not only that Lazarus will be called back to life, but because this sign of power will increase the faith of His disciples, and promote the glory of God (v. 4). Abbott (Diat. 2099) translates, “ I am glad on account of you, that ye may believe, because I was not there,” which is, indeed, a possible rendering, but unnecessarily subtle. ἵναπιστεύσητε is, as it were, in parenthesis, explaining why Jesus was glad that He was not present when Lazarus was still alive. For πιστεύειν used absolutely, as here, the object of belief being left unexpressed, see on 1:7. Bengel notes that no one is said to have died in the presence of Jesus, and suggests that perhaps death was impossible where He was: “ Cum decoro divino pulchre congruit, quod praesente uitae duce nemo unquam legitur mortuus.” But we cannot infer from the narrative that Jn. means to hint at this. χαίρω is not elsewhere placed in the lips of Jesus, but He speaks of His joy at 15:11, 17:13; and at 4:36 we have ἵναὁσπείρωνὁμοῦχαίρῃκαὶὁθερίζων , where He refers to Himself as the Sower. In all these passages, it will be noticed that His rejoicing is connected with the fulfilment of His mission. So also at Luke 10:21 it is said of Him ἠγαλλιάσατοτῷΠνεύματιτῷἉγίῳ , because of the acceptance of His message by the Seventy, and of their success. And the rejoicing of the shepherd, when the lost sheep is found (Matthew 18:13, Luke 15:6), is, in like manner, drawn out by the happy issue of his labours. ἀλλὰἄγωμενπρὸςαὐτόν , “ but, anyway, let us go to him,” as He had said before ἄγωμενεἰςτὴνἸουδαίαν . The repetition of this invitation, even though Lazarus was now dead and a visit to his bedside for the purpose of healing him was now impossible, seems to have convinced the hesitating disciples that Jesus had some great purpose in view when He proposed to return to a place where He and they would be in danger. At all events, no further objection is raised, and the loyal outburst of Thomas, “ Let us also go, that we may die with Him,” is acted on by all. 16. ΘωμᾶςὁλεγόμενοςΔίδυμος . ת ּ ְ א ֹ ם is a “ twin” (found only in Genesis 25:24, Genesis 38:27, Son 4:5, Son 7:3, always in the plural, and always rendered by δίδυμα or δίδυμοι ), and of this Θωμᾶς is a transliteration. Three times in Jn. (cf. 20:24, 21:2) to this name the note is added ὁλεγόμενοςΔίδυμος , an appellation which is not found in the Synoptists. This suggests (see on 4:25) that the apostle was called “ Didymus” in Greek circles; if Jn. only meant to interpret Thomas, he would probably have written ὃἑρμηνεύεταιΔίδυμος (as at 1:42).1 The personal name of the apostle is given as Judas in the Acta Thomœ and elsewhere; and the attribution of this name to him led afterwards to the attempted identification of Thomas with “ Judas of James” and “ Judas the Lord’ s brother.” The character of Thomas comes out as clearly in the Fourth Gospel as does that of Nicodemus (see on 3:1). The notices of him here, at 14:5 and 20:24f., are remarkably consistent, one with the other, and reveal a man whose temper of mind we can thoroughly understand. Thomas always looks at the dark side of things, and is a pessimist by disposition, while entirely loyal to his convictions and ready to act on them at all cost. He is a man of independent mind who says what he thinks, and does not wait for the promptings of others. Here Thomas foresaw only too clearly that Jesus was going to His death, and he realised that to enter Judæ a as His disciple was to risk the same fate. But Jesus was his Master, and he would not draw back when he found that Jesus was resolved to go back to Judæ a. εἶπενοὖνΘωμᾶςκτλ ., “ Thomas thereupon said, Let us also go (for ἄγωμεν , see on v. 7) that we may die with Him.” This challenge was addressed to his “ fellow-disciples.” συνμαθηταί does not occur again in the N.T., but as used here it suggests the Twelve, of whom Thomas was one, rather than any outer circle of μαθηταί (see on 2:2). It is not implied that all of the Twelve were present during the retreat to Peræ a or at Bethany when Lazarus was recovered from the tomb; but συνμαθηταῖς suggests that the disciples who were with Jesus on this occasion were of the inner circle. It is probable that Peter was not among them. He is not mentioned once in Part II. of the Gospel, and there is no indication in Mk. (which is thought to depend on Peter’ s information) that Peter knew anything about this Jerusalem ministry. Probably the Galilæ an disciples were often at their homes when Jesus was in Judæ a or in Peræ a. If Peter had been present, we might have expected that he would take the lead2 in assuring Jesus that His disciples would not abandon Him, just as he was foremost when the danger was even nearer (13:37). From the Synoptists we should not have gathered that Thomas was one of the leaders of the apostolic company; but the notices of him in Jn. (see above; and also 21:2, where he is named immediately after Peter) indicate that he was prominent among them, so that the statement that he acted as spokesman for the rest on this occasion is not surprising. Jesus Goes to Bethany: His Conversation with Martha (vv. 17-27) 17. ἐλθὼνοὖνκτλ ., “ Jesus, then, having come, etc.” οὖν is resumptive, not causal. εὗρεναὐτὸντέσσαραςἤδηἡμέραςἔχοντακτλ . He found Lazarus had been already four days in the tomb. For the constr. ἡμέραςἔχειν , see on 5:5. ἤδη is om. by A*D, and its position varies in other MSS., but the weight of authority is in favour of its retention. For the “ four days,” see on v. 6 above; and cf. v. 39. The burial would have taken place as soon as possible after death (cf. Acts 5:6). Augustine (in loc.) finds allegory in the “ four days” : one day of death for original sin, one for violation of natural law, one for breaking the law of Moses, and one for transgressing the Gospel. This is no more, and no less, fantastic than the efforts of modern expositors to find allegory in Jn.’ s narrative. 18. Moffatt places vv. 18, 19, between v. 30 and v. 31, where they would fit very well. But there is no insuperable difficulty in their traditional position, and I do not venture to alter it. ἦνδὲΒηθανίακτλ . Jn. alone of the evangelists uses ἦν in this way (cf. 18:1, 19:41, and perhaps 6:10); Meyer suggested that it is employed by him thus instead of the present ἐστί because he is writing after the devastation of Jerusalem and its suburbs. But if (as we hold) his narrative reproduces the reminiscences of the aged apostle John, looking back on many years, ἦν is more natural than ἐστί , without assuming any allusion to the fall of Jerusalem. See on 5:2. The rec. inserts ἡ before Βηθανία , with א cACDLWΘ ; but א *B om. ἡ , as in v. 1. For the form τῶνἹεροσολύμων , see on 1:19. ὡςἀπὸσταδίωνδεκαπέντε , “ about fifteen furlongs.” Bethany is a little less than 2 miles from the city. The constr. of ἀπό with the genitive to indicate distance is not necessarily a Latinism, as, e.g., a millibus passuum duobus (Cæ sar, Bell. Gall. ii. 7). It occurs again at 21:8; cf. Revelation 14:20, and see Hermas, Vis. iv. 1, οὕτωγὰρἦνἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦὡςἀπὸσταδίου . 19. πολλοὶδέ . So א BCDLWΘ , as against the rec. καὶπολλοί ἐκτῶνἸουδαίων , i.e. of the citizens of Jerusalem. οἱἸουδαῖοι often represents in Jn. the Jews who were hostile to Jesus (see on 1:19, 5:10); but here that suggestion is not present. Jerusalem being so near (v. 18), it was natural that many friends from the city should come to condole with Martha and Mary on the death of their brother. Lightfoot gives (Hor. Hebr., in loc.) curious details about the ceremonial which was customary at these mournful gatherings. The first three days after death were kept with severity, the next four days with less strictness, the period of observance lasting for thirty days altogether. Cf. for the “ seven days of mourning for the dead” (Ecclus. 22:12). 1 Samuel 31:13, Job 2:13, Judith 16:24; and for the visits of neighbours to console, 2 Ezr 10:2. παραμυθεῖσθαι , “ to comfort,” is found in the Greek Bible only here, v. 31, 1 Thessalonians 2:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:14, and 2 Macc. 15:9. πρὸςτὴνΜάρθανκαὶΜαριάμ is the best-attested reading (א BC*L), but the article should be prefixed to both or to neither of the names. D has πρὸςΜάρθανκαὶΜαριάμ . Syr. sin. seems, on the other hand, to presuppose the article in both places, and reads “ went forth to Bethany that they might comfort Martha and Mary,” omitting “ concerning their brother.” See on v. 24 for Jn.’ s consistent use of ἡΜάρθα , ἡΜαριάμ . The rec. text, with AC3ΓΔΘ , has ἐληλύθεισανπρὸςτὰςπερὶΜάρθανκαὶΜαριάμ , which ought to mean “ came to the women of the household of Martha and Mary” ; but it can hardly be genuine. Perhaps τὰςπερί came in from [αὐ ]τὰςπερί in the next line. After ἀδελφοῦ ACΓΔ add αὐτῶν , but om. א BDLWΘ 20. The congruity of the characters of Martha and Mary, as suggested by what we read of them in Luke 10:38f., with what Jn. tells in this chapter about their demeanour is remarkable.1 Martha is the busy housewife who, as the mistress of the house, is the first to be told of the approach of Jesus (v. 20). She goes to meet Him, and expresses at once her own conviction and that of Mary (vv. 21, 32), that if He had been present, Lazarus would not have died. She is puzzled by the enigmatical words of hope which Jesus addresses to her (v. 23), and supposes that He is giving the usual orthodox consolation (v. 24). She does not understand what He then says (vv. 25, 26); but her faith in Him as the Messiah is strong, and of this she assures Him (v. 27), although she does not expect that He can do anything now to restore her brother. Then she goes to tell her sister that Jesus has arrived and is asking for her. Before Martha told her, Mary had not heard of the arrival of Jesus (v. 29): she was seated inside the house (v. 20) as a mourner, and it had been to her that the condolences of the friends who had come from Jerusalem were specially addressed (v. 45). But as soon as she learnt that Jesus had come, she got up hastily and left the house without acquainting the mourners of her purpose in going out (v. 29). Her friends thought that she was going to wail at the tomb (v. 30). When she met Jesus, she fell at His feet (unlike her more staid sister), greeting him with the same assurance that Martha had given (v. 32), but wailing unrestrainedly (v. 33). Her cries of grief seem to have affected the human heart of Jesus as the grave sorrow of Martha did not do (v. 33). But, as they proceed to the tomb, Martha is with them, and, practical woman as she is, demurs to its being opened (v. 39). Throughout, her figure is in sharp contrast with that of her more emotional sister. See further, Introd., p. clxxxv. ἡοὖνΜάρθαὡςἤκουσενὅτικτλ . She is the first to be told, as the mistress of the house. ὅτι is recitantis: what was said to her was Ἰησοῦςἔρχεται . The rec. has ὁἸης . but om. ὁ א ABCDW. See on 1:29. ὑπήντησεναὐτῷ , “ met Him,” but without any display of emotion such as Mary exhibited. She met Jesus before He entered the village (see v. 30). ἐντῷοἴκῳἐκαθέζετο , “ she was seated in the house” ; see on 4:6 for ἐκαθέζετο . It was customary for mourners to be seated when receiving the condolences of their friends; see Job 2:8, Job 2:13, and cf. Ezekiel 8:14. Sitting down was also a common posture for mourners among the Romans. It was adopted, e.g., by Cato after Pharsalia, and Varro after Cannæ (Plutarch, Cato, 56). Μαρία is attested by most authorities, but Θ 33 give Μαριάμ (see also 12:3), in accordance with the general usage of Jn. (see on v. 2). 21. εἶπενοὖν (οὖν being resumptive) ἡΜάρθαπρὸςἸησοῦν . Cf. 2:3 for the constr. λέγεινπρόςτινα . The rec., with AC2DLWΘ , inserts τόν before Ἰησοῦν , but om. א BC* See on 1:29. κύριε . See on v. 3. εἰἦςὧδεκτλ ., “ if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” Mary greets Jesus with the same words (v. 32). No doubt, Martha and Mary had said this to each other many times during the last four days. The greeting may imply a reproach, suggesting that if Jesus had started immediately after He heard of Lazarus’ illness, He would have kept him from death (see on v. 6). On the other hand, the sisters do not say “ if thou hadst come here,” but “ if thou hadst been here,” which may only imply wistful regret. ἀπέθανεν . So א BC*DLW, but AC3ΓΔ have ἐτεθνήκειΘ has τεθνήκει . 22. The rec. inserts ἀλλά before καὶνῦν : om. א BC. Jn. often uses καί adversatively (see on 1:10), and ἀλλά is not needed here.1 “ Even now (although my brother is dead) I know that whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give it thee.” This is a deeper confidence than that which recognises the efficacy of the prayers of any good man (see 9:31). Martha wistfully expresses faith in Jesus not only as her friend, but as the Son of God (v. 27). She understands, though dimly, that He stands in a special relation to God; and the repetition of ὁθεός at the end of the sentence is emphatic. Perhaps His remark in v. 4 had been reported to her. ὅσαἂναἰτήσῃτὸνθεόν . Martha used, however, a verb to describe the prayers of Jesus which (according to Jn.) Jesus never used of them. αἰτεῖν is often used in the Gospels of men’ s prayers to God, and Jesus uses it thus at John 14:13, John 15:16, John 16:23, but the word that He uses of His own prayers is ἐρωτᾶν . In Jn. (and in Jn. only) ἐρωτᾶν is used of prayer to God; and in the Gospel it is not generally used of the prayers of men, but of the prayers of Jesus (14:16, 16:26, 17:9, 15, 20). Too much, however, must not be made of this usage, for the distinction between αἰτεῖν and ἐρωτᾶν had almost disappeared in later Greek (cf. Acts 3:2, Acts 3:3), and at 1 John 5:16 ἐρωτᾶν is used of the prayer of Christians. See further on 16:23. It is remarkable that the words προσεύχεσθαι , παρακαλεῖν , and δεῖσθαι , which are all used elsewhere of prayer, do not occur in Jn. But Martha, although she uses a word about the prayers of Jesus which He never applies to them, is right in substance; and her confession is a true, if imperfect, statement of what Jesus says Himself at v. 41. 23. ἀναστήσεταιὁἀδελφόςσου . This must often have been said both to Martha and Mary during the past four days; it was (and is) a commonplace of consolation in bereavement offered by friends. By the first century, belief in the resurrection, at any rate of good men, was widely spread among the Jews (see on 5:28). The doctrine is plainly expressed in the Psalms of Solomon (about 80 b.c.): οἱδὲφοβούμενοικύριονἀναστήσονταιεἰςζωὴναἰώνιον (3:16). And Jesus commends this assurance to Martha as a truth which should assuage her grief. A doctrine which is trite may, nevertheless, be both true and important. 24. Martha’ s reply is not sceptical or querulous. She does not deny the tremendous doctrine of resurrection at the Last Day. She replies, wistfully enough, that she knows it and accepts it. But, like many another mourner, she fails to derive much immediate consolation from it. The Last Day seems very far off. Meanwhile, where is her brother? And what are the conditions of this Resurrection? What is the Resurrection? The answer of Jesus is unexpected indeed. “ I am the Resurrection” : the soul that has touched me has touched life; and the life of God is eternal. That is the whole answer. And Martha, not fully understanding it, recognises that He who spoke to her, spoke with an awful prescience, as befitted Him in whom she saw the Messiah. λέγειαὐτῷἡΜάρθα . The article, which is omitted by א AC3ΓΔ W, must be retained with BC*DLΘ . Throughout the chapter (except at vv. 1, 39, which are not true exceptions), Jn. writes ἡΜάρθα . See on vv. 2, 20. For the doctrine of the Last Things in Jn., see Introd., p. clviii; and for the phrase ἡἐσχάτηἡμέρα , which is peculiar to Jn., see on 6:39. For the word ἀνάστασις , used of a resurrection from death, see on 5:28. 25. ἐγώεἰμιἡἀνάστασιςκαὶἡζωή . For the form of this solemn pronouncement, ἐγώεἰμι … , and for the claim to an equality with God which is involved in such a way of speaking, see Introd., p. cxix. For the Divine prerogative of Jesus as a “ quickener” of the dead, see 5:21 and the note there. It is asserted again in the proclamation, four times repeated, ἀναστήσωαὐτὸ [ἐν ] τῇἐσχάτῃἡμέρᾳ (see note on 6:39). Here, what is said goes beyond even that great assurance. All the great similitudes by which Jesus describes Himself in the Fourth Gospel are introduced by the opening phrase ἐγώεἰμι , which marks the style of Deity (see Introd., p. cxviii). But ἐγώεἰμιἡἀνάστασις differs from the other pronouncements in this respect, that it is not a similitude. When Jesus is represented as saying that He is the Bread of Life, or the Light of the World, or the Door, or the Way, or the True Vine, or the Good Shepherd, every one understands that these are only figures of speech, used to illustrate and explain that He strengthens and guides mankind. Here, however, in reply to Martha’ s allusion to the Resurrection at the Last Day, Jesus uses no explanatory figure of speech. “ I am the Resurrection” is not a similitude; it is the reference to Himself of what Martha had said about the final resurrection. The sentence is comparable to ἐγώεἰμιὁμαρτυρῶνπερὶἐμαυτοῦ (8:18), rather than to any of the so-called similitudes; but it is more difficult to interpret. For how can a person represent an event in the future? Yet this is what is asserted. ἡἀνάστασις in v. 25 must refer back to ἡἀνάστασις in v. 24. Jesus does not say ἐγώεἰμιἀνάστασις (without the article), or identify Himself with the act or process of “ rising again” ; but He diverts the thought of Martha, as it were, from the Resurrection at the Last Day, which she feels is very far distant, to the Resurrection of which He is potentially the Source as well as the Agent. “ I will raise him up at the Last Day.” That is a frequent theme of the Fourth Gospel (see on 6:39). But, if Jesus had said no more on the subject, it would have postponed the possibility of resurrection to the new and heavenly life until the day of the Final Assize. And it is equally, and more particularly, a doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, that as men are judged now, so the entrance on the ζωὴαἰώνιος is a present possibility (see Introd., p. clx). Jesus is the Door to the Kingdom, i.e. to the enjoyment of “ eternal life” ; and it is through Him that man enters into its possession here and now. Thus, in vv. 24, 25, the old Jewish and the new Christian eschatology are explicitly confronted with each other. Jn. never represents Jesus as denying the Jewish doctrine of a Last Judgment; but he perpetually represents Him as insisting upon the judgment of the present hour, not pronounced by a fiat of external authority, but determined by the man’ s own self and his relation to God in Christ (see on 3:18). So ἐγώεἰμιἡἀνάστασις is meant to convey to Martha, not indeed a rebuke for her belief in the General Resurrection at last, but an assurance that the “ rising again” of believers in Him is not to be postponed until then. If a man believe in Him, although his body dies yet his true self shall live (v. 25). Or, as it may be put in other words, no believer in Jesus shall ever die, so far as his spirit is concerned (v. 26). The consolation which Jesus offers to those mourning the death of a Christian believer is not that their friend will rise again at some distant day when the dead shall be raised by a catastrophic act of God (however true that may be), but that the Christian believer never dies, his true life is never extinguished. “ Your friend is alive now; for in me he touched the life of God which is eternal; in me he had already risen, before his body perished.” This is the Johannine doctrine of life (see Introd., p. clxi); it is also the doctrine of Paul (cf. Colossians 3:1). Neither Jn. nor Paul discuss or contemplate the future life of those who are not “ in Christ.” The assurance of life, here and hereafter, in the Fourth Gospel, is for all “ believers” ; and in this passage no others are in view. καὶἡζωή . This second clause in the great pronouncement of Jesus is omitted by Syr. sin., and also by Cyprian (de Mortal. 21), who quotes these verses in the form: “ Ego sum Resurrectio. Qui credit in me, licet moriatur, uiuet; et omnis qui uiuit et credit in me non morietur in aeternum.” Cyprian appears to have missed the distinction between the two clauses 25b and 26, and he may have omitted et uita, not perceiving that the words are essential, if what follows is to be understood. But this does not explain the omission in Syr. sin. All other authorities have the words καὶἡζωή , which are indispensable for the argument. Jesus is not only the Resurrection, and thus the pledge and the source of the believer’ s revival after death; but He is the Life, for this revival is unending. In the two sentences which follow, the twofold presentation of Jesus as the Resurrection and as the Life is expanded and explained. He is the Resurrection, and therefore the believer in Him, though he die, yet shall live again. He is the Life, and therefore the believer in Him, who has been “ raised from the dead” and is spiritually alive, shall never die. See further on v. 26. That Jesus is the Life is, in one sense, the main theme of the Fourth Gospel. Cf. 1:4, 6:57, 14:6, 20:31; and see Introd., p. clxi. ὁπιστεύωνεἰςἐμέκτλ ., “ he who believes in me” (see on 1:12 for the constr. πιστεύεινεἰς , and cf. 9:35) “ even if he die (sc. physically), yet shall he live” (sc. spiritually, in the spiritual body, as Paul has it). So it has been said already (3:36). Westcott compares Philo’ s saying that “ the wise man who appears to have died in respect of this corruptible life, lives in respect of the incorruptible life” (quod det. pot. 15). But the distinctive feature of the Johannine teaching is that the privilege of the immortal, spiritual life is for him who “ believes in Christ,” and so has touched the life of God. 26. καὶπᾶςὁζῶνκτλ . The verse is susceptible of two meanings. (1) If πᾶςὁζῶν is understood as meaning “ every living man,” sc. living in this earthly life (cf. ἐνώπιονπαντὸςζῶντος , Tob. 13:4), then v. 26 is but the repetition in other words of what has already been said in v. 25, “ no living man who believes in me shall ever die.” Such repetition is quite in the Johannine style (see 3:3, 5), and it gives a good sense here. (2) But inasmuch as ζήσεται in v. 25 refers to spiritual life, the life of the believer after the death of the body, it is preferable to take ζῶν in v. 26 as having the same reference, and to treat v. 26 as continuing the topic of v. 25, but not repeating it. “ Every one who is living (sc. in the heavenly life) and a believer in me shall never die.” Verse 25 gives only the promise of life after physical death; v. 26 gives the assurance of that future life being immortal. For this use of ζῶν as indicating one who is living, not on earth, but in the spiritual world, cf. the saying of Jesus to the Sadducees, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (ζώντων , Mark 12:27 and parallels). For this use of εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , “ shall never die,” cf. 4:14, and esp. 8:51. It should be observed that vv. 25, 26, do not suggest to Martha that Lazarus will live again on earth. They are general pronouncements applying to every believer in Jesus, and the emphasis is laid on the words ὁπιστεύωνεἰςἐμέ . It is this essential condition of life in its deepest sense that is proclaimed to Martha. She is asked if she believes it, and she says “ Yes” ; but her answer does not indicate that she understood what was involved. 27. Martha’ s reply is a confession of Jesus as the Messiah. It hardly goes farther; although, in terms, it embraces all that Jn. hopes his readers will reach, sc. that full faith which leads to life (20:31). She hastens to summon Mary, who may be expected to understand the mysterious sayings of Jesus better than she (cf. Luke 10:39). Ναί . Cf. 21:15, 16 and Mark 7:28. She acquiesces in the truth of what Jesus had said, because she believed Him to be the Christ. ἐγὼπεπίστευκα . With the perfect tense cf. 6:69 and 1 John 4:16; ἐγώ is emphatic. Certainly Martha accepts the word of Jesus as true, for she has believed for some time past in His Messiahship. ὃτισὺεἶὁχριστός For the form of the confession σὺεἶ , cf. 1:49, 6:69, Mark 8:29, Matthew 16:16. ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ — a recognised title of Messiah. See on 1:34 for its usage and significance. Cf. the note on 6:69 for the confession of Jesus as the Christ by Peter; and see further on v. 40. Note that the exact terms, ὁχριστός , ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , appear together again at 20:31, where Jn. defines the faith which he aims to inspire in his readers. ὁεἰςτὸνκόσμονἐρχόμενος . This is the way in which the coming Prophet was described in popular discourse (see 6:14, Matthew 11:3). Jesus used the expression of Himself more than once (9:39, 16:28, 18:37). Mary, Being Informed of Jesus’ Presence, Hastens to Speak to Him (vv. 28-32) 28. τοῦτοεἰποῦσα . This is the true reading, with א BCLW, rather than ταῦτα of ADΓΔΘ . Martha said one thing only in response to Jesus’ words of mystery; she did not make a speech. She called “ Mary.” Μαριάμ does not take the article here, suggesting that the actual name was called out by Martha. λάθρᾳ , “ secretly,” presumably because she wished Mary to see Jesus privately, without the crowd of mourning friends being present. However, this did not succeed, for they followed Mary out of the house (v. 31). λάθρᾳ occurs elsewhere in N.T. at Matthew 1:19, Matthew 2:7, Acts 16:37. D reads σιωπῇ , which gives the same sense. ὁδιδάσκαλος . So they called Jesus among themselves, although they addressed Him as κύριε . See on 1:38, 13:13; and cf. 20:16. καὶφωνεῖσε . No mention has been made hitherto of the desire of Jesus to see Mary. 29. ἐκείνηδέ . δέ should be retained with א BC*LW. ἐκείνη designates the person who has just been mentioned (see on 1:8). ἠγέρθηταχὺκαὶἤρχετοπρὸςαὐτόν . With her natural impulsiveness (see Introductory Note on 12:1-8), Mary rose up quickly from the seat of mourning (see on v. 20), and went to meet Jesus, as she had been bidden to do. The rec. has ἐγείρεται … ἔρχεται , but the aorist and imperfect tenses are significant. 30. οὔπωδέκτλ . It is useless to make guesses as to why Jesus had not yet come into the village. He may have been resting at the spot where Martha met Him first. ἔτι is om. by ADLΓΔ , but ins. א BCW. Θ has ἐπὶτῷτόπῳ . At this point Moffatt places vv. 18, 19. See on v. 18 above. 31. The friends who had come out from Jerusalem to mourn with the sisters (see v. 19), when they saw Mary rise up (see on v. 20) and leave the house suddenly without giving any explanation, supposed that she had gone to wail at the tomb, a common habit of mourners. κλαίειν does not indicate silent weeping (cf. v. 35), but the unrestrained wailing of Orientals. It is used elsewhere, as here, of wailing for the dead; cf. Mark 5:38 (of the wailing for Jairus’ daughter), Luke 7:13 (for the widow of Nain’ s son), Acts 9:39 (for Dorcas), Matthew 2:18 (Rachel wailing for her children). See on 16:20. It is noteworthy, in view of the identity of Mary the sister of Martha with Mary Magdalene,1 that Mary Magdalene is represented (20:11, 13, 15) as wailing at the tomb of Jesus. δόξαντες . So א BC*DLW; the rec., with AC2ΓΔΘ , has λέγοντες . 32. When Mary met Jesus, she fell at His feet, impulsive and demonstrative creature as she was, and said, as Martha had said, “ Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died” (see on v. 21). She is described by Lk. (10:39) as sitting at His feet for instruction, and later she anointed His feet (12:3), probably for the second time (see Introductory Note on 12:1-8). πρὸςτοὺςπόδας . So א BC*DLW, but AC3ΓΔΘ give εἰςτοὺςπόδας . πρός is the preposition used by Mk. (5:22, 7:25) when telling of Jairus and the Syrophœ nician woman falling at the feet of Jesus. So, too, is it used in Revelation 1:17 and (in the LXX) at Esther 8:3. But εἰςτοὺςπόδας in a context like this would be curious Greek. Lk. prefers to use παρά (8:41, 17:16; but cf. Acts 5:10) Jesus Weeps, and, Being Directed by the Mourners, Goes to the Tomb (vv. 33-38) 33. Ἰησοῦςοὖνὡςεἶδεναὐτὴνκλαίουσανκτλ ., “ Jesus, then, when He saw her wailing and the Jews which came with her also wailing.” ἐνεβριμήσατοτῷπνεύματι . Cf. v. 38 ἐμβριμώμενοςἐνἑαυτῷ , this being the only other occurrence of the verb in Jn. In its primary sense, ἐμβριμᾶσθαι is “ to snort” like a horse (cf. Æ sch. Septem c. Theb. 461); while in the LXX it means “ to show indignation” (Daniel 11:30), ἐμβρίμημα being used of the anger of Yahweh at Lamentations 2:6. A similar use of the cognate words occurs Psalms 7:12 (Aq.), Isaiah 17:13 (Symm.), and Ezekiel 21:31. In Mark 14:5 ἐνεβριμῶντοαὐτῇ carries the idea of indignation: “ they roared against her,” sc. in their indignation at the waste of the ointment. But in Mark 1:43, Matthew 9:30, ἐμβριμησάμενοςαὐτῷ and ἐνεβριμήσατοαὐτοῖς can hardly mean that Jesus was angry with the leper or the blind men whom He had cured: “ strictly charged them” is the rendering of the R.V., but it is doubtful if this adequately represents ἐμβριμᾶσθαι , or if any Greek parallel can be cited for such a meaning. All three occasions on which this rare word is applied to Jesus (Mark 1:43, Matthew 9:30, John 11:33, John 11:38) were occasions, as we must suppose, of intense emotion. The cure of a leper, the restoring of sight to the blind, the preparation of Himself for so stupendous a task as the raising of Lazarus from the tomb, must have involved the output of spiritual energy in a degree which we cannot measure. The narrative of vv. 33-43 reveals, as no other passage in the N.T. does, that the working of “ miracles” (however we try to explain them) was not achieved without spiritual effort or without the agitation of the human spirit of Jesus. “ He shuddered” : “ He shed tears” . And the verb ἐμβριμᾶσθαι may well express the physical effect of powerful emotion upon His voice. It represents the inarticulate sounds which escape men when they are physically overwhelmed by a great wave of emotion. And Jesus, the Perfect Man, experienced this as He experienced all else that is human and not sinful. As He charged the leper and the blind whom He had relieved to tell nothing of what had been done for them, He stumbled over the words, the loud and harsh tone of His voice indicating His agitation. “ He roared at them” would not exactly convey the sense, for that would suggest violence of speech or of command. But it is nearer the primary meaning of ἐνεβριμήσατο than “ strictly charged them.” So in the present passage “ He groaned in spirit” is probably the best rendering; but, if not explained, it might suggest the groaning of one in sorrow, and this ἐνεβριμήσατο cannot mean. But the groaning, like the tears and the shuddering, were the outward and bodily indications of a tremendous spiritual agitation and effort.1 ἐμβριμώμενοςἐνἑαυτῷ , He arrived at the tomb, not “ indignant” at anything nor “ groaning” with loud outbursts of sorrow, but making those inarticulate sounds which are the expression of mental agitation and strain. D has the variant ἐταράχθητῷπνεύματιὡςἐνβρειμούμενος , which d renders “ conturbatus est spiritu sicut ira plenus.” But, as has been said, anger is not primarily suggested by the verb ἐμβριμᾶσθαι , nor does the idea of Jesus being angry enter into the story of the Raising of Lazarus.2 ἐνεβριμήσατοτῷπνεύματικαὶἐτάραξενἑαυτόν . Cf. 12:27 ἡψυχήμουτετάρακται and 13:21 ὁἸησοῦςἐταράχθητῷπνεύματι . Putting these passages side by side, it is not easy to make a distinction between the use of ψυχή and πνεῦμα . In each case the “ soul” of Jesus, as we would say, was troubled. So again Jn. tells of His death in the words παρέδωκεντὸπνεῦμα (19:30; see note in loc.); but he makes Jesus speak of His death in 10:17 in the words ἐγὼτίθημιτὴνψυχήνμου . We have not now to do with the psychological doctrine of Paul; we are only concerned with the Johannine use of the two words πνεῦμα and ψυχή ; and while recognising that πνεῦμα suggests what is Divine (4:24), and that ψυχή suggests the bodily life (12:25) in Jn. as in other writers, it is not legitimate to differentiate them sharply in a verse like that before us. The Lucan parallelism (Luke 1:47): μεγαλύνειἡψυχήμουτὸνκύριον , καὶἠγαλλίασεντὸπνεῦμάμουἐπὶτῷθεῷ … shows that the words may be used synonymously; and the Johannine usage agrees with this. See on 12:25. 34. καὶεἶπενΠοῦτεθείκατεαὐτόν ; “ Where have you laid him?” This is a simple request for information. See on 6:6 for other examples of questions asked by Jesus. λέγουσιναὐτῷ , sc. (apparently) Martha and Mary, who preface their reply with the κύριε of respect (see on v. 3). ἔρχουκαὶἴδε . Cf. 1:39. 35. ἐδάκρυσενὁἸησοῦς . א DΘ prefix καί to ἐδάκρυσεν , but it is quite in the style of Jn. to begin the sentence without any conjunction. δακρύειν does not occur again in the N.T. It means “ to shed tears,” but not to “ wail.” The word in Luke 19:41, where Jesus “ wept” over Jerusalem, is ἔκλαυσεν : cf. Hebrews 5:7, of Gethsemane, μετὰκραυγῆςἰσχυρᾶςκαὶδακρύων . It is not said in the Gospels that Jesus “ laughed,” while it is told here, and suggested elsewhere, that He “ wept.” But to draw the inference that He never laughed would be misleading. To be incapable of laughter would be to fall short of the perfection of manhood. This was perceived by the compilers of the apocryphal gospels: cf. Gospel of Thomas, A 8, ἔγελασετὸπαιδίονμέγα , and Pseudo-Matth. 31, “ .Jesus laeto vultu subridens.” The ethics of Jesus were not those of the Stoics, and Jn. brings out, perhaps more clearly than the Synoptists, that He did not aim at the Stoic ἀπάθεια . Juvenal finely says of human tears, “ haec nostri pars optima sensus” (Sat. xv. 133). 36. The visitors from Jerusalem were impressed by the sight of Jesus weeping, and said to each other, “ See, how He loved him,” how great a friend of Lazarus He was! Cf. vv. 3, 5, for ἐφίλει . 37. Some of them, however , expressed surprise that He who had cured the blind man at Jerusalem (9:6, 7) could not have kept His friend from death. Like Martha (v. 21) and Mary (v. 32), they seem to think that if Jesus had been present, Lazarus would not have died, although they are not so sure of it. They are not contemplating any raising of Lazarus from the dead; such a thing does not occur to them. They refer merely to a healing miracle at Jerusalem, of which they had recently heard, and which they may have witnessed. A reference here to the Galilæ an miracles of raising from the dead (Mark 5:35f., Luke 7:11f.) could hardly have been resisted by a writer who was inventing the story of the raising of Lazarus. But these citizens of Jerusalem may not have heard of any Galilæ an miracles. 38. That the article ὁ is omitted before Ἰησοῦς in all the MSS. except Θ and 33 (which, however, preserves some good readings in this chapter; cf. v. 20) is contrary to the general usage of Jn. (see on 1:29). Again the agitation of Jesus was noticeable (ἐμβριμώμενοςἐνἑαυτῷ , see on v. 33), as He was approaching the tomb of Lazarus. It was a cave, such as was often used as a burial-place (cf. Genesis 23:19, Isaiah 22:16, 2 Chronicles 16:14), the cavern being sometimes natural, sometimes artificial. The body was either let down through a horizontal opening, as is the European practice, or placed in a tomb cut in the face of the rock. In either case the opening was closed by a stone, which had to be a heavy one to keep wild animals out. Cf. 20:1, Mark 15:46, Matthew 27:60, Luke 24:2. If the cave were a subterranean one, then λίθοςἐπέκειτοἐπ ʼ αὐτῷ must be rendered “ a stone lay upon it” ; if it were cut in the face of the rock, then the stone lay against the opening. The Raising of Lazarus (vv. 39-44) 39. ἄρατε . The aorist imperative is the command of authority; see on 2:5. The same verb is used of the removal of the stone at the tomb of Jesus (cf. 20:1). ἡἀδελφὴτοῦτετελευτηκότος , “ the sister of the deceased.” τελευτάω occurs only here in Jn., and is infrequent in the N.T. (cf. Mark 9:48). The rec. substitutes the more usual τεθνηκότος . Martha, although she had joined the party which was visiting the tomb, had no thought of the resuscitation of her brother, and, with her strong sense of decorum (Luke 10:40), was horrified to think of the exposure of the corpse, it being now the fourth day after death. She was sure that putrefaction had begun, which shows that the body had not been embalmed, but had only been bound with swathes (v. 44), spices being probably used, after the Jewish custom (cf. 19:40). It is not alleged by Jn. that Martha was stating a fact when she said ὄζει , “ he stinketh.” That was merely what she thought must be the case. ὄζειν is only used again in the Greek Bible at Exodus 8:14, where it is used of the dead frogs. τεταρταῖος does not occur again in the Greek Bible (except by mistake for τέταρτος in the A text of 2 Samuel 3:4); but in Herod. ii. 89 τεταρταῖοςγενέσθαι is “ to be four days dead,” as here. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) cites a Jewish tradition to the effect that “ for three days (after death) the spirit wanders about the sepulchre, expecting if it may return into the body. But when it sees that the form or aspect of the face is changed, then it hovers no more, but leaves the body to itself” (Beresh. Rabba, fol. 114. 3). The same tradition is found in The Rest of the Words of Baruch, § 9 (ed. Harris, p. 62). For the three days of weeping, followed by four days of lamentation, see on v. 19; and cf. v. 17 for τεταρταῖος . 40. Jesus rebukes Martha, although gently, for her lack of understanding: “ Said I not to thee, that if thou believedst, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” Some commentators suppose the allusion to be to what Jesus had said about the sickness of Lazarus being for “ the glory of God” (v. 4, where see note). But this was said to the disciples in Peræ a, not to Martha, and there is no hint that it was reported to her. Nor is there anything in v. 4 about belief being a condition precedent to the vision of the Divine glory. It is more probable that the reference is to Martha’ s previous conversation with Jesus (vv. 25-27), where she declared her belief in Him as the Christ. Such confessions of faith are elsewhere (see on 1:51) answered by a benediction from Jesus, in which He promises to the faithful as a reward a vision of the Advent of the Son of Man in glory; and it may be that some such promise, although not recorded, was given by Jesus to Martha1 (see on 6:36, 10:25). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ Introductory Note on the Anointing at Bethany (c. 12:1-8) There are three evangelical traditions of the anointing of Jesus at an entertainment in a private house: that of Mar 14:3-9 (followed by Matthew 26:6-13), that of Joh 12:1-8, and that of Luk 7:36-50. From the second century to our own time the comparison of these narratives has been attempted by critical readers, and various answers have been given to the questions which arise. Were there three anointings or only two? Or did one incident furnish the material for all three stories? Few modern expositors hesitate to identify the incident described in Mar_14 with that of Joh_12. The place is the same, viz. the κώμη or village of Bethany near Jerusalem; and in both traditions the scene is laid in the week before the Crucifixion, Jn. putting it on the Sabbath before the Passover, while Mk. suggests (although he does not say it explicitly) that it is to be dated two days only before that feast (cf. Mark 14:1, Mark 14:3). Mk. does not name the woman who anointed Jesus, but Jn. says that it was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. In Mk. the host is “ Simon the Leper,” 1 but Jn. says that Martha waited on the company, which might mean that she was the mistress of the house; Lazarus, in any case, is included among those at table. In the Marcan story the woman anoints the head of Jesus (a frequent mark of honour to a distinguished guest; cf. Luke 7:46), no mention being made of His feet, or of the use of her hair as a towel. Jn., however, says nothing either of anointing the head of Jesus or of washing His feet; but he relates that Mary anointed His feet, and then wiped them with her hair. This is, prima facie, a strange statement. Anointing the feet of a guest might follow the washing of them, but why should the ointment be wiped off? And it is improbable that a suitable towel (see 13:4) would not be at Mary’ s disposal in a house where the acting hostess was her sister. That she should have used her hair for the purpose of wiping the feet of Jesus on this occasion, either after washing or anointing them, is an extraordinary circumstance, to which we shall return presently. It is not doubtful, however, despite the superficial differences between the Marcan and Johannine stories, that they refer to the same incident, and that Jn. is conscious of the fact and familiar with the earlier narrative. Like Mk., Jn. mentions the criticism made about the waste of the precious ointment (a criticism which he ascribes to Judas); and like Mk., he recalls the Lord’ s rebuke, “ The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always.” Again, Mk.’ s προέλαβενμυρίσαιτὸσῶμάμουεἰςτὸνἐνταφιασμόν is reflected in Jn.’ s ἵναεἰςτὴνἡμέραντοῦἐνταφιασμοῦμουτηρήσῃαὐτό . And Jn.’ s νάρδουπιστικῆςπολυτίμου is a reproduction of Mk.’ s νάρδουπιστικῆςπολυτελοῦς . We may say with confidence that the Marcan and Johannine narratives are versions of the same story, Jn. having corrected Mk. where he thought it necessary to do so.2 The narrative of Luk 7:36f. is markedly different from both Jn. and Mk. The place where the incident happened is not named, but the context suggests that it was somewhere in Galilee, and that it occurred during the period of John the Baptist’ s imprisonment. But Lk. does not always observe strict chronological sequence, and the story may have been inserted at this point in connexion with the accusation that Jesus was “ a friend of publicans and sinners” (v. 34). The host, on this occasion, was a Pharisee named Simon, and the woman who is the central figure was “ a sinner” . The story tells of her coming into the house— uninvited, as was possible in a country where meals were often semi-public— and standing behind Jesus, as He reclined at table. As she wept, her tears dropped on His feet, and she wiped them off with her long flowing hair. Then she kissed them, and anointed them with ointment which she had brought with her, probably with the hope of being allowed to anoint His head. This would have been an ordinary act of courtesy, but anointing of the feet is not mentioned again (except John 12:3) in Scripture, and was evidently unusual.1 Simon the Pharisee was shocked that a guest who had been entertained as a possible prophet should submit to the ministrations of a sinful woman; but Jesus rebuked him with the parable of the Two Debtors, and the story ends with the benediction given to her who had been forgiven much and who had therefore loved much. The moral of this narrative is wholly unlike anything in the narratives of Mar_14 and Joh_12; nor does there seem to be any connexion with the narrative of Mar_14. The name of the host, indeed, both in Lk. and Mk. was Simon, but Simon the Pharisee is not necessarily to be identified with Simon the Leper, for Simon was the commonest of Jewish names. Nor can we suppose that a leading Pharisee would have entertained Jesus at his house during the week before His Passion, when He was already the subject of orthodox suspicion. The unnamed woman may be the same in both narratives, nevertheless, although Mk. does not note that she was or had been a sinner; but that Mk. and Lk. deal with quite different incidents is plain. The resemblances, however, of the Lucan story to that in Joh_12 are striking. In both, it is the feet (not the head, as in Mk.) which are anointed, and the language used is similar in both cases. Thus Luke 7:38 has τοῖςδάκρυσινἤρξατοβρέχειντοὺςπόδαςαὐτοῦκαὶταῖςθριξὶντῆςκεφαλῆςαὐτῆςἐξέμασσεν … καὶἤλειφεντῷμύρῳ , while John 12:3 has ἤλειψεντοὺςπόδαςτοῦἸησοῦκαὶἐξέμαξενταῖςθριξὶναὐτῆςτοὺςπόδαςαὐτοῦ . It will be observed that there is no formal washing of Jesus’ feet in either story, and that the falling of the woman’ s tears upon them, which is so touching a feature of Lk.’ s account, has no place in Jn. But the linguistic similarities between the two verses just cited show conclusively that Jn. intended to tell a story similar to that told by Lk.; while, on the other hand, his version is as puzzling as Lk.’ s is lucid. Why should Mary of Bethany appear with dishevelled hair, and use this instead of a towel? Why should she anoint the feet of Jesus at all? The woman of Luk_7 did so from penitent humility, but does this apply to Mary of Bethany? And why should Mary wipe off the unguent once it was applied? The ἁμαρτωλός only wiped off her falling tears. We shall approach these difficulties presently, but at this point we seem called to recognise the fact that Jn. is writing in terms of the Lucan story. He is not necessarily describing the same incident as Lk., but he is describing an incident so similar in some exceptional features, that we must believe him to be writing of the same woman that Lk. has depicted. This involves the conclusion that Jn. regarded Mary of Bethany as the sinful woman of whom Lk. tells. Lk. does not make this identification. He mentions Mary afterwards as being at the house of Martha her sister, the situation of which is not indicated (10:38), and records how Mary was praised by Jesus as having “ chosen the good part,” in comparison with the housewifely activities of her sister. This is not inconsistent with the conclusion that Mary had formerly been of loose behaviour, but it does not suggest it directly. The relations between the various evangelical narratives of the anointing of Jesus have been discussed at length, both in ancient and modern times, and we cannot stay here to examine the opinions of individual Fathers or critics.1 Clement of Alexandria (Pæ d. ii. 61) identifies the anointings of Luk_7 and of Joh_12, Mar_14; so does Tertullian (de pudic. xi.). Origen is not consistent with himself, at one time speaking of three (Comm. in Mt. 77) or two anointings (Hom. in Son 1:12), at another time of only one (Fragm. in Joann. 112, ed. Brooke, ii. 287). Ephraim Syrus has a lengthy commentary on the sinful woman, whom he explicitly distinguishes from Mary of Bethany. Tatian treats the story of Luk_7 in like manner as distinct from the story of Joh_12, Mar_14. But, since the time of Gregory the Great, the Roman Church has been accustomed to identify Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and the ἁμαρτωλός of Luk_7. The Breviary office for the Feast of St. Mary Magdalen (July 22) draws out this identification, and treats the story of Mary as that of one who, once a great sinner, became a great saint. This identification has been accepted in the present commentary. Of Mary Magdalene, i.e. Mary of Magdala (a village some 3 miles from Capernaum, now called Mejdel), Lk. tells that “ seven devils had gone out of her” (Luke 8:2), a statement that is made immediately after the story of the ἁμαρτωλός . She is named along with other women who had been “ healed of evil spirits and infirmities” ; and Lk.’ s statement about her is repeated in the Marcan Appendix: “ He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven devils” (Mark 16:9). This description would not necessarily point to special vice, for it might only refer to madness; but it remains, for all that, a very apt description of a woman who had been rescued as the ἁμαρτωλός was, and would be a convenient euphemism. Further, the identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany enables us to interpret the otherwise difficult words of Joh 12:7, “ Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying” (cf. Mark 14:8, Matthew 26:12). No evangelist speaks expressly of Mary of Bethany as going to the tomb to anoint the Lord’ s body on the day of the Resurrection; but all four name Mary Magdalene as taking part. The equation of Mary Magdalene to Mary of Bethany explains quite simply the Lord’ s words about the latter at the Supper at Bethany (John 12:7, where see note)— words which are otherwise left without fulfilment. We hold, then, that a comparison of Joh_12 with Luk_7 makes it necessary to identify the woman that was a sinner with Mary Magdalene and also with Mary of Bethany, or at any rate to recognise that Jn. identified them. There is another significant bit of evidence for the latter conclusion. At John 11:2 is a parenthetical explanation (whether by Jn. or by a later editor need not now be discussed; see note in loc.), that Mary of Bethany is ἡἀλείψασατὸνκύριονμύρῳκαὶἐκμάξασατοὺςπόδαςαὐτοῦταῖςθριξὶναὐτῆς . Now this would not identify Mary of Bethany for the reader, if another woman had also “ anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair.” If we distinguish the woman of Luk_7 from the woman of Joh_12, this singular gesture may be attributed to two women, and thus the note of 11:2 would be useless for its purpose of identification. It is plain that the Fourth Gospel regards the ἁμαρτωλός of Luk_7 as the sister of Lazarus and Martha. It is to be observed, however, that while Jn. uses the same words of Mary’ s action that Lk. does of the action of the ἁμαρτωλός , he does not necessarily imply that the narratives of Joh 12:3 and Luke 7:38 refer to the same incident. Mary may have, in the days of His public ministry, anointed the feet of Jesus in penitence (Luke 7:38); and then, having repented and returned to her family, when Jesus came to her home the day before His entry to Jerusalem, have repeated an act so full of memories for her (John 12:3). No emphasis is laid in Lk. on the costliness of the ἀλάβαστρονμύρου ; the woman had brought with her an ordinary supply of unguent. But in Jn. and Mk. the special quality of the ointment is a principal feature of the story. It was “ very precious,” so exceptionally costly that the use of it called forth criticism. If Mary desired to repeat the act which had in the first instance called forth the benediction of Jesus, it would be quite natural that she should provide herself with unguent of specially fine quality. And the circumstance that she used her hair for a towel would also be explained by her purpose of reproducing the former scene. It could not be exactly reproduced; there were no tears of penitence on the second occasion. But, just on that account, a true narrative of what happened would be at once like and unlike the story of Luk_7; and this is what we find in Joh_12 Thus, while we do not identify the incident recorded in Luk_7 with that recorded in Joh_12 and Mar_14, we may regard Luk_7 as telling of the first occasion on which Mary anointed Jesus, the second being that narrated in John 12:1 and (with less exactness) in Mar_14, Mk. missing the point that it was the feet (not the head) of Jesus that were anointed at the house in Bethany shortly before His Passion. The Supper at Bethany (12:1-8) 12:1. ὁοὖνἸησοῦς . οὖν is not causal: it does not carry us back to 11:57, where it is said that the priests were planning to arrest Him. His motive in going to Bethany was not to seek a place of safety, but it was on His way to Jerusalem, whither He was proceeding for the feast. οὖν is only copulative, “ and so” (see on 1:22). He knew, indeed, of the enmity of the priestly party; but that did not move Him from His purpose. Indeed, Jn. lays special emphasis on the continual consciousness on the part of Jesus of what was impending (cf. 18:4). According to the Synoptists (Mark 11:11, Matthew 21:17, Luke 21:37), He lodged at Bethany during the nights that remained before the end. πρὸἓξἡμερῶντοῦπάσχα , a transposition of πρό , the phrase meaning “ six days before the Passover.” Meyer cites Amos 11 πρὸδυὸἐτῶντοῦσεισμοῦ for the same construction. Jn. is prone to record dates (see Introd., p. cii); and he notes that the day of the arrival of Jesus at Bethany was the Sabbath before the Passover, i.e., in our reckoning, the Saturday preceding Palm Sunday. He may have arrived just as the Sabbath was beginning, i.e. on the Friday evening; or He may have only come from a short distance, and so have refrained from exceeding the limit of a Sabbath day’ s journey. From Mark 14:1, Matthew 26:1, we might infer that the supper at Bethany was held later in the week, “ two days before the Passover,” but neither statement is quite definite as to the date. What Jn. tells here is more probably accurate. ὅπουἦνΛάζαρος . On this account, Bethany was a place of special danger. It was no place to come for one who feared the vindictiveness of the priests which had been excited by the raising of Lazarus. For the constr. ὅπουἦν , see on 1:28. ὁτεθνηκώς is added after Λάζαρος by ADΓΔΘ , with support from the vss., including the Coptic Q, but om. א BLW ὃνἤγειρενἐκνεκρῶνἸησοῦς . The rec. text omits Ἰησοῦς , which indeed is unnecessary to the sentence, but א *BW insert it. Perhaps all the words after Λάζαρος , sc. [ὁτεθνηκώς ] ὃνἤγειρενἐκνεκρῶνἸησοῦς , are a gloss that has crept in from v. 9, where ὃνἤγειρενἐκνεκρῶν is quite in place and apposite; here it is superfluous. Cf. v. 17. Syr. sin. gives here: “ came Jesus to the village Beth Ania unto Lazar, him that was dead and lived. And he made for Him a supper there, and Lazar was one of the guests that sat down to meat with Him, but Martha was occupied in serving.” 2. ἐποίησανοὖναὐτῷδεῖπνονἐκεῖ . The subject of ἐποίησαν is undefined. Probably we should understand that the villagers of Bethany prepared a supper for Jesus, having still in vivid recollection the fame of His recent miracle. Mk. says that the entertainment was in “ the house of Simon the Leper,” and this may be an accurate report, although of Simon we know nothing (see p. 410). From the way in which the presence of Lazarus as one of the company is mentioned by Jn., it would seem probable that at any rate the supper was not in his house. On the other hand, ἐποίησανοὖναὐτῷδεῖπνον might mean that it was the well-known household of Bethany, Martha and Mary and Lazarus, who gave the feast, and the Sinai Syriac (quoted on v. 1) understands the text thus. Lazarus would in any case be a figure to attract attention and curiosity, which may account for the words ὁδὲΛάζαροςεἷςἦνἐκτῶνἀνακειμένωνσὺναὐτῷ . That Martha was serving would be more natural if she were in her own house, as at Luke 10:40, where it is said of her περιεσπᾶτοπερὶπολλὴνδιακονίαν . The rec. text omits ἐκ before τῶνἀνακειμ ., with ADWΓΔΘ ; but ἐκ is inserted by א BL, and this is consonant with Jn.’ s style (see on 1:40). For ἀνακειμένωνσὺναὐτῷ א ABDLΘ , the rec. (W) reads συνανακειμένωναὐτῷ . The better-attested reading is interesting because of the preposition σύν , which is used again by Jn. only at 18:1, 21:3 (it does not occur in Rev.). Abbott (Diat. 2799, ii.) remarks that Jn. agrees with Demosthenes and Epictetus in hardly ever using σύν , the reason being that σύν belongs to literary, as distinct from spoken, Greek. Thus Lk. (Gospel and Acts) employs σύν more frequently than all the other N.T. writers put together. 3. ἡοὖνΜαριάμ . This is the reading of B 33, and is probably right, despite the authority of א ADLWΘ for Μαρία . See on 11:20. λαβοῦσαλίτρανμύρου . λίτρα (libra) occurs again in N.T. only at 19:39. Mk. says of the woman (whom he does not name) ἔχουσαἀλάβαστρονμύρου , “ having an alabaster cruse or flask of ointment,” and then goes on to tell that she broke the flask and poured the contents on the head of Jesus. To anoint the head of a guest (cf. Psalms 23:5) was an act of Eastern courtesy and respect, but Jn. treats the incident differently, and tells that Mary anointed Jesus’ feet. The Lat. fuldensis tries to combine the two, and its text here gives “ habens alabastrum … et fracto effudit super caput ihesu recumbentis et unxit pedes.” Syr. sin. has a similar conflate text. This marked difference between the narratives of Mk. and Jn., which clearly refer to the same incident, is considered above (p. 410). νάρδουπιστικῆςπολυτίμου . This is almost identical with Mk.’ s νάρδουπιστικῆςπολυτελοῦς . A special point is made in both narratives (not in the earlier story, Luke 7:38) of the costliness of the ointment provided (cf. “ the chief ointments” of Amos 6:6). The adj. πιστικός (only here and at Mark 14:3 in the Greek Bible) is of uncertain meaning. It may be derived from πίστις , and it is applied, as Abbott (Diat. 1736d) has pointed out, to a “ faithful” wife. Thus it might mean here genuine, as indicating the quality of the spikenard. The vg., however, at Mark 14:3 (but not here), renders it spicati, and Wetstein called attention to the word σπίκατον , which means a luxurious unguent. It is possible that, as Abbott suggests, some form of σπίκατον originally stood in the Gospel texts, and that it was altered to πιστικός by an attempt at allegorical interpretation. Swete quotes Jerome as playing on the word thus: “ ideo uos uocati estis pistici.” Another, less likely, derivation of πιστικός is from πίνω , so that it would mean “ potable,” as some perfumes were; but this would be quite out of place in the present context. Yet another explanation is quoted by Dods (in loc.) from the Classical Review (July 1890), sc. that we should read not πιστικῆς , but πιστακῆς , the latter word referring to the Pistacia terebinthus, which grows in Palestine “ and yields a turpentine in such inconsiderable quantities as to be very costly.” Whatever the precise derivation of the word may be, the combination νάρδουπιστικῆς (νάρδου , like πιστικῆς , occurring again in the N.T. only at Mark 14:3) is so unusual, that we must suppose Jn. to have followed here either the actual text of Mk., or a familiar tradition embodying these words. With this costly unguent, Jn. tells that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus. He insists upon the word feet, repeating τοὺςπόδας twice, that there may be no misunderstanding, and to show that he is deliberately correcting Mk.’ s account. He adds, in words that reproduce Lk.’ s story of the sinful woman (Luke 7:38), that Mary wiped the Lord’ s feet with her hair . Attention has already (p. 411) been directed to the fact that a perfumed anointing of feet (as distinct from the washing of them, of which there is no mention here) is a custom not mentioned in Scripture elsewhere than here and Luke 7:38. It is further to be observed that for a woman to have her hair unbound was counted immodest by the Jews,1 and that Mary should unloose her hair at an entertainment where men were present requires some special explanation. A towel would be readily accessible (cf. 13:5) whether this supper was in the house of Martha and Mary, or not; and it would be more seemly and convenient to use it. But for what purpose were the Lord’ s feet wiped after the unguent had been applied? In the story of Luk 7:38 the woman wiped His feet with her unbound hair, because her tears had fallen on them by inadvertence, but she did not wipe off the ointment. These considerations seem to prove that when Jn. reproduces as nearly as possible the words of the earlier narrative (Luke 7:38) he does so, not by any inadvertence or mistaken recollection, but because the act of Mary recorded here did actually reproduce her former gesture, then dictated by a sudden impulse of penitence, now inspired by adoring homage of her Master. The moment of her “ conversion,” to use the modern word, was the moment to which she looked back as the most memorable in her life; and when she learnt that Jesus was to honour a supper in Bethany by His presence, she decided that she would once again anoint His feet, and present herself in the guise of a penitent and grateful disciple, the significance of whose strange gesture would be well understood by all her friends, as well as by Jesus. This, at least, is what Jn. seems to indicate. If he did not regard Mary as identical with the unnamed sinner of the earlier incident, he has told the story of the anointing at Bethany in a way which is unintelligible. ἡδὲοἰκίαἐπληρώθηἐκτῆςὀσμῆςτοῦμύρου . For this use of ἐκ as indicating “ with,” cf. Revelation 8:5, Matthew 23:25. This detail is peculiar to Jn., and suggests that the narrative is due to the recollection of some one who was present on the occasion. It seems to have been known to Ignatius, who interprets the savour of the ointment pervading the whole house as typifying the fragrance of incorruptibility diffused throughout the Church from the Person of Christ (Eph. 17). Cf. also Clem. Alex. Pœ d. ii. 8 (P 205) for a similar spiritualising of the incident. Wetstein quotes from Midr. Koheleth, vii. 1: “ A good unguent spreads from the bedroom to the dining-hall; so does a good name from one end of the world to the other.” The latter clause recalls Mark 14:9, “ Wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she hath done shall be told for a memorial of her,” a saying which Jn. does not record. It is possible, but improbable, that the circumstance told by Jn., that the house was filled with the odour of the ointment, gave rise, by an allegorical interpretation, to the saying of Mar 14:9. But the idea that Jn. meant it to be taken allegorically is devoid of evidence and may be confidently rejected. 4. The description of Judas is almost identical with that given in 6:71 (where see note). We must read δέ (א BW) for the rec. οὖν . Apparently we should omit ἐκ before τῶνμαθητῶν (with BLW 33 249), although it is inserted, in accordance with Jn.’ s general habit (see on 1:40), by א ADΘ . ἐκ is also omitted in similar sentences at 18:22, 19:34. א BLW, fam. 1, and most vss. read here ἸούδαςὁἸσκαριώτης (cf. 14:22 for ὁἸσκ .); but AΓΔΘ have ἸούδαςΣίμωνοςἸσκαριώτης , introducing the name of his father (as at 6:71, 13:2). The rec. text, following ADΘ , places the sentence εἷς [ἐκ ] τῶνμαθητῶναὐτοῦ before Ἰούδας ; but א BLW place it after Ἰσκαριώτης . For ὁμέλλων , D has ὃςἤμελλεν (perhaps a reminiscence of 6:71). μέλλων may convey the idea that Judas was predestined to betray Jesus (see on 3:14 and 6:71). According to the Synoptists (Mark 14:4, Matthew 26:8), the uneasy feeling that the ointment was wasted was shared by several of the onlookers, but Jn. specifically mentions Judas as the one who remonstrated. Perhaps he first suggested to the others the extravagance of what had been done by Mary in purchasing exceptionally rare and costly ointment. 5. This verse reproduces Mark 14:5 ἠδύνατογὰρτοῦτοτὸμύρονπραθῆναιἐπάνωδηναρίωντριακοσίωνκαὶδοθῆναιτοῖςπτωχοῖς . 300 denarii would be about ten guineas, a large sum. To suppose, as Schmiedel does (E.B. 1797), that 300 is a symbolical number indicating “ the symmetrical body of humanity,” is fantastic. The Gospel of St. Mark, at any rate, does not deal in allegories of this cryptic kind. Jn. here follows Mk.,1 just as he does at 6:7 when he recalls 200 denarii as the estimated cost of bread for the multitude. 6. εἶπενδὲτοῦτοκτλ . This is the evangelist’ s comment (cf. 7:22; and see Introd., p. xxxiv). It has been thought by some that he is unfair to Judas, and that he is so possessed with the conviction of the baseness of his treachery, that he imputes the lowest of motives to him (see on 6:70, 18:5). The criticism that the money spent on the costly ointment might have been better spent is very natural on the lips of the disciple who, as keeper of the common purse, was responsible for the moneys spent by the Twelve, amounting in all, we may be sure, to no large sum. But Jn. roundly says that he was a thief. Judas was not above a bribe, for he took the thirty pieces of silver; but he was not therefore dishonest, although the value which he attached to money may have made ill-gotten gains a strong temptation. “ Temptation commonly comes through that for which we are naturally fitted” (Westcott), i.e. in this case the handling of money. And it may have been found out, after the secession of Judas, that, as Jn. says, he had been guilty of small peculations, for which he had full opportunity. However ever that may be, the bitterness of the words about Judas in this verse is easily explained if they go back to one who was a former comrade in the inner circle of the Twelve, who had had no suspicions even at the end (see on 13:28, 29), and whose indignation, when disillusioned, was all the more severe. τὸγλωσσόκομον : cf. 13:29. A γλωσσοκομεῖον originally meant a case to hold the reeds or tongues of musical instruments, and hence any kind of box, e.g. it is used for a coffin (by Aquila, Genesis 50:26). The word became accepted by Aramaic speakers, and appears as ג ל ו ס ק מ א in the Talmud. It stands for a coffer into which money is cast, at 2 Chronicles 24:8, 2 Chronicles 24:10 ἐνέβαλλονεἰςτὸγλωσσόκομον , and this is the sense in which the word is used here. The γλωσσόκομον or money-box of the disciples was kept by Judas (it was not necessarily carried about with him habitually: τὸγλωσσόκομονἔχων is the phrase), and into it well-wishers (cf. Luke 8:3) were wont to throw small coins to provide for the needs of Jesus and His followers. In this it was like the begging-bowl of an Eastern holy man. To translate it “ purse” is misleading; and the Latin vss. rightly render it by loculi, i.e. a box or coffer with several compartments. See Field, in loc., on γλωσσόκομον and βαστάζειν . For ἔχων the rec. has εἶχενκαί . τὰβαλλόμενα , sc. the moneys cast into the box by well-wishers and friends; cf. 2 Chronicles 24:10 quoted above. ἐβάσταζεν . The verb βαστάζειν is used (10:31, 16:12, 19:17) of carrying or bearing something heavy; but here and at 20:15 it is equivalent to the vulgar English “ to lift,” i.e. to carry off furtively or unscrupulously, and so “ to steal.” Field gives a convincing illustration of this usage from Diog. Laert. iv. 59 μαθόνταδὲταῦτατὰθεραπόντια … ὅσαἐβούλετοἐβάσταζεν , “ When therefore the servants found this out, they used to steal whatever they pleased.” Deissmann (Bible Studies, Eng. Tr., p. 257) cites some further instances from the papyri of this use of βαστάζειν .1 Hence we must translate, “ he was a thief, and having the money-box used to steal what was cast into it.” To render ἐβάσταζεν here as if it only meant that Judas, as the treasurer, used to “ carry about” what was put into it, would give a tame and superfluous ending to the sentence. 7. With vv. 7, 8, cf. Mark 14:6-9. The rec. text, with AΓΔ , omits ἵνα and reads τετήρηκεν , while א BDLWΘ support ἵνα … τηρήσῃ . We must render “ let her alone, in order that she may keep it (sc. the remainder of the spikenard) against the day of my burying.” In Mk.’ s narrative (here being corrected silently by Joh_1) the flask of ointment was broken and its entire contents poured upon the head of Jesus; but Jn. says nothing of the flask being broken, and it is not to be supposed that all the ointment was used for His feet. ἐνταφιασμός (cf. 19:40) is “ preparation for burial,” and might or might not include the anointing of the whole body. The words of Jesus tell of His impending death and burial to any of the company who had sufficient insight; the rest of the spikenard will soon be needed, and will not be wasted. We have above (p. 412) identified Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene; and thus she who began His ἐνταφιασμός by anointing the Lord’ s feet in Bethany, was among the women who finished the anointing of His body eight days later (cf. 20:1, Mark 16:1). For ἄφεςαὐτήν , cf. Mark 14:6, Matthew 15:14, 2 Samuel 16:11, 2 Kings 4:27. We might translate (with R.V.mg) “ Let her alone; (it was) that she might keep it,” or (with R.V.txt) “ Suffer her to keep it,” but we prefer to render “ Let her alone, in order that, etc.” 8. This verse is identical with Matthew 26:11, and both Jn. and Mt. reproduce exactly the words of Mar 14:7, both of them omitting Mk.’ s καὶὅτανθέλητε , δύνασθεαὐτοὺςεὖποιῆσαι . But that Jn. is using Mk. rather than Mt. all through the story is not doubtful.2 D and Syr. sin. omit the whole verse here for some unknown reason, perhaps because ἐμὲδὲοὐπάντοτεἔχετε was (mistakenly) deemed to be at variance with Matthew 28:20. But cf. 17:11 οὐκέτιεἰμὶἐντῷκόσμῳ . With πτωχοὺςπάντοτεἔχετεμεθ ʼ ἑαυτῶν , cf. Deuteronomy 15:11. The People’ s Curiosity About Lazarus, and the Hostility of the Priests (vv. 9-11) 9. ὁὄχλοςπολύς is read by א B*L, and at v. 12 by BLΘ , but in both places many authorities omit ὁ . If we omit ὁ and read ὄχλοςπολύς , “ a great multitude,” then no difficulty presents itself. We had ὄχλοςπολύς before at 6:2, and πολὺςὄχλος at 6:5: cf. Mark 5:21, Mark 5:24, Mark 5:6:34, Mark 5:9:14, Acts 6:7, Revelation 7:9. But ὁπολὺςὄχλος is undoubtedly the right reading at Mark 12:37, and it means there the mob, the mass of the people, or, as the E.V. has it, “ the common people heard Him gladly” ; and of this use of ὁπολὺςὄχλος Field (in Mark 12:37) gives some classical instances. This, too, would suit the context well in the present passage, for crowds are generally composed of “ the common people” and include “ riff-raff.” But, as Abbott points out (Diat. 1739-1740), the variant of Jn. gives here and at v. 12, not ὁπολὺςὄχλος (as at Mark 12:37), but ὁὄχλοςπολύς , which is bad Greek. Westcott suggests that ὄχλοςπολύς here must be treated as “ a compound noun,” but why Jn. should adopt such a usage is not explained. Having regard to the grammatical difficulty presented by ὁὄχλοςπολύς , and to the fact that both Latin and Syriac versions give “ a great crowd” as the rendering, the balance of evidence seems to be against ὁ , and we therefore read ὄχλοςπολύς both here and at v. 12. ἔγνωοὖν . The rumour of the supper at Bethany spread quickly, and the people generally were much excited by the expectation of seeing not only Jesus, but Lazarus whom He raised from the dead (for ὃνἤγειρενἐκνεκρῶν , cf. vv. 1, 17). ὄχλοςπολὺςἐκτῶνἸουδαίων , “ a great crowd of the Jews,” sc. of the people of Judæ a, who were generally hostile to Jesus. But “ the Jews” does not specially indicate here, as at 5:10, 6:41, etc., the party of opposition to Him; it includes those who favoured (v. 11) as well as those who did not favour His claims (see on 1:19). A “ great crowd” of them came to Bethany, apparently on the evening of the Sabbath, to see the man who had come back from the dead, as well as to see Jesus who raised him. To see one returned from the dead would indeed be a great experience (cf. Luke 16:31). 10. ἐβουλεύσαντοδὲοἱἀρχιερεῖςκτλ . The Sanhedrim (see on 7:32) had given directions that the movements of Jesus should be reported to them (11:57); and having heard of the excitement caused by the presence of Lazarus as well as of Jesus at Bethany, they made up their minds that both Lazarus and Jesus should die: ἵνακαὶτὸνΛάζ . ἀποκτείνωσιν , “ that they would kill Lazarus also.” The priests, being of the Sadducean party, who rejected the idea of resurrection, were naturally disconcerted by the report that Lazarus had been raised from the dead; and they were unscrupulous as to the means which they employed to put an end to what they regarded as mischievous talk. 11. The priests were specially urgent about the putting away of Lazarus, because, on his account , many of the Jews (cf. 11:45) “ began to go away” , perhaps to Bethany, which was the centre of attraction, “ and began to believe in Jesus” (ἐπίστευονεἰςτὸνἸησοῦν ; cf. note on 1:12). The force of the imperfect tenses must be observed. The verb ὑπάγειν , “ to withdraw,” is a favourite word with Jn. (see on 7:33), and ὑπῆγον here may mean simply “ they began to withdraw,” i.e. from their allegiance to the chief priests, as at 6:67, where Jesus asks His disciples, “ Would you also go away?” The Triumphal Entry to Jerusalem (vv. 12-19) 12. The Synoptic accounts of the entry to Jerusalem are found at Mark 11:7-10, Matthew 21:4-9, Luke 19:35-38. As has been pointed out above (on v. 1), Mk. (followed by Mt.) places the supper at Bethany later in the week of the Passion, but Jn., putting it on Saturday, Nisan 9, halts Jesus and the disciples at Bethany for that night, the entry taking place on Sunday, Nisan 10. Christian tradition has followed Jn. in putting the triumphal entry on Palm Sunday. τῇἐπαύριον , sc. on the Sunday. Jn. is fond of these notes of time (see Introd., p. cii). ὄχλοςπολύς (see on v. 9) κτλ ., “ a great crowd that had come up to the feast,” sc. those that came from the country parts to the metropolis, including doubtless many Galilæ ans (see 4:45). ἀκούσαντες , “ having heard,” sc. from those who had come by way of Bethany. ὅτι is recitantis. The words they heard were: ἔρχεταιἸησοῦςεἰςἹεροσόλυμα . BΘ prefix ὁ to Ἰησοῦς , while א ADLW omit; it is usually B that omits the def. art. (see on 1:29). The entry of Jesus would naturally provoke curiosity and enthusiasm, coming (as Jn. represents it to have done) not long after the raising of Lazarus (11:55, 56). The most conspicuous discrepancy between Mk. and Jn. is at this point, Mk. not mentioning Lazarus at all, but describing none the less the triumphal entry, while the enthusiasm with which Jesus was received is expressly connected by Jn. with the miracle at Bethany (see Introd., p. clxxxiii). 13. ἔλαβοντὰβαΐατῶνφοινίκων . βαΐον , a “ palm branch,” occurs again in the Greek Bible only at 1 Macc. 13:51, in the account of Simon’ s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, μετὰαἰνέσεωςκαὶβαΐωνκτλ . (cf. 2 Macc. 10:7). To carry palms was a mark of triumphant homage to a victor or a king (cf. Revelation 7:9). Either βαΐα or φοίνικες , separately, would mean “ palms,” so that Jn.’ s τὰβαΐατῶνφοινίκων is superfluously precise (see Abbott, Diat. 2047), “ the palm branches of the palm trees,” perhaps trees which grew on the slopes of Olivet. The Synoptists do not mention the bearing of palms: Mk. has στιβάδας , i.e. “ litter” of leaves, etc., which were strewn in the road; Mt. says ἔκοπτονκλάδουςἀπὸτῶνδένδρωνκαὶἐστρώννυονἐντῇὁδῷ . There seem to have been two crowds, one accompanying Jesus, the other going out from the city to meet Him ; see Swete on Mark 11:9, and cf. v. 18 below. καὶἐκραύγαζονκτλ ., “ they kept crying out Hosanna.” ἐκραύγαζον is read by א B3DLW, as against ἔκραζον of the rec. text For κραυγάζειν applied to the shouting of crowds, cf. Ezra 3:13; and see note on 11:43 above. Before Ὡσαννά , the rec., with א ADW, ins. λέγοντες : om. BLΓΔΘ The words from the Psalter with which (according to the Synoptists as well as Jn.) the acclaiming crowds greeted Jesus as He rode into the city, were the words with which in the original use of the Psalm the priests blessed the procession entering the Temple. “ Hosanna: Blessed in the Name of Yahweh is he that cometh” (Psalms 118:25, Psalms 118:26). The sense is missed if ἐνὀνόματικυρίου is connected with ὁἐρχόμενος . The Hebrew priests were chosen “ to bless in the name of Yahweh” (Deuteronomy 21:5); and so also it is written of David εὐλόγησεντὸνλαὸνἐνὀνόματικυρίου (2 Samuel 6:18). Cf. also 1 Kings 22:16, 2 Kings 2:24; and see note on 16:23. The quotation of Psa 118:25, Psalms 118:26 by the crowds who hailed Jesus on His entry to Jerusalem was something more than a mere blessing of welcome, as of One who had done wonderful things (cf. Psalms 129:8). It recognised in Him ὁἐρχόμενος , “ the Coming One,” even as Martha had said to Him σὺεἶ … ὁεἰςτὸνκόσμονἐρχόμενος (11:27; cf. Matthew 11:3). The cry of Hosanna (in Aramaic ה ו ֹ ש ׁ ַ ע ְ נ ָ א , rendered σῶσονδή in the LXX of Psa 118:25) was the refrain sung by the people in the processional recitation of Psa_118 at the Feast of Tabernacles. When v. 25 was reached, the palm branches which were carried by the worshippers were waved; and hence these sprigs of palm with myrtle and willow (lulab was the technical name) came themselves to be called hosannas. The practice, however, of bearing palm sprigs and crying Hosanna was not confined to the Feast of Tabernacles, although it originated in the Temple services at that festival; and we have already cited from 1 Macc. 13:51 an instance of palm branches being borne on the occasion of a popular welcome to a hero at another time of the year. There is thus no historical improbability in Jn.’ s statement that palms and hosannas were accompaniments of the entry of Jesus to the city.1 καὶὁβασιλεὺςτοῦἸσραήλ . Mk. has instead of this εὐλογημένηἡἐρχομένηβασιλείατοῦπατρὸςἡμῶνΔαυείδ , which conveys the same idea, sc. that the crowds were acclaiming Jesus as the Messianic king. Lk. has ὁἐρχόμενοςὁβασιλεύς , but Mt. puts it differently, reporting the cry as ὩσαννὰτῷυἱῷΔαυείδ (a different use of hosanna, perhaps derived from some liturgical refrain). Jn. has already (1:49) attributed the confession σὺβασιλεὺςεἶτοῦἸσραήλ to Nathanael. It was this public acclamation of Jesus as King of Israel or King of the Jews which was the foundation of the charge made against Him before Pilate (18:33). He had refused earlier in His ministry to allow the eager people to “ make Him king” (6:15); but now He did not disclaim the title (cf. Luke 19:38-40). Pseudo-Peter represents the inscription on the cross as being in the form οὗτοςἐστινὁβασιλεὺςτοῦἸσραήλ (see on 19:19). 14. εὑρὼνδὲὁἸησοῦςὀνάριονκτλ . This is not verbally consistent with the Synoptists, who tell that it was the disciples who had found the ass, in accordance with the directions given them by Jesus (Mark 11:2-6). Chrysostom is at unnecessary pains to reconcile the various statements; see v. 16 below. ἐκάθισενἐπ ʼ αὐτό So Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35 says ἐπεβίβασαντὸνἸησοῦν . καθώςἐστινγεγραμμένον . See on 2:17 for this formula of citation. 15. The quotation is from Zechariah 9:9, in an abbreviated form. The LXX has πῶλοννέον , whereas Jn. has πῶλονὄνου , a more literal rendering of the Hebrew; for the opening words, “ Exult greatly,” he gives μὴφοβοῦ . Mk. and Lk., while narrating the entry into Jerusalem, do not quote the prophecy. Mt. (21:5) gives it in the form ΕἴπατετῇθυγατρὶΣιών , Ἰδού , ὁβασιλεύςσουἔρχεταίσοιπραῢςκαὶἐπιβεβηκὼςἐπὶὄνονκαὶἐπὶπῶλονυἱὸνὑποζυγίου . Jn. notes (v. 16) that the application of this prophecy of Zechariah to the entry of Jesus was not thought of until a later time; but Mt. introduces his account with the formula ἵναπληρωθῇτὸῥηθὲνδιὰτοῦπροφήτουλέγοντος … (see Introd., p. cliv). The full quotation, as given by Mt., is misleading. The story, as told by the other evangelists, is simply that an ass’ s colt was found and that Jesus rode on it. But Mt., misunderstanding the Hebrew repetition in Zechariah 9:9, “ … upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of a she-ass,” where only one animal is indicated, tells us that two animals were fetched,1 and garments put on them that they might be ridden. Jn., on the contrary, gives only that part of the prophecy which is relevant, sc. “ sitting on an ass’ s colt.” It is not to be thought that there is any suggestion of humility in riding upon an ass. On the contrary, the ass and the mule were the animals used in peace by great persons for their progresses, as the horse was used in war. The sons of the judges rode upon asses (Judges 10:4, Judges 12:14); so did Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17:23); so did Mephibosheth, Saul’ s son, when he went to Jerusalem to meet David (2 Samuel 19:26); cf. Judges 5:10. Indeed Zechariah 9:10 shows plainly that the prophecy was specially of One coming in peace. The LXX translators did not understand this. They have πώλους only in Judges 10:4, Judges 12:14, probably because they thought of an ass as a beast of burden exclusively; thus in Zechariah 9:9 they have not noticed that א ָ ת ו ֹ ן is the regular word for she-ass (Genesis 32:15), which may be either used for riding or for carrying loads. The king, then, in the vision of Zechariah, rode upon an ass to signify that he came in peace, not to destroy but to save; and the entry of Jesus to Jerusalem on an ass was understood by the populace, in like manner, as the entry of the Prince of Peace. 16. A similar reminiscence of the evangelist is set down at 2:22, where see note. The saying of Jesus about restoration, after the Cleansing of the Temple, was not understood by the disciples until after His Resurrection. So, too, they did not perceive the significance in connexion with prophecy of His entry into Jerusalem, riding upon an ass, until He was “ glorified,” and they began to reflect upon the events of His ministry. For ἐδοξάσθη , see on 7:39, 12:23. Cf. also 13:31. א BLWΘ omit δέ after the first ταῦτα , which the rec. inserts. αὐτοῦοἱμαθηταί is the true order of words. The rec. inserts ὁ before Ἰησοῦς , which is omitted in א ABL. This omission of the article is not in accordance with Jn.’ s general usage (see on 1:29), and it is possible that the whole verse is an explanatory gloss added by an editor other than the evangelist himself. The threefold repetition of ταῦτα is somewhat clumsy, and can hardly be intentional. Again, the phrase ἐπ ʼ αὐτῷγεγραμμένα is unlike Jn. (cf. Revelation 10:11, Revelation 22:16): it must mean that the Scriptures quoted were, as it were, “ based on Him.” D substitutes περὶαὐτοῦ for ἐπ ʼ αὐτῷ , recognising the difficulty. And, finally, the last clause of the verse, which says that the disciples afterwards remembered “ that they had done these things to Him,” invites the question, “ What things?” Evidently, the answer is that the reference is to the search for the ass, in accordance with the instructions of Jesus, of which the Synoptists tell. But, as we have seen, Jn. tells nothing of this incident. He says only (v. 14) that “ Jesus having found the ass, sat thereon,” but he does not mention the co-operation of the disciples in this, or that they took any part in the entry to the city. It seems likely that the comment preserved in the last clause of this verse is due to some one who was thinking of the Synoptic narrative. 17. The interpretation of this verse depends mainly upon whether ὅτε or ὅτι (DL) is adopted as the true reading before τὸνΛάζαρον . If ὅτι be approved (with Tischendorf), we translate, “ So the crowd that was with Him was testifying that He called Lazarus from the tomb, and raised him from the dead, ” ὅτι introducing the actual words used by the crowd when acclaiming the entry of Jesus. Cf. Luke 19:37: “ the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen.” According to this rendering, the shouts of the crowd made special reference to the raising of Lazarus. This is entirely consistent with the view which Jn. gives his readers of the extraordinary effect which that miracle had on the public mind (vv. 9, 18). But, attractive as this rendering is, ὅτε must be preferred to ὅτι on the MS. evidence; and we translate: “ So the crowd that was with Him when He called Lazarus from the tomb, and raised him from the dead,” i.e. the onlookers at the scene described 11:33-44, “ bore their testimony.” The true authors of the ovation were the people who had been spectators of the miracle, who no doubt inspired all their acquaintances with their wondering enthusiasm. They “ bore their witness.” See for the idea of μαρτυρία in Jn., the note on 1:7; and cf. Introd., p. xc. 18. διὰτοῦτο (see on 5:16 for this opening) καὶὑπήντησεναὐτῷὁὄχλος , “ for this reason the crowd also met Him,” sc. the multitude mentioned v. 13, as distinct from the crowd accompanying Him from Bethany, where they had seen the raising of Lazarus. There were two streams of people: one escorting Jesus, the other meeting Him (see on v. 13), “ because they heard that He had done this sign.” For the σημεῖα of Jesus, see on 2:11. 19. οἱοὖνφαρισαῖοι . The Pharisees formed the party who were most deeply opposed to the teaching of Jesus (see on 1:24), and who initiated the movement for His arrest, which was ultimately carried out by the authority of the ἀρχιερεῖς (v. 10), who were the most influential members of the Sanhedrim (see on 7:32). They were in despair at the reception given to Jesus at His entry into the city, and said to each other, “ Do you notice (θεωρεῖτε is probably indicative, rather than imperative) that you don’ t do any good?” θεωρεῖν is used here of mental perception and understanding of the situation (see on 2:23). With οὐκὠφελεῖτεοὐδέν ; cf. 6:63 ἡσὰρξοὐκὠφελεῖοὐδέν . For ἴδε in Jn., see on 1:29. ὁκόσμος . DL add ὅλος to bring out the sense, “ the whole world,” everybody, tout le monde. Wetstein quotes a Rabbinical story of a priest of whom it was said, in like manner, “ all the world was going after him.” For κόσμος in Jn., see on 1:9. ὀπίσωαὐτοῦἀπῆλθεν . The aor. ἀπῆλθεν is here equivalent to “ has gone,” or, as the Sinai Syriac renders, “ is going.” The movement which the Pharisees regretted was in progress. For the use of ὀπίσω , cf. 2 Samuel 15:13 ἐγενήθηἡκαρδίαἀνδρῶνἸσραὴλὀπίσωἈβεσσαλώμ . The Greek Inquirers (vv. 20-22) 20. The episode of the Greek inquirers is introduced immediately after the complaint made by the Pharisees, “ the world is gone after Him.” Among those who were excited and moved by the reports about Jesus and Lazarus were some Greek pilgrims; it was not only Jews and Galilæ ans who were attracted by what they had heard of the wonderful things that had happened at Bethany, but Greeks as well. And Jn., alone among the evangelists, notes that some of them told Philip of their desire to see Jesus, and that Jesus was informed of it. This incident is naturally recalled in a Gospel written primarily for Greek readers. It is, however, not explicitly said that the request of the Greeks for an interview with Jesus was granted, or that they were present while the sayings of vv. 23-28 were being pronounced. But, although there is no positive statement to this effect in the text, it has been generally held since the days of Tatian that v. 20 begins a new section of the Gospel, and that vv. 20-22 are to be read in connexion with what follows. On this supposition, it is natural to seek in the words of Jesus here some message which may be taken as specially appropriate to Greeks. It has been suggested, e.g. by Lange, that the tremendous paradox of v. 25, “ he that loveth his life loseth it, and he that hateth his life shall keep it,” has a peculiar applicability, if regarded as the judgment of Christ on Greek ideals of life. For the Greek, the ideal of manhood was to reach the fulness of personal life; a man should develop his own personality; the larger and richer his life, the more nearly he approached his highest. There is something of this in Christianity as well as in Greek paganism, for Christianity holds up the Perfect Man as exemplar. But the Christian ideal involves sacrifice, and this was foreign to the philosophy of Greece. Jn. may mean us to understand v. 25 as implying the condemnation by Jesus of Greek ideals of life. Again, v. 32, “ I will draw all men to myself,” is a universal promise, including not only Jews but Gentiles like the Greek inquirers. And some have found in the exhortation, “ Believe in the light, that ye may become sons of light” (v. 36), an allusion to the prophecy, “ The glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. … Nations shall come to thy light, and kings to thy brightness” (Isaiah 60:1, Isaiah 60:3). Yet it must be owned that if vv. 23-28 are to be interpreted as addressed in particular to the Greeks whom Jesus now saw for the first time, the use of the Jewish title “ Son of Man” (see Introd., p. cxxxii) is puzzling (v. 23); and it is even more difficult to suppose that Jesus revealed to these strangers the anguish of His soul in words like those of v. 27. It is possible that vv. 20-22 should be treated as linked closely with v. 19, but as having no special relation with vv. 23 ff., a new paragraph beginning at v. 23 (where see note). ἦσανδὲἝλληνέςτινες (this is the reading of א BDLW, as against τινεςἝλληνες of the rec. text) ἐκτῶνἀναβαινόντων (for ἀναβαίνειν of “ going up” to Jerusalem, cf. 2:13) ἵναπροσκυνήσωσιν those who went up to the feast were many strangers (cf. 1 Kings 8:41). These men were not Ἑλληνισταί , i.e. Greek-speaking Jews (see on 7:35), but Ἕλληνες , Greeks who had become proselytes of the gate, and accordingly attended the Jewish festivals (see Acts 17:4 for “ devout Greeks” at Thessalonica; and cf. Acts 8:27 for the Ethiopian eunuch who came up to Jerusalem to worship). To such proselytes the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple precincts was appropriated. It was from this court (see on 2:14) that the moneychangers and the cattle were expelled by Jesus on the occasion when He cleansed the Temple; and if this episode is rightly placed by the Synoptists in the last week of Jesus’ ministry (but see on 2:13f.), the Greek inquirers may have been moved to seek speech with Him by the impression which His strong action had made on them, as well as by the reports of the raising of Lazarus. 21. οὗτοιοὖνπροσῆλθονφιλίππῳτῷἀπὸβηθσαϊδὰτῆςΓαλιλαίας . For the notices of Philip in Jn., see on 1:43, 44. He had a Greek name, and this may have encouraged the Greek proselytes to speak to him. They may have come from the Greek cities of Decapolis. Objection has been taken to the phrase “ Bethsaida of Galilee,” i.e. Bethsaida Julias, for no other Bethsaida is known (see on 6:1), on the ground that the next appearance of this descriptive title is in Claudius Ptolemæ us (c. 140 a.d.), and that such language suggests a second-century writer. But there is abundance of evidence that the north-eastern side of the lake, where Bethsaida is situated, was reckoned as in the province of Galilee by the year a.d. 80.1 The Greeks address Philip with respect, as κύριε , “ Sir.” He was not a Rabbi or teacher, but κύριε was an appropriate mode of address from those who saw in Philip the disciple and friend of One on whom they looked with reverential admiration (see on 1:38). θέλομεντὸνἸησοῦνἰδεῖν . There is no suggestion that they understood or imagined that Jesus was the Christ. They say τὸνἸησοῦν (using His personal name; cf. 18:5), not τὸνΧριστόν . And they mean by “ seeing” Him, having a private conversation; any one could see Him in the Temple courts, but they wished for something more intimate. The request may well have embarrassed Philip. The Twelve had been forbidden to preach to Gentiles (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 10:6); and although the Jews at Jerusalem had wondered whether one of the mysterious sayings of Jesus could mean that He proposed “ to teach the Greeks” (7:35), it is a question how far Jesus had explained to the apostles the full scope of His mission. This has been considered above (see on 10:16); but we must mark here that although in the Fourth Gospel the Gentiles are more explicitly than in the Synoptists brought within the range of Jesus’ mission, it is in that Gospel that we can most clearly trace a hesitation on the part of one of the Twelve to admit that Jesus has a message for Greeks as well as for Jews. As has been said above (on v. 20), we are not told whether Jesus gave an interview to these inquirers or whether He refused it. 22. ἔρχεταιὁφίλιπποςκαὶλέγειτῷἈνδρέᾳ . For the close association between Philip and Andrew, and for the vivid characterisation of each which is apparent in Jn., see on 6:8. Philip is cautious, perhaps a little dull; Andrew is the practical man to whom others appeal in a difficulty. Andrew is one of the inner circle of the Twelve (Mark 13:3), and perhaps might venture to proffer an unusual request to Jesus, where Philip would hesitate. For the second ἔρχεται the rec. text has καὶπάλιν , omitting καί before λέγουσι . But the best-attested reading is ἔρχεταιἈνδρέαςκαὶφίλιπποςκαὶλέγουσιντῷἸησοῦ . The singular ἔρχεται followed by the plur. λέγουσιν is quite a classical usage in a sentence like this. Jesus Announces His Impending Passion (V. 23); Here is the Supreme Exemplification of the Law of Life Through Death (vv. 24-26) 23. ἀποκρίνεται . So א BLW, as against ἀπεκρίνατο (see on 5:17) of the rec. text, with ADΓΔ . Θ fam. 13 have ἀπεκρίθη . The pres. tense does not occur in the Synoptists, and in Jn. only twice again, 13:26, 38. ἀποκρίνεταιαὐτοῖς , sc. He answers Andrew and Philip. The Greeks may have heard what He said, but there is no hint of it in what follows. For the unusual constr. ἀποκρίνεταιλέγων , see on 1:26; and cf. 1:50. ἐλήλυθενἡὥρα . The time of the Passion had come. Cf. 13:1 ἦλθεναὐτοῦἡὥρα and 17:1 ἐλήλυθενἡὥρα . The phrase occurs in the Synoptists only in the account of the words of Jesus at Gethsemane immediately before the Betrayal, ἦλθενἡὥρα , Mark 14:41, Matthew 26:45 (cf. ὁκαιρόςμουἐγγύςἐστιν , Matthew 26:18, which was said at an earlier stage, before the preparation of the Last Supper). The Fourth Gospel is written throughout, as Jesus Himself spoke, sub specie æ ternitatis. He is represented as knowing from the beginning the time and manner and sequel of the end of His public ministry in the flesh. Twice in this Gospel He is made to say “ my time is not yet come” (7:6, 8); and twice Jn. comments “ His hour was not yet come” (7:30, 8:20; see on 2:4). It will be noticed that, with the possible exception of this passage (12:23), the phrase “ the hour has come” is always (13:1, 17:1, Mark 14:41) applied to the hour immediately before the Betrayal. It is not used loosely, as if it only meant “ the time is near,” and in every case the verb ἐλήλυθεν comes first, the phrase ἐλήλυθενἡὤρα being strikingly and austerely impressive and final. Its presence suggests that what is about to be narrated relates to the last scenes, and we shall see (on v. 27) that there are some indications that in what follows Jn. is giving us his version of the prayers of Jesus at Gethsemane. ἐλήλυθενἡὥραἵναδοξασθῇὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου , “ the hour is come that the Son of Man should be glorified.” For δοξασθῇ , “ glorified,” sc. in His Death, see on 7:39; and cf. 12:16, 13:31. This is quite a different use of δοξάζεσθαι from that at 11:4, where ἵναδοξασθῇὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ means “ that the Son of God might be glorified” by the manifestation of the Father’ s power in the recovery of Lazarus. Here, with the Passion in view, Jesus does not speak of Himself as “ Son of God,” but as “ Son of Man” ; cf. 3:14, 6:53, 8:28, and see Introd., p. cxxxii. The glorification of Jesus as Son of Man would be in His Passion, as He now Himself declares. This is the paradox of the Cross. But it is a paradox only to those who have not considered its threefold illustration in nature and in human life: (1) the seed must die that it may be fruitful, v. 24; (2) the true life of man is achieved only through sacrifice, v. 25; (3) the life of service, of ministry, is the life of honour, of the true glory, v. 26. ἐλήλυθενἡὥραἵναδοξασθῇκτλ . ἵνα seems prima facie to be used as equivalent to “ when” ; and Burney finds an explanation of this in his suggestion that ἴνα is often a translation or mistranslation of the Aramaic ד ּ , which may bear this meaning. But if we compare 13:1, 16:2, 32, we see that in each case where ἵνα is used as here, it always follows “ the hour has come” or “ the hour cometh.” When God’ s predestined hour has come, the purpose which He has in view must follow. It has come in order that this purpose may be fulfilled. The use of ἵνα in such passages is an illustration of that view of the sequence of events, which is constantly present to the mind of Jn., and which he does not hesitate to ascribe to Jesus Himself (see on 2:4). 24. ἀμὴνἀμήνκτλ . See on 1:51 for this formula introducing a saying of special solemnity. Here it is prefixed to the first illustration of the paradox that Life comes through Death, viz. the law that the grain of wheat (ὁκόκκος . any grain) must die before it can bear fruit. To this law Paul appeals in his statement of the resurrection of man (1 Corinthians 15:36). It has, perhaps, a special applicability here, in reference to what precedes; for Christ, who is about to be glorified in Death, claimed to be, Himself, the Bread of Life. Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 16) quotes from the Apophasis of Simon Magus (a work written about a.d. 100) a passage that Schmiedel1 thinks is behind this verse. Simon says that a tree abiding alone and bearing no fruit is destroyed , but he goes on to cite Matthew 3:10. There is a verbal similarity with Jn., but the thought is quite different. 25. We now come to the second illustration of the great paradox of the Cross: “ He that loveth his life loseth it , and he that hateth his life in this world (ἐντῷκόσμῳτούτῳ , cf. 8:23) shall keep it unto life eternal (for ζωὴαἰώνιος , see on 4:14).” ψυχή is the conscious organ of feeling and desire, not so near the Divine as πνεῦμα , sometimes (as here) to be distinguished from πνεῦμα , but often used as its equivalent, just as in English we do not always sharply differentiate “ soul” from “ spirit” (see on 11:33). This great saying may have been repeated by Jesus more than once, representing as it does the central lesson of His teaching and His life. In the Marcan tradition it is placed after the Confession of Peter (Mark 8:35, Matthew 16:25, Luke 9:24), when Jesus began to tell the Twelve that His Mission would issue in death. It is found also in other settings in the Mt.— Lk. tradition (Matthew 10:39, Luke 17:33), where it comes from the source Q. In its most literal meaning it was applicable to the choice between martyrdom and apostasy, which Christians of the first century (as well as later) were sometimes called to make. But selfishness is always the death of the true life of man. The strong expression “ hateth his life” is softened down in the Synoptic parallels, but it is found in another context, Luke 14:26. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ PART III.— THE PASSION AND (13-20) Hitherto the exoteric or public teaching of Jesus has been expounded: in Part I. as addressed to would-be disciples, and in Part II. to Jews, for the most part incredulous. In Part III. we have only the esoteric and private teaching reserved by Jesus for His chosen friends and future ambassadors. Part III. begins with a carefully constructed editorial introduction (13:1). It is noteworthy that, while vv. 1-3 are full of Johannine phrases, a greater use is made of subordinate and dependent clauses than is customary with Jn., who prefers parataxis in narration. The Feet-Washing at the Last Supper (vv. 1-11) 13:1. πρὸδὲτῆςἑορτῆςτοῦπάσχα . δέ is resumptive, the Passover being that mentioned 12:1. What is now to be narrated took place on the eve of the Passover, i.e. on the evening of Nisan 13. εἰδώς . Attention is specially called in this narrative (vv. 3, 11, 18) to the perfect insight and foresight which Jesus exhibited as to the time and circumstances of the Passion; cf. 18:4, 19:28. He knew that “ His hour had come” (cf. 12:23); see on 2:4 for this feature of the Fourth Gospel, that it represents the predestined end as foreseen from the beginning. For ἦλθεν the rec. has ἐλήλυθεν . D has παρῆν . For ἵνα in the sense of “ when,” see on 12:23. ἵναμεταβῇκτλ . Harris has suggested that this is Passover language; and in one of Bede’ s Homilies we find “ Pascha transitus interpretatur.” 1 But μεταβαίνειν is never used elsewhere in the Greek Bible with this suggestion. Its use here of a departure from this life to the unseen world is, indeed, also without Biblical parallels; but cf. 5:24, 1 John 3:14. ἐκτοῦκόσμουτούτου . See for this phrase the note on 8:23. For κόσμος generally, see on 1:9. πρὸςτὸνπατέρα . Christ’ s departure or ascension is spoken of again as a “ going to the Father,” 14:12, 28, 16:10, 28. τοὺςἰδίους . “ His own intimate friends and disciples,” not, as at 1:11, “ His own people, the Jews.” Cf. Mark 4:34. τοὺςἐντῷκόσμῳ . They were “ in the world,” as He said 17:11, although in another sense they are distinguished from “ the world,” out of which they had been given to Him (17:6, 9). These men He had loved. εἰςτέλοςἠγάπησεναὐτούς . To translate these words “ He loved them unto the end,” although linguistically defensible, reduces the sentence to a platitude. This verse introduces an incident to which Jn. gives a good deal of space, and which he regards as of high consequence. “ Jesus, knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, … ” The reader expects that this solemn prelude is to be followed by a statement that Jesus did or said something of special significance. The statement is εἰςτέλοςἠγάπησεναὐτούς , and it seems to mean, “ He exhibited His love for them to the uttermost,” i.e. in a remarkable manner. First, as to ἠγάπησεν . If “ He continued to love them” were the meaning, we should expect the impf. rather than the aor. tense. The aor. indicates a definite act, rather than a continuing emotion; so ἠγάπησεν in 3:16 is used of the love of God as exhibited in the gift of His Son. Abbott (Diat. 1744) quotes a similar Pauline use in Romans 8:37, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 5:2, and also Ignatius, Magn. 6. Thus ἠγάπησεν may mean here “ He showed His love,” sc. by His action, unprecedented for a master, in washing the feet of His disciples. And so the words καθὼςἠγάπησαὑμᾶς of v. 34 bear a definite reference to ἠγάπησεν in v. 1 and to the feet-washing which followed. Secondly, εἰςτέλος is often used as equivalent to “ wholly” or “ utterly,” as at Joshua 3:16, 1 Chronicles 28:9, 1 Chronicles 28:2 Macc. 8:29, 1 Thessalonians 2:16. Abbott (Diat. 2322c) cites Hermas, Vis. III. x. 5, where ἱλαρὰεἰςτέλος means “ joyful exceedingly,” or “ joyful to the uttermost.” It can equally well mean “ to the end,” e.g. Matthew 10:22, where it is said that “ he that endures εἰςτέλος shall be saved” ; but this rendering does not suit the context here. Accordingly, we translate v. 1, “ Jesus, knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, exhibited His love for them to the uttermost,” i.e. gave that remarkable manifestation of His love for His disciples which is told in the narrative of the feet-washing that follows. 2. For γινομένου (א *BLW) the rec. text, with א cADΓΔΘ , has γενομένου , which wrongly suggests that the supper was ended. δείπνουγινομένου , “ while a supper was going on,” “ during supper,” there being no def. art. and no suggestion that this was the supper of the Passover feast, as the Synoptists state. τοῦδιαβόλουἤδηβεβληκότοςκτλ ., “ the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas, etc.” So the Synoptists (Mark 14:10, Matthew 26:14, Luke 22:3) represent the matter, Judas having made his bargain with the chief priests on a previous day of the same week; Lk. alone (as Jn. does here) ascribing his treachery to the instigation of the devil, εἰσῆλθενΣατανᾶςεἰςἸούδαν . This is repeated by Jn. at v. 27, when Judas decided on the final and fatal step. Cf. Acts 5:3. The rec. text, with ADΓΔΘ , has a smoother order of words, εἰςτὴνκαρδίανἸούδαΣίμωνοςἸσκαριώτου , ἵνααὐτὸνπαραδῷ , which does not differ in meaning from the better supported εἰςτὴνκαρδίανἵναπαραδοῖαὐτὸνἸούδαςΣίμωνοςἸσκαριώτης (so א BL). For παραδίδωμι , see on 6:64. For Ἰσκαριώτης , see on 6:71. It is applied here to Judas, as there to his father Simon. 3. After εἰδώς , AΘ add ὁἸησοῦς for the sake of clearness; om. א BDLW. For ἔδωκεν (א BLW) the rec. has δέδωκεν with ADΓΔΘ . εἰδώς , as in v. 1; but here it signifies that Jesus set Himself to the humble office of washing His disciples’ feet, with full consciousness of the majesty of His Person, and even because of it. He knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that therefore He could evade the Passion which was impending, if He wished. Cf. 3:35 ὁπατὴρἀγαπᾷτὸνυἱὸνκαὶπάνταδέδωκενἐντῇχειρὶαὐτοῦ . We cannot distinguish ἐντῇχειρὶαὐτοῦ in that passage from αὐτῷεἰςτὰςχεῖρας in this. So at Daniel 1:2 the LXX has παρέδωκεν … εἰςχεῖραςαὐτοῦ , where Theodotion has ἔδωκενἐνχειρὶαὐτοῦ . ἐν and εἰς are not always to be distinguished. Jn. says of Jesus that He knew ὅτιἀπὸθεοῦἐξῆλθεν . So Nicodemus was ready to admit, ἀπὸθεοῦἐλήλυθαςδιδάσκαλος (3:2); and on the night before the Passion the apostles made the same confession, ἀπὸθεοῦἐξῆλθες (16:30). Jn. never makes Jesus speak thus of Himself. He does not say ἀπὸτοῦπατρὸςἐξῆλθον , but always uses either παρὰ or ἐκ in such contexts. Yet, again, the distinction of prepositions cannot be pressed (see on 1:14, 44, 16:28). καὶπρὸςτὸνθεὸνὑπάγει , “ and is going to God,” the historic present which vividly reproduces the situation. For ὑπάγειν , see on 7:33, 16:7, 10. There seems to be a reminiscence of this teaching (see also 16:28) in Ignatius, Magn. 7, ἸησοῦνΧριστὸντὸνἀφ ʼ ἑνὸςπατρὸςπροελθόντακαὶεἰςἕναὅντακαὶχωρήσαντα . See on 1:18. Introductory Note on the Last Supper Before we examine Jn.’ s narrative of the Last Supper, we set down what we conceive to have been the actual order of events. Although the Synoptists treat the Last Supper as the Paschal Feast, which Jn. pointedly does not do, there can be no doubt that Joh_13 is intended to describe the same supper as that of Mar_14, Mat_26, Luk_22. We cannot harmonise the various narratives precisely, but they have much in common. We place the incidents in order as follows: 1. The supper begins. 2. The disciples dispute about precedence (Luke 22:24f.; not in Mk., Mt., Jn.). 3. Jesus washes the feet of the disciples, by His example rebuking their self-seeking, and bidding them remember that their Master was content to act as their slave (John 13:4-10; cf. John 13:15, John 13:16 and Luke 22:26, Luke 22:27). 4. Jesus announces that a traitor is in their midst (John 13:10, John 13:11, John 13:18, John 13:21, Mark 14:18, Matthew 26:21, Luke 22:21). 5. The disciples begin to ask which of them was thus designated (John 13:22f., Mark 14:19, Matthew 26:22, Luke 22:23). 6. Jesus tells John the beloved disciple that the traitor is the one to whom He will give the sop from the dish (John 13:25, John 13:26; cf. Mark 14:20, Matthew 26:23; not in Lk.). 7. Jesus gives the sop to Judas (John 13:26), and thus or otherwise conveys to Judas that He knows of his intentions (Matthew 26:25). This is not in Mk. or Lk., neither of whom at this point names Judas as the traitor. 8. Judas goes out at once (John 13:30; not in Mk., Mt., Lk.). 9. The Eucharist is instituted (Mark 14:22f., Matthew 26:26f., Luke 22:19f.; not in Jn., but cf. John 6:51-58). 10. Jesus predicts His impending Passion in the words, “ I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25, Matthew 26:29, Luke 22:18; not given thus by Jn., but cf. John 13:31-35 and 15:1-13). 11. Jesus warns Peter that he will deny Him (John 13:36-38, Mark 14:29f., Matthew 26:33f., Luke 22:31f.). On examination of this table, it will be noticed, first that Jn. and Mk. (whom Mt. follows) never disagree as to the order of the various incidents; the important differences being that Jn. describes the Feet-washing, which Mk. does not mention, and that he omits the Institution of the Eucharist. Jn. also tells that it was to the beloved disciple that Jesus conveyed the hint which might have enabled the company to have identified the traitor (see on 13:26); and he alone mentions expressly that Judas left the room. The order, however, in which Lk. mentions the several incidents is different. His order Isaiah 1:10, Isaiah 1:9, Isaiah 1:4, Isaiah 1:5, Isaiah 1:2, Isaiah 1:11, omitting 3, 6, 7, 8; the most remarkable feature in his narrative being that he puts the announcement that a traitor was present after the Institution of the Eucharist, thus implying that Judas received the Bread and the Cup along with the rest. The position, also, which he gives to the mysterious saying numbered 10 above, differs from that assigned to it by Mk. and Mt. Lk., in short, follows a different tradition from that of Mk. and Mt. in his narrative of the Eucharist. The longer recension of the words of Institution as given by him (see Introd., p. clxxii) seems to have been derived from Paul; but that cannot be said of the Western version, which may be the original. From whatever source Lk. has derived his narrative of the Last Supper, it has marks of confusion. We are justified, then, in preferring to his order of incidents here that which is given in the two Gospels Mk. and Jn., which probably rest respectively on the reminiscences of Peter and of John the son of Zebedee, both of whom were present at the Supper. At what point in the narrative of Jn. are we to suppose that the Institution of the Eucharist took place? The foregoing comparison with Mk. suggests that we should put it after Judas had left (v. 30), and before the prediction of the Passion as near (vv. 31, 32). That Jn. knew of the Institution of the Eucharist is certain;1 and we have found reason for holding that the words of Institution are reproduced in 6:51b, where see note. We hold that there has been a dislocation of the text after 13:30, and that the original order was c. 15, c. 16, c. 13:31-38, c. 14, c. 17.2 It may be that a paragraph has been lost after 13:30, and it is tempting to conjecture that this paragraph told of the first Eucharist.3 But, if this were not so (and there is no external evidence for it), we must fall back on the conclusion that Jn. has designedly omitted to tell of the Institution of the Eucharist (although he betrays his knowledge of it in c. 6), while his reasons for this omission cannot now be discovered. See on v. 31. 13:4. ἐγείρεταιἐκτοῦδείπνου , “ He rises from the supper,” that is, from the couch on which He had been reclining. This shows that the Feet-washing which follows was not before supper, and so is not to be regarded as the cleansing of the feet which was preparatory to a meal. Where sandals are worn, the feet get dusty and tired, and it was a courtesy of hospitality to arrange that water was available for washing them (Luke 7:44; cf. Genesis 18:4, Genesis 19:2, Genesis 24:32, Genesis 43:24, Judges 19:21, 1 Samuel 25:41, 1 Timothy 5:10). But in this case, the supper had not only begun, but was probably ending. In the talk that followed, the disciples began to dispute about their precedence (Luke 22:24), perhaps in reference to the order in which they were placed at the meal; and Jesus, rising from His place, proceeds to give them an object-lesson. “ Whether 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” (Luke 22:27). So, stripping off His outer robe or tallith and appearing in His tunic only, He girded Himself with a towel, as a slave would do, that He might pour water upon their feet. Wetstein recalls the story of Caligula, who was wont to insult members of the Senate by making them wait at table succinctos linteo (Suetonius, Cal. 26). This story indicates how great an act of condescension the Feet-washing by Christ must have seemed to His disciples to be. After ἱμάτια D adds αὐτοῦ . With διέζωσεν , cf. 21:7: Luke 12:37, Luke 17:8 illustrate the “ girding” himself for his work which was appropriate to a slave. The towel (linteum) was fastened to the shoulder, so as to leave both hands free. 5.. The word νιπτήρ does not occur again in Greek literature,1 Biblical or secular, except in quotations of this passage. It must mean some washing utensil, but “ bason” may easily convey a wrong impression. Orientals do not wash, as we do, in a bason which visibly retains the water that has been used; that they would regard as an unclean practice. The Eastern habit is to pour water from a ewer over hands or feet (cf. 2 Kings 3:11, where Elisha performs this duty for his master Elijah), the water being caught below in a bason with a strainer, and then passing through the strainer out of sight. The assistance of a servant is necessary, as both the ewer and the bason have to be held. At the Last Supper, the disciples were reclining on the usual divans or couches, their feet being stretched out behind (see Luke 7:38, where the sinful woman was “ standing behind” at the feet of Jesus, when she let her tears fall upon them). Jesus first poured (βάλλει , cf. Matthew 9:17) water into the νιπτήρ , which was ready in the room for such a purpose , and then He poured the water over the disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel with which He had girded Himself. He did all that was the duty of a slave for his master who was having his feet washed.1 καὶἤρξατοκτλ . The verb ἄρχεσθαι does not occur again in Jn. (but cf. [8:9]). He began to wash the disciples’ feet,2 but it is not said in what order, nor is this now possible to determine. Some have thought that the order was that in which they sat at table, and that Judas came first (see on v. 23 below). Or it may have been Peter, for οὖν in the phrase ἔρχεταιοὖνπρὸςΣίμωναΠέτρον (v. 6) is not causative (see on 1:22). οὖν is a favourite conjunction with Jn., and vv. 5, 6 may be rendered in accordance with his usage, “ He began to wash the disciples’ feet … and so He comes to Simon Peter.” We do not know. After μαθητῶν , D, for clearness, adds αὐτοῦ . οἱμαθηταί here are the Twelve, the inner circle (cf. v. 1), not the general body of the disciples (see on 2:2). ἐκμάσσειν is always used in Lk. and Jn. for “ wiping” the feet after washing (Luke 7:38, Luke 7:44, John 11:2, John 12:3). ᾧᾖνδιεζωσμένος . ᾧ is, by attraction, for ὅ . 6. After ΣίμωναΠέτρον , the rec. adds καί , with א AWΓΔΘ ; but the conjunction is omitted by BDL, and this suits the abrupt style of the narrative. After λέγειαὐτῷ , in like manner, ἐκεῖνος is added by rec. text, with א cADLWΓΔΘ , to make the sense clear; om. א *B. κύριε . Peter does not say “ Rabbi,” as in the early days; see on 1:38, and cf. vv. 9, 36. σύμουνίπτειςτοὺςπόδας ; “ Dost Thou wash my feet?” both pronouns being emphatic, and special stress lying on μου , as following another pronoun directly. Peter, we may suppose, drew his feet up, as he spoke, in his impulsive humility. There is a pseudo-reverence which is near akin to irreverence.3 7. ὅἐγὼ (emphatic) ποιῶσὺ (emphatic) οὐκοἶδαςκτλ ., “ What I do thou knowest not at this moment (ἄρτι ; see on 9:19), but thou shalt know presently.” μετὰταῦτα (see Introd., p. cviii) is equivalent to “ afterwards,” and is quite vague as to the length of time that is to elapse. For the distinction between εἰδέναι and γινώσκειν , see on 1:26; cf. v. 12. The Feet-washing is explained vv. 12 f. as being a lesson in humility. The disciples had been disputing about precedence (see on v. 4 above), and Jesus reminds them, as He had done before, of the dignity of service and ministry. See on 12:26, where the high place which διακονία occupies in the teaching of Christ is discussed. Here He illustrates, by His action (cf. Luke 22:27), this essential feature of His mission, and He bids His disciples to follow His example (v. 16). As to the possibility of a deeper symbolism, see on v. 10 below. 8. οὐμὴνίψῃςμουτοὺςπόδας , “ Thou shalt assuredly never (εἰςτὸναἰῶνα ; see on 4:14) wash my feet,” μου being emphatic because of its position in the sentence . The answer of Jesus, “ If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me,” is very severe. “ To have part with another,” or to be his partner, is to share in his work, and ultimately in his reward. Thus the unfaithful slave is condemned to have his part with the hypocrites (Matthew 24:51; cf. Psalms 50:18). The Levites had no part in the inheritance of Israel, their work being different from that of the other tribes (Deuteronomy 10:9, Deuteronomy 12:12); Simon Magus had no part in the apostolic endowments of the Spirit, being animated by ideals wholly different from those of the apostles (Acts 8:21); a Christian has no part with an unbelieving heathen (2 Corinthians 6:15). So to decline the call of ministry, to which every disciple is called, is to have no part with Christ, to be no partner of His, for His work was pre-eminently a work of ministry (see on 12:26). Peter’ s refusal to allow his Master to minister to him was really to reject that principle of the dignity of ministry and service which was behind the work of Jesus. It was not said affirmatively that he whom Jesus washed was thereby recognised as His partner; for the feet of Judas were washed by Him, and He knew Judas for a traitor. 9. For ΣίμωνΠέτρος , B has ΠέτροςΣίμων , by inadvertence: D omits Σίμων . Peter does not yet understand what is meant by the strange act of his Master. He now thinks that the “ washing” of which Jesus has spoken is for bodily cleansing, or (perhaps) is a symbol of spiritual cleansing; and he cries with his accustomed impulsiveness, “ Lord , not my feet only, but also my hands and my head,” thus missing the point of the action of Jesus. It was not a symbol of cleansing, but an illustration of the dignity of service, even menial service; and therefore the washing was of the feet, rather than of the hands or the head. 10. B om. ὁ before Ἰης ., ins. א ACDWΘ . For the rec. order οὐχρείανἔχει , א ABC*W have οὐκἔχειχρείαν . א omits the words εἰμὴτοὺςπόδας , possibly, as Abbott (Diat. 2659e) suggests, by homoioteleuton. א sometimes writes ει as ι , and Abbott thinks the archetype may have been ουκεχιχρειανι μητουσποδασνι ψασθαι However that may be, BC*L retain εἰμὴτοὺςπόδας , Act_3 having ἤτοὺςπόδας , while E2 has τοὺςπόδας only; D expands and gives οὐχρείανἔχειτὴνκεφαλὴννίψασθαιεἰμὴτοὺςπόδαςμονον . If the words εἰμὴτοὺςπόδας are omitted (א , with Origen and some O.L. authorities), the answer of Jesus is clear, “ He that has been bathed needs not to wash,” thus indicating that His words and actions have had nothing to do with cleansing, as Peter supposed; the pedilauium was an illustration only of the dignity of ministry. But the variants show that τοὺςπόδας was probably in the original text, and that the omission of the words is due either to homoioteleuton or to the difficulty of reconciling εἰμὴτοὺςπόδας with the words ἀλλ ʼ ἔστινκαθαρὸςὅλος which follow. ὁλελουμένοςκτλ . λούειν is frequently used of bathing the whole body (e.g. Leviticus 14:9, Leviticus 16:4, Leviticus 17:16, Numbers 19:7, Deuteronomy 23:11, Acts 9:37). Guests were accustomed to bathe before they went to a feast (Wetstein gives many illustrations of this); when they arrived at the house where they were to have dinner or supper, it was only necessary that their feet should be washed (see on v. 4). There was no need for the head or the hands to be washed. And so Jesus reminds Peter, who has been wrong in thinking that the washing of his feet by his Master was for the purpose of bodily cleansing. The man who has bathed before the meal is καθαρὸςὅλος , and Jesus adds, of the disciples who were present, ὑμεῖςκαθαροίἐστε . καθαρός is often used of external cleanliness, as at Matthew 23:26, Matthew 27:59, and cf. Hebrews 10:22 λελουσμένοιτὸσῶμαὕδατικαθαρῷ , where καθαρός refers to the purity of the water to be used in baptism; but in the only other place where it occurs in Jn. (15:3) the word is used of spiritual purity. To this other meaning of καθαρός Jesus reverts here; then to the words “ ye are clean” He adds, “ but not all,” Judas being the exception. As far as bodily cleanliness was concerned, no doubt Judas was on a par with the rest; but not in a spiritual sense. ἀλλ ʼ οὐχὶπάντες . This, according to Jn., is the first hint given by Jesus that one of the Twelve would be a traitor; although Jn. has stated (6:64) that He had known this ἐξἀρχῆς , and repeats the statement here (v. 11). In this verse a new idea emerges, sc. that of spiritual purity, being suggested by the double meaning of καθαρός ; and we have to inquire if (as some have thought) Jn. sees a deeper symbolism in the feet-washing than the lessons of humility and of the dignity of service. In v. 8 we had, “ If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” This, apart from its context, would naturally refer to the spiritual cleansing which is needful before the disciple can be Christ’ s partner, and perhaps (see on v. 9) Peter understood it thus. But in the narrative this is not the interpretation of His action furnished by Jesus Himself (vv. 13-16); although it has been thought that Jn. tells the story in terms which imply it. Yet (1) if the cleansing be the spiritual purification which is the issue of Christ’ s atonement, then we have an idea introduced which is foreign to the context and which does not appear again in c. 13. It is worth adding that the conception of Christ washing away sin in His blood is not explicit anywhere in the N.T. (In Revelation 1:5 the true reading is λύσαντι , not λούσαντι , and Revelation 7:14 refers to man’ s part in redemption, “ they washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.” ) (2) More plausible is the interpretation which finds in the pedilauium the symbol of baptism. This goes back to Tertullian (de bapt. xii.), but Tertullian is inclined to find a fore-shadowing of baptism in any N.T. phrase which alludes to water. The washing of Christian disciples in the water of baptism is, however, a familiar image in the N.T.; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:11, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, and Hebrews 10:22 λελουσμένοιτὸσῶμαὕδατικαθαρῷ . Holtzmann suggested1 that Jn. in this passage is giving an account of the institution of Baptism as a Christian rite, and that he gives it here instead of narrating, as the Synoptists do, the institution of the Eucharist, because he wishes to call attention to the high dignity of baptism. “ In doing so, he at the same time very plainly offers the suggestion that washing the feet should be allowed to take the place of complete immersion.” The last sentence is not only an anachronism, for baptism by affusion rather than by immersion is, so far as we know, a concession much later than the latest date that can be assigned to the Fourth Gospel;1 but no baptismal rite has ever been known which substituted the pouring water on the feet for pouring it on the head or the body. The pedilauium, indeed, is prescribed in some early Gallican “ Ordines Baptismi” and also in the baptismal offices of the Celtic Church. But it was no part of the actual baptism; it was a supplementary ceremony, intended to illustrate for the new Christian what manner of life his should be— humble and ministerial, as was his Master’ s. If there be any allusion to baptism here, it must lurk in the word λελουμένος , “ bathed,” and this is specially contrasted with the “ washing” of the feet. The esoteric meaning of v. 10 would then be that, as baptism cannot be repeated, the baptized person needs but to have regard to the removal of the occasional defilements of sin with which he is troubled. Even this seems over subtle. The simplest explanation is that provided in vv. 13-16; the sudden turn of the argument in v. 11 being due to the ambiguity of the word καθαρός , which suggests the introduction of the saving clause “ but not all.” 11. The saying “ but not all” was not understood by the disciples, who did not suspect Judas. After the Passion, it would have needed no explanation; but Jn., in explaining what it meant, is reproducing the situation as it presented itself to an eye-witness. ᾔδειγὰρτὸνπαραδιδόντααὐτόν , “ for He knew the man that was delivering Him up,” the pres. part. indicating that the movement of treachery had already begun (see on v. 2). Jn. is always careful to bring out the insight of Jesus in regard to men’ s characters and motives (see on 2:25). This explanatory comment is characteristic of his manner of writing (see on 2:21). διὰτοῦτοεἶπενὅτικτλ ., “ wherefore He said, etc.” ὅτι (om. א AΓΔΘ , but ins. BCLW) is recitantis, introducing the words actually spoken. οὐχὶπάντες … Cf. v. 18 οὐπερὶπάντωνὑμῶν (and Matthew 7:21) for this Greek order of words. The Spiritual Meaning of the Feet-Washing (vv. 12-20) 12. ὅτε … αὐτῶν , “ When then He had washed their feet,” αὐτῶν indicating that He ministered to them all. καὶἔλαβεντὰἱμάτιααὐτοῦ , “ and had taken His garments,” i.e. had resumed the tallith which He had taken off (v. 4). καὶἀνέπεσενπάλιν , “ and had reclined (or, as we should say, sat down) again.” He resumed His place at the table, which He had left when ἐγείρεταιἐκτοῦδείπνου (v. 4). For καὶἀνέπεσεν , C3DΘ have ἀναπεσών . εἶπεναὐτοῖςΓινώσκετετίπεποίηκαὑμῖν ; γινώσκετε may be either imperative (as at Joshua 23:13, Daniel 3:15, John 15:18) or interrogative, as it has usually been understood. Abbott (Diat. 2243) prefers to take γινώσκετε as imperative here, the Lord bidding the disciples to recognise, and mark the meaning of, His ministry to them. The words go back to γνώσῃμετὰταῦτα of v. 7, in any case. They introduce the interpretation of the strange action of Jesus in washing the disciples’ feet. For γινώσκειν , see on 1:48. 13. ὑμεῖςφωνεῖτέμεκτλ ., “ You address me as Teacher and Lord.” φωνεῖν (see on 1:48) is the word regularly used by Jn. for calling a person by his name or title. For the titles Rabbi and Mari , by which the disciples were accustomed to address Jesus, see on 1:38 above. ὁδιδάοκαλος , ὅκύριος , are called by the grammarians titular nominatives. καὶκαλῶςλέγετε , εἰρὶγάρ , “ and you say well, for so I am.” Cf. with εἰμὶγάρ the καίἐσμεν of 1 John 3:1. Christ affirms His own dignity, even while stooping to what the disciples counted a menial office. He will not permit them to be in any doubt about this. 14. εἰοὖνἐγώκτλ ., “ If then, I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, a fortiori, you ought to wash the feet of one another.” By this example were the dignity and the duty of mutual διακονία recommended (see on 12:26) to Christian disciples. The precept was not taken by the Church to be the initiation of a sacramental rite; the pedilauium was never counted as a sacrament, although the custom grew up by the fourth century, in certain parts of the Western Church, of washing the feet of the poor on the Thursday before Easter. In England, the sovereign, or in his stead the Lord High Almoner, used to do this with ceremony until 1731; and in Rome the Pope still presides at the pedilauium. The pious widows described in 1 Timothy 5:10 “ washed the saints’ feet,” but only as an incident of their hospitable ministrations. ὀφείλετε . The verb occurs again in Jn. at 19:17, 1 John 2:6, 1 John 3:16, 1 John 4:11. 15. ὑπόδειγμα is not found again in Jn., and is applied nowhere else in the N.T. to the example of Christ. It is used of the noble example of Eleazar’ s death at 2 Macc. 6:28. Cf. Hebrews 4:11, Hebrews 8:5, Hebrews 9:23, James 5:10, 2 Peter 2:6. The rec. ἔδωκα is perhaps to be preferred to δέδωκα of א A fam. 13. ἵνακαθὼςἐγώκτλ ., “ that as I have done to you, so you should do” : a practical illustration having been provided of the meaning of the precept, “ Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29). For the constr. καθὼς … καί , cf. vv. 33, 34. 16. ἀμὴνἀμήνκτλ ., as usual, introduces an aphorism of special significance. See on 1:51. οὐκἔστινδοῦλοςμείζωντοῦκυρίουαὐτοῦ . Luke 6:40 has οὐκἐστὶνμαθητὴςὑπὲρτὸνδιδάσκαλον ; and Matthew 10:24 combines the Johannine and Lucan forms of the saying. It is, of course, beyond question that the servant is not greater than his master (cf. Luke 22:27); but it is stated here to reinforce the lesson of the true dignity of service, which Jesus has been teaching by His example. If He may stoop to minister, without losing dignity, a fortiori may His disciples do so. The saying is repeated 15:20, where a different lesson is drawn from it. οὐδὲἀπόστολοςκτλ ., “ nor is he that is sent greater than Him that sent him.” ἀπόστολος is not found again in Jn., and is here used in its etymological sense of a “ messenger,” as at 1 Kings 14:6, 2 Corinthians 8:23, Philippians 2:25. The Synoptists tell that Jesus gave the title ἀπόστολοι to the Twelve (Luke 6:13), and they occasionally apply it to them. But Jn. always uses the older descriptions “ the Twelve,” or “ the Disciples.” It is possible that Jn. discovers a special allusion to the Twelve in the words “ he that is sent is not greater than Him that sent him,” and that the word ἀπόστολος is specially significant here of their mission; but this is not certain. See on 2:2. 17. εἰταῦταοἴδατεκτλ ., “ If ye know these things,” sc. if you thoroughly understand and appreciate what I have been saying to you (for the force of οἴδατε , see on 1:26). Judas had not reached to this point. μακάριοίἐστεκτλ ., “ blessed are ye, if ye do them.” The dignity of διακονία is an easy lesson to understand, but is hard to put into practice (cf. Luke 11:28). Yet it is he who does this, who humbles himself like a child, who is great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:4). μακάριος is used only once again by Jn., at 20:29, where he quotes other words of Jesus, μακάριοιοἱμὴἰδόντεςκαὶπιστεύσαντες . This latter saying is the Benediction of Faith; that in 13:17 is the Benediction of Ministry. Both are blessed, not only εὐλογητός that is, lauded by men, but μακάριος , as God is μακάριος (1 Timothy 1:11, 1 Timothy 6:15). 18. οὐπερὶπάντωνὑμῶνλέγω . So He had said before (v. 10). The treachery of Judas (who had no share in the benediction of v. 17) did not come upon Jesus unawares (see on 6:64). τίνας (א BCL) is to be preferred to the rec. οὕς before ἐξελεξάμην : “ I know the kind of men whom I chose,” sc. when selecting the Twelve out of a larger company of disciples. See 6:70, where the same word ἐξελεξάμην is used; and cf. 15:16, 19. ἀλλ ʼ ἵναἡγραφὴπληρωθῇκτλ ., may be a note added by the evangelist after his manner,1 but possibly he intends to place the phrase and the quotation in the mouth of Jesus Himself (cf. 17:12). If this be so, the sentence is elliptical, and we must understand the meaning to be: “ I know whom I chose, but none the less this treachery will come, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (cf. 9:3, 15:25 for a like ellipse). The treachery of Judas was foreordained in the eternal counsels of God; he was destined to deliver up Jesus to the Jews (see 6:71, 12:4). The quotation is from the Hebrew (not the LXX) of Psalms 41:9: “ he that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.” To eat bread at the table of a superior was to offer a pledge of loyalty (2 Samuel 9:7, 14, 1 Kings 18:19, 2 Kings 25:29); and to betray one with whom bread had been eaten, one’ s “ messmate,” was a gross breach of the traditions of hospitality. “ To lift up the heel” against any one is to offer him brutal violence. The Synoptists do not quote this Psalm in connexion with the treachery of Judas; but Jn. is especially prone to find fulfilment of prophecy in the incidents of the Passion.1 The LXX of this passage is: ὁἐσθίωνἄρτουςμουἐμεγάλυνενἐπ ʼ ἐμὲπτερνισμόν . It is noteworthy that Jn. does not say ὁἐσθίων , but ὁτρώγων , a less usual word which he employs four times (6:54, 56, 57, 58) for the “ feeding” on Christ in the Eucharist (see note on 6:54). Here he almost goes out of his way to use it of the “ eating” at the Last Supper. For μου after τρώγων , א ADWΓΔΘ give μετ ʼ ἐμοῦ , but μου is nearer the Hebrew and is better supported (BCL). The Coptic Q has the conflate rendering, “ eats my bread with me.” 19. ἀπ ʼ ἄρτιλέγωὑμῖνκτλ ., “ From now I tell you,” etc. For ἀπ ʼ ἄρτι , cf. 14:7, Revelation 14:13, Matthew 23:29, Matthew 23:26:29, 64; the phrase does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The startling announcement that one of the Twelve would betray Him was not made explicitly by Jesus before, but it is now distinctly stated, so that when the Betrayal took place they might not be scandalised and perplexed (cf. 16:1). ἵναπιστεύσητεὅτανγένηταικτλ ., “ in order that ye may believe, when it comes to pass, that I am He.” ἐγώεἰμι in this sentence is used absolutely, no predicate being expressed or suggested by the context. It is an instance (see Introd., P. cxx.; and cf. 8:58) of the employment of the phrase as the equivalent of א ֲ נ ִ י ־ ה ו ּ א , I (am) He, which is the prophetic self-designation of Yahweh in the O.T. And the whole passage λέγωὑμῖνπρὸτοῦγενέσθαι , ἴναπιστεύσητεὅτανγένηταιὅτιἐγώεἰμι , recalls prophetic words which speak of the foretelling of the future as the prerogative of Yahweh. “ Before it came to pass I showed it to thee” (Isaiah 48:5) may be compared with Isaiah 41:26, where the implied answer to the question, “ Who hath declared it from the beginning that we may know?” is evidently “ None but God.” Cf. also Ezekiel 24:24, … ὅτανἐλθῃταῦτα , καὶἐπιγνώσεσθεδιότιἐγὼκύριος . Jesus assumes to Himself this prerogative 3 times in Jn.: here, where He announces that He will be betrayed by one of His disciples; in 16:4, where, having forewarned His disciples of future persecution, he says ταῦταλελάληκαὑμῖνἵναὅτανἔλθῃἡὥρααὐτῶνμνημονεύητεαὐτῶν , ὅτιἐγὼεἶπονὑμῖν , and again in 14:29, where, having spoken of the Coming of the Paraclete, He adds νῦνεἴρηκαὑμῖνπρὶνγενέσθαι , ἵναὅτανγένηταιπιστεύσητε . A similar phrase occurs in Matthew 24:25, where He has been speaking of the false Christs that would appear: ἰδούπροείρηκαὑμῖν See on 2:22. πιστεύσητε (as at 14:29) is read by א ADLWΓΔΘ ; πιστεύητε (cf. 17:21), by BC. Cf. Abbott, Diat. 2526 f. Origen (in loc.) takes ἐγώεἰμι as meaning “ I am He, of whom it was written, He that eateth my bread, etc.” (v. 18); but this would be a strange ellipse, although the meaning would be suitable to the context. 20. ἀμὴνἀμήνκτλ . See on 1:51. Jesus has reminded the apostles that their dignity is not greater than His (v. 16); but lest they should make any mistake, He now reminds them that their dignity is, none the less, very great. The man who receives those whom He has sent, receives Him; and he who receives Jesus receives God who sent Him. The latter part of this aphorism has been stated already in other words (12:44, where see note). It is a Synoptic saying, and its form here is very like Mark 9:37 and Matthew 10:40 ὁδεχόμενοςὑμᾶςἐμὲδέχεται , καὶὁἐμὲδεχόμενοςδέχεταιτὸνἀποστείλαντάμε (cf. Luke 9:48). Jn. substituted for δέχεσθαι the verb λαμβάνειν (cf. 1:12), and for ἀποστέλλειν the verb πέμπειν (see on 3:17), after his manner.1 It is a general principle that the reverence paid to an ambassador is reckoned as reverence to his sovereign; and so it was claimed by the Great Ambassador, both in respect of His own relation to the Father, and of the relation of His apostles to Himself. Jesus Foretells His Betrayal, the Others Not Recognising that Judas is Designated by Being Handed a Sop: Judas Leaves the Room (vv. 21-31) 21. ACDW read ὁἸησοῦς , but om. ὁ א BL. See on 1:29. ἐταράχθητῷπνεύματι . See note on 11:33, and cf. 12:27, ταράσσειν being used in both cases of the troubled spirit of Jesus (in 14:1, 27 it is said of the disciples). Jn., who lays such stress on the consciousness which Jesus had of His oneness with God (cf. 5:19), is no less emphatic about His true humanity (see on 1:14). The emotion with which He announced explicitly to His chosen companions that a traitor was among them is very human. καὶἐμαρτύρησεν , the verb being used here of an explicit and definite pronouncement of Jesus, as at 4:44, 18:37. For the idea of “ witness” in Jn., see Introd., p. xc; and for the μαρτυρία of Jesus, cf. 3:11, 32, 7:7, 8:14, 18. ἀμὴνἀμήνκτλ . See on 1:51. ὃτι is recitantis. εἷςἐξὑμῶν . For this constr., see on 1:40. παραδώσειμε , “ shall deliver me up.” See on 6:64 for the exact meaning of παραδιδόναι . All the evangelists (cf. Mark 14:18, followed by Matthew 26:21, Luke 22:21) agree that this startling announcement was made for the first time at the Last Supper; even then, Jesus gave no clue as to who the traitor was (see on vv. 10, 26). Indeed, if He had done so, Judas could hardly have escaped with his life. 22. The rec., with א *ADLWΘ , ins. οὖν after ἔβλεπον , but om. א cBC. The bewilderment and distress of the apostles at this announcement are noted by the Synoptists as well as by Jn.; possibly the dissension as to precedence which seems to have taken place that evening (see on v. 16) may have accentuated the perplexity which they felt. Judas did not suggest by his demeanour that he was the guilty one, for they noticed nothing of the sort. This is the moment chosen by Leonardo da Vinci for his wonderful picture of the scene. 23. After ἦν the rec., with א AC2DWΘ , ins. δέ , but om. BC*L. For the constr. ἦνἀνακείμενος , where we should expect the impf., see on 1:28. εἷςἐκτῶνμαθ . Θ om. ἐκ , but ins. א ABCDW; see on 1:40. ὃνἠγάπαὁἸησοῦς . Cf. 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 20. We have argued in the Introduction (p. xxxv f.) that this disciple was John the son of Zebedee. The question has been raised, indeed, whether we may not suppose others, outside the circle of the Twelve, to have been present at the Last Supper, of whom “ the beloved disciple” may have been one. But the language of Mar 14:17, “ He cometh with the Twelve,” is explicit; so too Luke 22:14, “ He sat down, and the apostles with Him.” There is no hint anywhere of the presence of any except the twelve chosen companions of the Lord (cf. v. 18), of whom therefore the beloved disciple must be one. Sanday’ s suggestion1 that the beloved disciple may have been present as a young and favoured follower, a “ supernumerary apostle,” lacks evidence. It is highly unlikely that Jesus would have bestowed special marks of His love and favour on one whom He did not include within the circle of the Twelve, and of whom, besides, the Synoptists know absolutely nothing.1 The posture at table of guests at a feast seems to have been that of reclining sideways on couches or divans, the left arm on a cushion which was on the table, the right hand being thus free for taking food; the feet were stretched out behind. The host or principal person was in the centre, and the place of honour was above him, that is, to his left; the next highest place being below him, or to his right.2 Thus the person on the right of the host would be so placed that his head would be close to the host’ s breast, and that it would be easy therefore to say a word to him confidentially. The host would occupy a similar position in relation to the chief guest on his left, and would readily be able to address him privately. It is plain that, at the Supper, the beloved disciple (i.e., as we take it, John the son of Zebedee) lay on the right of Jesus, ἀνακείμενοςἐντῷκόλπῳτοῦἸησοῦ . There is no certain indication as to the disciple on His left (which was the place of honour). Some have thought it was Peter, but, if that were so, he would have addressed his question (v. 24) to Jesus directly, without the intervention of John. And the fact that he made signs to John would suggest that he was not very near him at table. It is more probable that the chief place (on the left of Jesus) was occupied by Judas, for Jesus was able to speak to him privately without the conversation being overheard (see v. 27 and cf. Matthew 26:25). That Judas was the treasurer of the little company (see on 12:6) may point to his enjoyment of some kind of precedence; and if this were so, he would naturally occupy the chief place at table, next to Jesus. See also on 6:71. That John the son of Zebedee was given a place of honour at the supper is reminiscent of the request of Mar 10:37 that he and his brother should be given the two highest seats in the Messianic kingdom; and it is possible that it was their custom to occupy the places of honour at the common meals of the Lord and His disciples. This would suggest that James was on the left of Jesus, as John was on His right, at the Last Supper; but more probably on this occasion Judas was next his Master. 24. νεύειοὖντούτῳΣίμωνΠέτρος . “ Simon Peter,” taking the initiative as usual, beckons to him, sc. to John. The text in the latter part of the verse is not quite certain. (1) BCL and the Latin vss., followed by most modern editors, after Πέτρος read καὶλέγειαὐτῷΕἰπὲτίςἐστινπερὶοὗλέγει . But the verb νεύειν , “ to make signs,” is not usually accompanied by an intimation that the person making signs also spoke.1 Again, εἰπέ is difficult to translate. The R.V. renders “ tell us” ; but why should Peter have expected John to answer out of his own knowledge? They were all puzzled, and John knew no more than the others. Abbott (Diat. 1359) takes εἰπέ as meaning “ say,” sc. to Jesus, that is, “ ask Him.” But why, then, do we not find ἐρώτησον (a c f q add interroga). (2) The other reading, νεύειοὖντούτῳΣίμωνΠέτροςπυθέσθαιτίςἂνεἴη , has in its favour that νεύειν is followed by an infinitive, as it is in the only other place where it occurs in the N.T. (Acts 24:10), and that it does not represent Peter as making signs and speaking as well. It is supported by ADWΓΔΘ and the Syriac vss. (including the Sinai Syriac).2 πυθέσθαι is a Johannine word, occurring at 4:52. The only objection to this reading is that the optative mood is very rare in the N.T., as it was going out of use at this period, and that it never occurs again in Jn. In any case, according to the Fourth Gospel, John is prompted by Peter to ask Jesus whom He had in mind. Mk., followed by Mt., represents all the disciples as asking “ Is it I?” Lk. says that they questioned each other. Perhaps all these things happened, but it may at least be claimed that Jn.’ s narrative is peculiarly vivid. 25. ἀναπεσών . So א cBCL, as at 21:20; the rec. ἐπιπεσών , following א AC3DWΓΔΘ , suggests too violent a change of posture for the occasion. The rec. inserts δέ after ἐπιπεσών , with AΘ , but it is om. by BC; א DLW have οὖν . ἀναπεσὼνἐκεῖνοςοὕτωςἐπὶτὸστῆθοςτοῦἸη .,3 “ he (i.e. John) leaning back just as he was on the breast of Jesus,” i.e. leaning back, keeping the same attitude that has been described in v. 23. For the frequent use of ἐκεῖνος by Jn., see on 1:8. οὕτως is omitted by the rec., with א ADWΘ ; but BCLΔ have it, and it gives an intimate touch to the narrative here. λέγειαὐτῷ , “ saith to Him,” viz. in a whisper so that the others could not hear, which his position on the right of Jesus would enable him to do. τίςἐστιν ; “ Who is it?” But Jesus does not give the name of the traitor in reply. He answers in a way that even John does not seem to have been able to interpret (see on vv. 21, 28). 26. ἀποκρίνεταιοὖν , “ So Jesus answers” (cf. for the pres. tense 12:23); see for οὖν on 1:22. οὖν is omitted (wrongly) by א AC3DWΓΔΘ , but is read by א cBCL. B omits, after its frequent habit (see on 1:26), ὁ before Ἰησοῦς . א D and fam. 13 add καὶλέγει after Ἰησοῦς , but om. ABCLWΘ . ψωμίον , “ a morsel,” is not found in the N.T. outside this passage, but is a common word, and is the usual word for “ bread” in modern Greek (cf. Judges 19:5). The best reading (BCL cop.) is ἐγὼβάψωτὸψωμίονκαὶδώσωαὐτῷ , the constr. βάψωκαὶδώσω being thoroughly Johannine; but the rec. text has ἐγὼβάψαςτὸψωμίονἐπιδώσω , following א AD. For βάψας in the second clause of the verse, the rec. has ἐμβάψας . After the second ψωμίον the rec. omits λαμβάνεικαί , but the words are found in א caBCL and must be retained, as adding a new and vivid detail. For Ἰσκαριώτου (the true reading here; see on 6:71), which is found in א BCΘ , the rec. has Ἰσκαριώτῃ . In Mk. (followed by Mt.), the same reply in substance is given to the disciples’ eager inquiry as to which of them would be the traitor (ὁἐμβαπτόμενοςμετ ʼ ἐμοῦεἰςτὸτρύβλιον , Mark 14:20); Lk. does not mention it. Jn. relates that Jesus gave to the beloved disciple a more precise clue, by saying that the traitor would be he to whom Jesus would Himself give the “ sop,” having first dipped it. This is, no doubt, a correct detail. But it does not appear that John identified the traitor even when this clue was provided (v. 28). It was a token of intimacy, to allow a guest to dip his bread in the common dish or τρύβλιον : thus Boaz says to Ruth βάψειςτὸνψωμόνσουτῷὄξει (Rth 2:14). And it is still a favour of Eastern hospitality for the host to dip a choice morsel in the central dish and hand it to a guest. This is what Jesus did for Judas, who was probably reclining at table next to Him (see on v. 23); but it was so usual a courtesy that it escaped the notice of the others, and did not seem even to John to have any special significance, despite what he had been told. If John understood, we must suppose him to have kept silent, and to have refrained from telling the others, which is highly improbable. βάψαςοὖντὸψωμίονκτλ ., “ having dipped the sop, He takes and gives it to Judas.” According to Matthew 26:25, Judas asked, “ Is it I?” to which the answer “ Thou hast said” was given. This could have happened without attracting the attention of any one, as Judas was reclining next to Jesus. In any case, whether by word or act, Judas was made aware that Jesus knew what was in his heart. There was still time for him to abandon his purpose. But the quiet word and the courteous gesture of giving him the sop did but harden him. This was the last appeal to his better nature, and there was no response. 27. μετὰτὸψωμίον , sc. after the whole incident of the giving of the sop, a classical use of μετά with a substantive following. τότε , “ then,” a graphic word, calling attention to the moment of final decision. εἰσῆλθενεἰςἐκ . κτλ ., “ Satan entered into that one,” ἐκεῖνος being used as indicating the alien mind of Judas, and not merely for emphasis (see on 1:8). Lk. (22:3) has the same phrase εἰσῆλθενὁΣατανᾶςεἰςἸούδαν , but he uses it of him at an earlier stage. See v. 2; and cf. 6:70. It was a natural way of explaining a course of treachery, so abhorrent to the evangelists, by whom the direct agency of Satan was firmly believed in. εἰσέρχομαι is the verb used by the Synoptists to describe the “ entering in” of evil spirits (cf. Mark 5:12, Luke 8:30, Luke 11:26). The evangelist can no otherwise explain to himself the devilish treachery that followed. ὁἸησοῦς . BL om. ὁ . (See on 1:29; and cf. v. 26.) ποίησον is imperative. “ What thou doest, do more quickly” (see on 2:5). τάχιον is the comparative, occurring again in the N. T. only at John 20:4, Hebrews 13:19, Hebrews 13:23; cf. Wisd. 13:9. Possibly Judas had not intended to consummate his treachery so soon, and was waiting until the Passover was past. But, whether this be so or not, the stern word “ Do it more quickly” is human, indeed, in its context. “ How am I straitened until it be finished!” is an earlier saying which Lk. (12:50) ascribes to Jesus. The looking forward to the inevitable Passion was torture; that there should be no longer delay was the natural wish of His heart. Attention has been called above (1:14) to the emphasis laid by Jn. on the true humanity of Jesus, as indicated by the human emotions of which Jn. tells. 28. τοῦτοδὲοὐδείςκτλ . None of the disciples understood what was the reference of this injunction “ Do it more quickly,” which had been said aloud so that all could hear it. This explicit statement must include the beloved disciple as well as the rest (see on v. 26.)1 For the constr. οὐδεὶςτῶνἀνακειμένων , οὐδείς not being followed by ἐκ , cf. 21:12, and see on 1:40, 7:19; and for the position of οὐδείς in the sentence, see on 1:18. 29. τινὲςγάρκτλ . Jn. is apt thus to introduce with γάρ his own comments on the incidents or sayings which he records; see on 3:16. The disciples did not know what the order “ Do it more quickly” meant, and they held different views about it. Judas, being the treasurer (for τὸγλωσσόκομον , see on 12:6), was naturally also the purveyor and the almoner of the little company. Some thought that he was bidden to hasten the purchase of what was needed for the Passover feast. This indicates again that the Passover was still to come, and that the Last Supper, for Jn., was not the Paschal meal (see on v. 1); for, had it been Passover night, nothing could have been bought. Another explanation was that Judas was told to give some alms to the poor, as he was accustomed to do (12:6), perhaps in order that aid might be given to a poor household to provide the Paschal lamb for the morrow. In v. 29, ὁ is omitted before Ἰούδας and Ἰησοῦς by א B. See vv. 26, 27, and note on 1:29. 30. λαβὼνοὖντὸψωμίονκτλ . “ So, having taken the sop, that one went out immediately.” Jn. lays stress on the acceptance of the sop by Judas, the suggestion being that Judas had recognised the significance of the offer of it by Jesus, and understanding now that Jesus knew his purpose he proceeds to execute it at once, whatever he may have intended before as to the day or hour of the betrayal. ἐξῆλθενεὐθύς . This is the right order (א BCDLW), as against εὐθέωςἐξῆλθεν of AΘ and the rec. text: so also at 19:34. The emphasis is on εὐθύς ; Judas hurried away at once. There is a variant εὐθέως , but εὐθύς is read here by א BCDLW. Abbott (Diat. 1911 f.) seems to draw a distinction in use between these forms, but his argument is over subtle. For εὐθύς , see on 5:9; and cf. 1:22. ἦνδὲνύξ . This may be only a note of time, such as Jn. is apt to give (see on 1:29); but it is remarkably impressive here, and the dramatic horror of the moment is brought before the reader. Judas went out into the darkness. The symbolic meaning of this can hardly have been absent from the mind of the evangelist. Cf. Luke 22:53, Revelation 21:25, Revelation 22:5. The departure of Judas from the room is not mentioned by the Synoptists, although it is assumed. 31a. ὅτεοὖνἐξῆλθεν . The rec. omits οὖν , with A, but ins. א BCDLWΘ . Some commentators, e.g. Bengel, omitting it, connect the preceding words ἦνδὲνύξ with ὅτεἐξῆλθεν , and this repetition of ἐξῆλθεν would be quite in the style of Jn. But the MS. evidence is conclusive for οὖν , and this disposes of such an arrangement of the words. The sentence ends dramatically with the monosyllable νύξ . Here there seems to have been a dislocation of the original text,1 and in this commentary we take the text in the order cc. 13:31a, 15, 16, 13:31b-38, 14, 17. This is also the time (see Introductory Note to v. 4) at which we must suppose the Eucharist to have been instituted. Whether Jn.’ s account of this has been lost, or whether he did not describe the institution at all, is not certain; but in any case it is at this point in the narrative that we suppose it to have taken place. 13:31a, 15:1. ὅτεοὖνἐξῆλθεν , λέγειἸησοῦςἘγώεἰμιἡἄμπελοςἡἀληθινή . οὖν is emphatic. Such a discourse as this of the True Vine which follows was only for the faithful. It has been suggested2 that cc. 14-17 are more easily understood if we suppose them to represent discourses of Jesus which belong to His post-resurrection life on earth, rather than discourses spoken on the eve of His Passion. That their teachings are specially apposite, when read in public worship between Easter and Pentecost, has been recognised by Christendom for many centuries, the Greek, Syrian, and Latin Churches (as well as the Anglican) making use of selections from these chapters as the Gospels for some of the Sundays after Easter. It is not impossible that Jn. has preserved in cc. 14-17 some of the Lord’ s post-resurrection counsels with other words spoken after the Last Supper. Thus 16:7-11 present an interesting resemblance to words ascribed to Jesus after His Resurrection in an addition to Mark 16:14, preserved in the Freer MS. (see on 16:11 below). But it can hardly be doubted that cc. 14-17 belong to the eve of the Passion, or that 16:5 must precede 13:36. 13:31b. νῦνἐδοξάσθηὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπουκτλ . We now go on with 13:31 f.1 The note of triumph in the words ἐγὼνενίκηκατὸνκόσμον (16:33) is continued. νῦν , Now “ has the Son of Man been glorified.” The aorist ἐδοξάσθη challenges attention, for we should expect the future tense, “ Now shall the Son of Man be glorified.” But it is a Hebrew usage to employ an aorist with prophetic anticipation of the future. Thus to Abraham it was said (Genesis 15:18), “ Unto thy seed have I given this land,” where the LXX marks the meaning by the rendering δώσω . And this way of speaking is specially appropriate when the Speaker is Divine (which Jn. never allows his readers to forget when he is recording the words of Jesus), and is One to whom the inevitable future is involved in the present, and is foreseen. See also, for this use of the aorist, on 12:23, 15:8. ὁθεὸςἐδοξάσθηἐναὐτῷ . This is a different thought from that expressed in the first clause of the verse. Not only was Christ “ glorified” in His Passion (see on 7:39), but God was glorified thereby (cf. 12:28). Martyrdom is always a glorifying of God, in whose name the martyr lays down his life. See 21:19, and the note there.1 In other passages of the Gospel we have the idea of the Father being glorified in Christ (e.g. 14:13, 15:8, 17:4, and cf. 1 Peter 4:11) because of Christ’ s ministry and works; but here the idea is confined to that “ glorification” of God by Christ’ s Passion, of which lower illustrations may be found in every martyrdom. 32. The reading εἰὁθεὸςἐδοξάσθηἐναὐτῷ at the beginning of the verse is supported by א cAC2ΓΘΔ , with many MSS., including the Vulgate, which has “ Nunc clarificatus est filius hominis et Deus clarificatus est in eo. Si Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semet ipso, etc.” This redundant style is characteristic of Jn., and the words may stand part of the text. But they do not appear in א BCDLW and the majority of the Old Latin vss. with Syr. sin. Yet they might easily have dropped out by homoioteleuton . καὶὁθεὸςδοξάσειαὐτὸνἐναὐτῷ , “ and God shall glorify Him in Himself.” This goes beyond the “ glorification” of Christ in His Passion (v. 31); it is the “ glorification” which succeeded it, God the Father glorifying Him in Himself, by taking up the humanity of Christ into the Godhead, after the Passion. This great concepton appears again and is more fully expressed at 17:5. It is of this consummation that Peter said ὁθεὸςἈβραὰμκαὶἸσαὰκκαὶἸακὼβἐδόξασεντὸνπαῖδααὐτοῦἸησοῦν (Acts 3:13). καὶεὐθὺςδοξάσειαὐτόν , “ and straightway He will glorify Him.” The time was near; the Passion would be short, for it is to this thought of His impending Death that the Speaker returns. For εὐθύς , see on 5:9. Jesus Gives the New Commandment of Brotherly Love to Those Whom He Leaves Behind (vv. 33-35) 33. τεκνία . From the thought of what the Passion means for Him, Jesus turns to the thought of how it will affect His disciples when He is gone and they are like fatherless orphans (14:18). So He addresses them tenderly, as the Head of His little family . τεκνίον is a Johannine word (1 John 2:1, 1 John 2:12, 1 John 2:28, 1 John 2:3:7, 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:4:4, 1 John 2:5:21, only again in N.T. at Galatians 4:19; cf. τέκνα , Mark 10:24). ἔτιμικρὸνμεθ ʼ ὑμῶνεἰμί . The rec., with א LWT, adds χρόνον after μικρόν , this being a reminiscence of 7:33 (where see note). The verse reproduces the words of 7:33, 34 and of 8:21, the warning, which in those passages was addressed to unbelieving Jews, being repeated for the disciples, but not now in rebuke; and being followed in v. 36 by the consolatory promise that, although the disciples could not go where He was going immediately, yet they should follow afterwards. See on 7:34. ζητήσετέμε . This would not be like the remorseful search which was in store for the unbelieving Jews (see on 7:34, 8:21); but it would be a search in perplexity and tears, when their Master was taken fom them (cf. 14:1, 2). καθὼςεἶποντοῖςἸουδαίοιςκτλ . It is not certain whether the reference is to 7:33, 34 or to 8:21. Jn. represents the warning to the Jews as having been given twice, and it may have been so. ὄπουἐγὼὑπάγωὑμεῖςοὐδύνασθεἐλθεῖν . This is verbally identified with 8:21. See the note on 7:34 for the meaning. καὶὑμῖνλέγωἄρτι , “ so I tell you at this moment.” ἄρτι is a favourite word with Jn. (see on 9:19). 34. ἐντολὴνκαινήν . For ἐντολή as a commandment given by Jesus, cf. 15:10, 12, 14:15, 21, 1 John 2:3, 1 John 2:4, 1 John 2:3:24. He claimed to “ give commandments,” and so claimed to be equal with God. See on 14:15. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 14:1 ff. The opening verses of c. 14 are among the most familiar and the most precious in our Authorised Version of the Bible. It is an ungrateful task to disturb their beautiful cadences, charged with many memories, by offering a different rendering of the Greek text. But it must be attempted here, as at other points in the Fourth Gospel, if we are to express as nearly as we can the meaning of the evangelist’ s words. In v. 1, as will be seen, Tyndale’ s translation of 1534 has been preferred to the A.V. of 1611. The Promise of a Future Life, Where the Disciples Would Be with Jesus (14:1-4) 1. D prefixes καὶεἶπεντοῖςμαθηταὶςαὐτοῦ , probably to soften the apparent abruptness of the words which follow. But no introduction is necessary; for there is an intimate connexion between 13:38 and 14:1. The warning to Peter that he would presently deny his Master must have shocked him, as it silenced him. He is not among the disciples who ask questions as to the meaning of Jesus’ sayings in c. 14, nor is he mentioned again until c. 18. But the other disciples, too, must have been startled and saddened by the thought that the foremost among them would fail in the hour of trial. If that were so, who among them could be confident of himself? Indeed, they had already been warned that their faith would not be strong enough to keep them at the side of Jesus when the dark hour of His arrest came (16:31, 32). But this renewed suggestion of the instability of their allegiance, superadded to the announcements that Jesus had made of His impending departure from them (16:5-7, 13:33, 36), and of the persecutions which were in store for them (15:18-21, 16:33), had filled them with deep sorrow. So He sought to reassure them with a new message of consolation, which taught them to look beyond this earthly life to the life after death. μὴταρασσέσθωὑμῶνἡκαρδία . The human experience of a “ troubled” spirit had been His, more than once, during the last weeks (cf. 11:33, 12:27, 13:21), and He knew how painful it was. πιστεύετεεἰςτὸνθεόν , καὶεἰςἐμὲπιστεύετε . These are probably both imperatives: “ believe in God (cf. Mark 11:22); in me also believe.” Belief in God should, of itself, turn their thoughts to the security of the future life; and then, if they believed in Jesus, they would recall promises to them which He had made about this (see v. 3, with its two clauses). Grammatically, πιστεύετε might be pres. indicative in either place or in both, and the familiar “ Ye believe in God; believe also in me,” gives a good sense. But it seems more natural to take πιστεύετε in the same way in the first clause as in the second. The true source of consolation for a troubled spirit is faith in God (cf. Psalms 27:13, Psalms 141:8 etc.), and in Jesus whom God sent (cf. Mark 5:36). The disciples had already professed (16:30) their faith in Jesus, but He had warned them that it was not invincible (16:31). For the constr. εἰςτινὰπιστεύειν , never used by Jn. of faith in man, see on 1:12. 2. ἐντῇοἰκίᾳτοῦπατρόςμουκτλ ., i.e. heaven; cf. Philo, who speaks of the soul returning εἰςτὸνπατρῷονοἶκον (de somn. i. 43). μοναὶπολλαί . The idea that there are “ many mansions” in heaven, corresponding to different degrees of human merit, may not have been entirely new in Jewish religion. In the Sclavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch (lxi. 2) we find: “ In the world to come … there are many mansions prepared for men: good for the good; evil for evil” (cf. Ethiopic Enoch, xxxix. 4: “ The mansions of the holy, and the resting-places of the righteous” ). Charles dates the Sclavonic Enoch as between 1 and 50 a.d.; but we cannot be sure that it was known in Palestine during our Lord’ s ministry. Nor can we be sure that μοναί was the Greek behind the Sclavonic word which Charles translates “ mansions.” If it were, then μοναί meant “ mansions” in the sense of “ abodes,” not of “ stages,” which are only halting-places. μονή is found elsewhere in the Greek Bible only at v. 23 (where it must mean “ permanent abode,” not a mere passing stage) and 1 Macc. 7:38 (where again the idea of permanence is involved). In Pausanias (x. 41) μονή is used in the sense of a stopping-place, a station on a journey; and this sense, if introduced into the present passage, suggests interesting speculations. Thus Origen (de Princip. II. xi. 6) says that departed saints first live in some place “ on the earth, which Scripture calls Paradise,” where they receive instruction. If worthy, they quickly ascend to a place in the air and reach the kingdom, through mansions, “ which the Greeks call spheres, but Scripture heavens” ; following Jesus, who “ passed through the heavens” (Hebrews 4:14). Origen then quotes John 14:2, John 14:3, showing that he understood μοναί , as stations or halting-places on the journey to God. His singular interpretation is not likely to be accepted, but his use of μονή is to be noted. An earlier citation of Joh 14:2 is to be found in a passage quoted by Irenæ us (adv. Hæ r. v. xxxvi. 12) from the “ Sayings of the Elders,” which is probably an extract from Papias.1 According to the Elders, some good men will be counted worthy of a διατρίβη in heaven; others will enjoy paradise; others “ the city,” the Saviour being seen of them all. This, the Elders say, is what is meant by the distinction between the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, hundredfold harvests in the Parable of the Sower. καὶδιὰτοῦτοεἰρηκέναιτὸνκύριον , Ἐντοῖςτοῦπατρόςμουμονὰςεἶναιπολλάς . For all are of God, who gives to each his appropriate οἴκησις . This is the triclinium, the couch for three, on which shall recline those who are called to the Marriage Feast. This, the Elders said, is the dispositio of those who are saved, who advance by steps of this kind, through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father. The first part of this implies that the μοναί are the permanent abodes of the blessed, which vary in glory; but the last sentence suggests, on the contrary, that the μοναί are stages, and that a saint may pass from one to another. The general patristic interpretation of μοναί is, however, “ abiding-places” ; not mansiones, which are like inns on a journey, but permanent habitations. Clement of Alexandria often has the word μονή , and always with allusion to John 14:2. In Strom. vi. 14 he refers (as Papias does) to the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, hundredfold harvests, which he says hint at the three μοναί where the saints dwell according to their respective merits. So, again, he says (Strom. iv. 6) that there are with the Lord καὶμισθοὶκαὶμοναὶπλείονεςκατὰἀναλογίανβίων . Clement taught consistently that there were degrees of glory in the heavenly world. In Strom. vii. 14 he explains that the “ other sheep not of this fold” (John 10:16) are deemed worthy of another fold and another μονή in proportion to their faith.” Once more, in Strom. v. 1, he uses μονή for the dwelling-place of God, as distinct from τόπος , which is the locality where the μονή is situated. These citations show that μοναί in v. 2 (as in v. 23 and 1 Macc. 7:38) must mean “ abodes” or permanent dwelling-places, not merely temporary stations on a journey. The idea conveyed by the saying “ In my Father’ s house are many mansions” is that of a hospitable palace with many chambers, rather than of a journey with many stages. οἰκία is hardly to be distinguished from οἶκος , except that οἰκία is the larger word, embracing the precincts of the house as well as the house itself. Cf. 8:35, 2 Corinthians 5:1; and see on 2:16. For the significance of the full phrase “ My Father,” cf. 2:16, 5:17 and vv. 20-23. In heaven there are “ many mansions,” i.e. there is room for all the faithful, although it is not said that they shall all be housed with equal dignity. εἰδὲμή occurs again in Jn. at v. 23 only; and then after an imperative. It seems here to mean “ if it were not so, ” i.e. if the preceding statement were not true. Cf. Abbott, Diat. 2080. ὅτι before πορεύομαι is omitted in the rec. text, with CcorrNΓΔΘ a e f q. Accordingly the A.V. places a full stop after “ told you,” and proceeds with “ I go to prepare a place for you,” as a new sentence. But ὅτι must be retained with א ABC*DLW, b c ff2 syrr. and cop. vss. How to translate it is not obvious, for ὅτι may mean either because or that. (a) The R.V. takes ὅτι as equivalent to because, with Meyer, Westcott, Godet, Swete, and others. “ If it were not so, I would have told you, for (i.e. because) I go to prepare a place for you.” It is difficult to accept the sequence of thought which this rendering involves, sc.: if there was not plenty of room, He would have told them this bad news, because He is going to prepare a place. But that He was going to prepare a place for them could not be a reason for telling them that there was not plenty of room. This translation, when analysed, is hardly intelligible. (b) A second expedient is to treat εἰδὲμή , εἶπονἂνὑμῖν , as parenthetical, and to connect directly “ In my Father’ s house are many mansions” with “ because I go to prepare a place for you.” But again the sequence fails, for we should rather expect, “ I go to prepare a place for you, because in my Father’ s house are many mansions.” (c) It is more natural to take ὅτι after εἶπονἂνὑμῖν as meaning that; sc., it is what the grammarians call ὅτι recitantis, introducing the actual words that might have been spoken. Syr. sin takes it thus: “ I should have said that I go.” Then we render: “ In my Father’ s house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you.” But the difficulty of this is that He was going to prepare a place for them, as v. 3 implies. Origen took the verse thus, assuming that ὅτι is recitantis, although he notices the contradiction with v. 3.1 (d) The remaining alternative is to take εἶπονἂνὑμῖνὅτικτλ . as interrogative: “ If there were not many mansions, would I have said to you that I go to prepare a place for you?” There is only one difficulty about this rendering, sc. that hitherto there has been no record of Jesus having told His disciples that He was going to prepare a place for them. At 13:36 He had told Peter that he would follow Him later, and no doubt the other disciples expected that this promise was to be fulfilled in their case also. But the explicit words “ I go to prepare a place for you” do not appear before this verse. Jn., however, more than once records references made by Jesus to former sayings of His which cannot be traced with certainty (see 6:36, 10:25, 11:40), so that there is no insuperable difficulty, on this head, of taking the sentence interrogatively. This rendering is adopted by Moffatt, Strachan, and W. Bauer.2 πορεύομαι . See on 16:7 for this verb. ἑτοιμάσαιτόπονὑμῖν . This was one of the purposes of His impending departure. He was the πρόδρομος of all the faithful (Hebrews 6:20). Jn. does not use ἑτοιμάζειν elsewhere, but the verb is used Mark 10:40, Matthew 20:23, of the highest seats in the Messianic kindgom which have been “ prepared” by God for those whom He has chosen (cf. Hebrews 11:16). In the present passage, ἑτοιμάζειν does not carry the idea of predestination; it is only “ to make ready,” as at Mark 14:16, Luke 9:52. τόπος is used of a “ place” in heaven, Revelation 12:8; also in Clem. Rom_5, where it is said of Peter ἐπορεύθηεἰςτόνὀφειλόμενοντόποντῆςδόξης . In the Revelation of Peter, τόπος is similarly used; and also in the Acts of Thomas, c. 22. 3. καὶἐὰνπορευθῶ , repeated in substance from 16:7. τόπονὑμῖν is the order of words in א BDLN; but the rec. has ὑμῖντόπον , with WΘ . πάλινἔρχομαι . The present tense expresses the certainty of the future return: “ I am coming back.” This is an explicit announcement of the Parousia, or Second Advent. Not as much is said about this in Jn. as in the Synoptists; but it is nevertheless an integral element in Johannine doctrine, more emphatic in the First Epistle than in the Gospel (cf. 21:22, 23 and 1 John 2:28).1 καὶπαραλήμψομαικτλ . Perhaps παραλαμβάνειν has here, as at 1:11, the meaning of receiving with welcome (cf. Son 8:2); but at 19:17 it is equivalent to “ seize.” For this meeting of Master and disciples, cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:17. ἵναὅπουεἰμὶἐγὼκαὶὑμεῖςἦτε . This is, in a sense, true of earthly discipleship (12:26), but it is to be fulfilled more perfectly hereafter (17:24). 4. ὅπουἐγὼὑπάγωοἴδατετὴνὁδόν is the reading of א BC*LW. But, as Field has pointed out, this is an ungrammatical construction. τὴνὁδὸνὅπουὑπάγω is not good Greek, if it means τὴνὁδὸνἥνὑπάγω . Furthermore, the comment of Thomas in v. 5 distinguishes clearly between the goal and the way, so that we should expect to find the same distinction inherent in the words of Jesus which drew it forth The rec. text is ὅπουἐγὼὑπάγωοἴδατε , καὶτὴνὁδὸνοἴδατε . This is supported by AC3DNΓΔΘ with most cursives, and by the Syriac, Coptic, and O.L. vss. generally. If this were the original reading, we can see how easily the words οἴδατεκαί might have dropped out, the eye being caught by the second οἴδατε . To claim that the uncials א B must outweigh the evidence of practically all the ancient versions, especially when they present an ungrammatical reading, is to claim too much for them. Accordingly, we follow the textus receptus here. ὅπουἐγὼὑπάγωοἴδατε . Peter had already shown that he, at any rate, did not know this, for he asked ποῦὐπάγεις ; (13:36). But the disciples ought to have known, for Jesus had told them several times. He was going, He had said, πρὸςτὸνπέμψαντάμε (7:33, 16:5), or πρὸςτὸνπατέρα (16:10, 28), or to His Father’ s house (v. 2). The phrase ὑπάγωπρὸςτὸνπατέρα had already been the subject of perplexed comment by the disciples (16:17). They had not understood how Jesus was to “ go to the Father,” but that this was the goal of the journey, of which He had spoken to them so often on this last night, He had repeated again and again. And so He said now, “ You know where I am going.” καὶτὴνὁδὸνοἴδατε . This too they should have understood. They did not yet know that for Him the Way to the Father was the Way of Death (see on 16:5), for even yet they had not realised that He was soon about to die. They may not have understood that they, too, must die before they could inhabit the heavenly mansions where He was to prepare a place for them (v. 2). It is not clear that they had abandoned hopes of a Messianic kingdom shortly to be established on earth, in which high stations of honour should be theirs. τὴνὁδὸνοἴδατε did not mean that they knew, or ought to have known, that the way to the Father was through death. But they ought to have “ known” that the way to the Father’ s house was in fellowship with Jesus. This, in some measure, they must have realised at the end of their training; and so He reminds them that they “ know the way,” sc. they know that only in that fellowship with Him which Jn. calls “ believing on Him” could the way to life be trodden. The Question of Thomas, and the Answer to It (vv. 5-7) 5. Thomas now intervenes. Peter was the first to interrupt the great discourse by asking, “ Whither goest thou?” (see 13:36). Thomas presses the question, and urges that they could not be expected to know the answer. The Eleven had been perplexed when this “ going” of Jesus to the Father had been mentioned at an earlier point in the discourse (16:17), and their perplexities had not yet been removed. We have already had Thomas appearing as spokesman for the rest (11:16), Peter perhaps being absent on that occasion. But Peter is silent now, although present, probably because of the severity of the rebuke and warning which he had just received (13:38). He would hardly venture again to interrupt Jesus by questions. For κύριε , see on 1:38. Thomas declares that they do not know where Jesus was going, and that therefore they cannot be expected to know the way. Yet one may know the way without knowing exactly the goal of one’ s journey; and this is specially true of the Christian pilgrimage. There are unimportant variants. א AC2NΓΔΘ , with most vss., have καὶ after ὑπάγεις , and this may be right; but BCLW and Syr. sin. omit καί the omission being characteristic of Jn.’ s paratactic style. Again, for πῶςοἴδαμεντὴνὁδόν ; (BCD a b c), the rec., with AC2LNWΓΔΘ , has πῶςδυνάμεθατὴνὁδὸνεἰδέναι ; which looks like an explanatory correction of the shorter reading. 6. א C*L om. ὁ before Ἰησοῦς , but ins. ABC3DNWΘ . See on 1:29. ἐγώεἰμι . On this majestic construction, see Introd., pp. cxvii-cxxi. ἐγώεἰμιἡὁδός . This is the central thought here, the words following, sc. καὶἡἀλήθειακαὶἡζωή , being not directly involved in the context, but added to complete the great declaration. To walk in God’ s way has been the aspiration of pious men of every race; and Israel was especially warned not to turn aside from the ὁδός which God had commanded (Deuteronomy 5:32, Deuteronomy 5:33, Deuteronomy 5:31:29; cf. Isaiah 30:21, Isaiah 35:8). “ Teach me Thy way” is the Psalmist’ s prayer (Psalms 27:11; cf. Psalms 25:4, Psalms 86:11). Philo, after his manner, describes the “ royal way” as philosophy, and he says that Scripture calls it the ῥῆμα and λόγος of God (de post. Caini, 30), quoting Deuteronomy 17:11. More apposite here, however, is the declaration of the Epistle to the Hebrews that the way to the holy place was not made plain before Christ (Hebrews 9:8), who dedicated “ a new and living way” through the veil of His flesh (Hebrews 10:20). This is the doctrine which becomes explicit (cf. Ephesians 2:18) in the words “ I am the Way.” In the Acts (9:2, 19:9) the Christian profession is called “ the Way,” but this does not provide a true parallel to the present verse. Again, in the second-century Acts of John (§ 95) there is a Gnostic hymn ascribed to Christ which ends with ὁδόςεἰμίσοιπροοδίτη , “ A Way am I to thee, a wayfarer.” This, however, does not go as far as the claim involved in ἐγώεἰμιἡὁδός . The uniqueness of Christ’ s claim in Jn. is that He is the Way, i.e. the only Way, to God. This is the heart of the Johannine message, which admits of no compromise with non- Christian religions, and in fact takes no account of such. See on 10:9. For ἀλήθεια in Jn., see on 1:41. Both the exclusiveness and the inclusiveness (cf. Colossians 2:3) of the claim ἐγώεἰμι … ἡἀλήθεια are thoroughly Johannine. This is to say much more than to admit, as the Pharisees did, that Jesus taught τὴνὁδὸντοῦθεοῦἐπ ʼ ἀληθείας (Mark 12:14, Matthew 22:16, Luke 20:21). The idea of Christ’ s teaching as true does not strictly come into the argument or exposition here; and it would seem that the juxtaposition of ἡὁδός and ἡἀλήθεια is due to a reminiscence of O.T. phraseology. Cf. “ I have chosen the way of truth” (Psalms 119:30); and see the same expression, ὁδὸςἀληθείας , at Wisd. 5:6, Tob. 1:3 (cf. 2 Peter 2:2). More striking still is, “ Teach me thy Way, O Lord; I will walk in thy Truth” (Psalms 86:11; cf. Psalms 26:3), where the “ Truth” is a synonym for the “ Way.” So, again, a Psalmist says that the ὁδοί of the Lord are mercy and truth (Psalms 25:10). Perhaps the close association in O.T. phraseology between ἡὁδός and ἡἀλήθεια may account for the introduction of the word ἀλήθεια at this point. καὶἡζωή . This is included in another of the great Similitudes, ἐγώεἰμιἡἀνάστασιςκαὶἡζωή (11:25). ζωή is one of the keywords of the Fourth Gospel: “ in Him was life” is the explicit pronouncement of the Prologue (1:4), and that men might have “ life in His Name” was the purpose of the composition of the book (20:31). Cf. Colossians 3:4. The declaration “ I am the Life” could not be out of place at any point of the Gospel (cf. v. 19); but nevertheless it does not help the exposition at this point, where the thought is specially of Christ as the Way. Here again we are reminded of the O.T. phrase “ the way of life” (Proverbs 6:23, Proverbs 10:17, Proverbs 15:24): cf. ἐγνώρισάςμοιὁδοὺςζωῆς (Psalms 16:11). In Matthew 7:14 the way that leads to life is described as straitened; and in Hebrews 10:20 we hear of the “ living way” which Jesus dedicated. The thought of Jesus as the Way would naturally be associated with the thought of Him as the Life. Cf. also Hebrews 7:25. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr.) suggests that the idiom here is Hebrew, the Way and the Truth and the Life meaning the True and Living Way. (He compares Jeremiah 29:11, where the Hebrew “ a latter end and hope” means “ a hoped-for latter end.” ) This at any rate brings out the point, that the emphasis is on the Way, as the concluding words, “ No one comes to the Father but through me, ” show. To claim to be not only a way to God, but the only Way, is in effect to claim to be the Truth and the Life. There is a curious Christian interpolation in the Vulgate text of Ecclus. 24:25, which is a paraphrase of this Similitude. Wisdom says of herself, “ In me gratia omnis uiae et ueritatis, in me omnis spes uitae et uirtutis,” where the triple alliteration, Via, Veritas, Vita, is reinforced by a fourth word, Virtus. 7. The verb contains a rebuke. The disciples ought to have known what was meant by going to “ the Father.” That they did not know the Father was due to the fact that they had not yet learnt to know the Son. εἰἐγνώκειτέμε , καὶτὸνπατέραμουἂνᾔδειτε . Jesus had said the same thing to His Jewish critics (8:19), in identical language, except that in the former passage we have εἰἐμὲᾔδειτε instead of εἰἐγνώκειτέμε . But we cannot distinguish οἶδα from γινώσκω in passages like this (see on 1:26 for the usage of these verbs). For ἐγνώκειτε and ᾔδειτε (BCL), א D have ἐγνώκατε and γνώσεσθε , which would turn the rebuke into a promise. Syr. sin. gives, “ If me ye have not known, my Father also will ye know?” For ᾔδειτε the rec. substitutes ἐγνώκειτε , so that the same verb may appear in both clauses. ἀπ ʼ ἄρτικτλ . So BC*L, omitting the prefatory καί : this would be consonant with Jn.’ s paratactic style. But ins. א AC2DNΓΔΘ , a strong combination. If καί is retained, it stands for καίτοι , in accordance with a Johannine idiom (see on 3:11). In any case, there is a contrast between the rebuke in the first part of the verse and the assurance in the second part. ἀπ ʼ ἄρτιγινώσκετεαὐτόνκτλ ., “ from now you are beginning to know Him.” This is the force of the present tense γινώσκετε , which א tries to emphasise by reading γνώσεσθε . The moment marked by ἀπ ʼ ἄρτι is the moment of the Passion; cf. νῦνἐδοξάσθηὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου (13:31), and see on 16:5. The Revelation of the Father was not complete until Jesus had removed His visible presence. Only after that did His disciples begin to understand how much He had revealed of God’ s nature and purpose (cf. 17:3). In the next generation, Jn. could say of his younger fellow-disciples ἐγνώκατετὸνπατέρα (1 John 2:13). But during the earthly ministry of Jesus that claim could not have been made. who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal Him” (Luke 10:22; cf. Matthew 11:27, who substitutes ἐπιγινώσκει , signifying complete knowledge, for the simple γινώσκει ). καὶἑωράκατεαὐτόν . BC* omit αὐτόν (perhaps because of the difficulty of the phrase), but ins. א AC3DLNWΘ . The verb ὁρᾶν in the pres. and pft. tenses (see on 3:32; and cf. 1:51) is generally, but not always, used in Jn. of seeing with the eyes of the body. θεὸνοὐδεὶςἑώρακενπώποτε (1:18; cf. 5:37) is a general principle of Judaism: the only One of whom it could be said ἑώρακεντὸνπατέρα is Jesus (6:46), and in that case the reference is to spiritual vision. But at v. 9 we have ὁἑωρακὼςἐμὲἑώρακεντὸνπατέρα , which is parallel to ὁθεωρῶνἐμὲθεωρεῖτὸνπέμψαντάμε (12:45, where see note). In neither case can the verb for “ seeing” be taken as representing physical vision, for many of the opponents of Jesus who “ saw” Him in the flesh did not thereby “ see the Father.” Accordingly θεωρῶν at 12:45 and ἑώρακεν in v. 9 must imply spiritual insight in some degree. Those who saw in the Works and Life of Christ something of His purpose and personality, thereby saw something of the nature of God who sent Him. Those who “ saw and hated” Jesus, on the other hand, could be justly said to have “ seen and hated” God the Father (15:24); the false impression which they acquired of Jesus, issuing in an equally false impression of God. Thus the strange statement, as it must have seemed, “ You are beginning to know Him, and (indeed) have seen Him,” must mean that while the disciples would begin henceforth consciously to appropriate the new revelation of God as He is, they had already (although unconsciously) “ seen” the reflection of His mind and purpose in the life of Jesus, with whom they had long been in close intimacy. Abbott (Diat. 2760-2764) suggests as possible another rendering (apparently favoured by Nonnus) of ἀπ ʼ ἄρτιγινώσκετεαὐτὸνκαὶἑωράκατεαὐτόν , which takes γινώσκετε as an imperative, “ From henceforth begin to know Him, and (then) you have seen Him.” But this makes ἑωράκατεαὐτόν even more difficult than it is when we take γινώσκετε as indicative, for with this rendering there can be no reference to “ seeing” God in Jesus, visible in the flesh. Philip Asks to Be Shown the Father. The Coinherence of the Father and the Son Explained (vv. 8-14) 8. λέγειαὐτῷφίλιπποςκτλ . For Philip, see on 1:43. This is the third interruption of the discourse by a disciple. Their intimacy with Jesus was such that they ventured, even at this solemn hour and while He was bidding them farewell, to ask questions at any point where they did not understand Him; always addressing Him with the Κύριε of respect (13:37, 14:5, 22). Philip goes beyond a mere question. His remark is rather an argumentative challenge: “ Show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” ἀρκεῖν has occurred before at 6:7; Moulton-Milligan illustrate (s.v.) the impersonal use of the verb, as here, from the papyri. δεῖξονἡμῖντὸνπατέρα . Probably Philip wished for a theophany, such as that which Exodus 33:18f. tells was granted to Moses when he prayed “ Show me Thy glory.” Judas the son of James had similar desires and perplexities (see v. 22). 9. τοσοῦτονχρόνον . So ABNΓΔΘ , but א DLW have the dative τοσούτῳχρόνῳ . There is something of pathos in the reproach, “ Have I been so long with you all , and hast thou not learnt to know me, Philip?” the personal name (cf. 20:16, 21:15) suggesting affectionate regard. The sheep know their shepherd (10:14), and Philip ought to have “ known” Jesus by this time. But to fail to see God in Jesus was to fail to know Jesus. ὁἑωρακὼςἐμὲἑώρακεντὸνπατέρα . See on v. 7 above; and cf. Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3. After πατέρα , the rec. ins. καί with ADLNΓΔΘ , but om. א B. πῶςσὺλέγειςκτλ ., “ how is that you say, etc.,” σύ being emphatic, “ you who have followed me from the beginning” (1:43f.). 10. οὐπιστεύειςκτλ . This was to expect a greater faith than He asked of the blind man (9:35), or even of Martha (11:27). Jesus expected of the Eleven, who had enjoyed a longer and more intimate association with Him than others, that they should appreciate in some measure the deeper secrets of His being. The “ evolution” of faith is always towards a larger faith. ὅτιἐγὼἐντῷπατρίκτλ . Here is the mystery of that oneness with the Father which is always prominent in Jn. Jesus had held this Divine coinherence up to the Jews as a belief which they might ultimately recognise as true (10:38), but He did not reproach them for not having reached it yet. Philip was in a different position, and ought to have learnt something of it before now. The two lines of testimony to which Jesus appeals in support of His claim to reciprocal communion with the Father, here as elsewhere, are His words and His works. See on 10:38, where the argument is almost identical with that of vv. 10, 11, and expressed in the same terms. τὰῥήματα . See on 3:34 for the “ words” of Jesus as divine. τὰῥήματαἃἐγὼλέγωὑμῖν . The rec., with א AΓΔΘ , has λαλῶ from the next clause, but B2LN have λέγω . λέγω is often used in Jn. interchangeably with λαλῶ , as here. See on 3:11. ἀπ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦοὐλαλῶ . This He had said several times. See the references given in the note on 7:17. ὁδὲπατὴρὁἐνἐμοὶμένων The second ὁ is omitted in BL, but is preserved in א ADNWΘ . ποιεῖτὰἔργααὐτοῦ ; So א BD but the rec., with AΓΔΘ , has αὐτὸςποιεῖτὰἔργα , a correction due to the tendency to describe the miracles as Christ’ s rather than as the Father’ s. But to distinguish thus is contrary to Johannine teaching. See especially on 5:19. The ἔργα of Jesus are also the ἔργα of God the Father. In this verse the words of Jesus are treated as among his works. Both are, as it were, the λαλία of the Father. But they may be considered separately, His words appealing more directly to the conscience and spiritual insight of His hearers, His works appealing rather to their intellect, as indicative of His superhuman personality. 11. πιστεύετέμοι . The plural shows that Jesus now addresses Himself not to Philip individually, but to the disciples collectively, whose spokesman for the moment Philip was. “ Believe me,” sc. believe my words when I tell you that I am in the Father and the Father in me (repeated in identical terms from v. 10). He does not say “ Believe in me” here. He merely appeals (as at 5:47, 10:38) to the testimony of His own sayings, as worthy of credit (cf. 4:21). εἰδὲμή , διὰτὰἔργααὐτὰπιστεύετέμοι . This is the appeal to His miraculous works (cf. 3:2, 5:36, 10:37) in support of His great claim of unity with the Father. The faith which is generated by an appeal like this is not the highest type of faith, but it is not despised by Jesus. Better to believe because of miracles than not to believe at all. See on 6:36, 10:38; and cf. 2:23, 3:2, 4:48. The concluding μοι is omitted after πιστεύετε by א DLW, but ins. ABΓΔΘ . 12. ἀμὴνἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν , the customary prelude to a solemn and unexpected saying. See on 1:51. He had appealed to His ἔργα . He now assures His hearers that the Christian believer shall be endued with power to do the like or even greater things, and in particular that he shall have the secret of efficacious prayer (vv. 13, 14). ὁπιστεύωνεἰςἐμέ This He had bidden them all to do (v. 1), and He returns to the phrase, which involves more than πιστεύετέμοι of v. 11 (see on 1:12). But, as Bengel says, “ qui Christo de se loquenti credit, in Christum credit.” τὰἔργαἃἐγὼποιῶκἀκεῖνοςποιήσει . He had already given such power to the Twelve (Mark 6:7, Mark 6:13), and in [Mk.] 16:17 it is recorded that He renewed this assurance after His Resurrection. καὶμείζονατούτων , “ greater things,” not necessarily more extraordinary “ miracles,” to the eye of the unspiritual observer. These works of wonder, healing the blind and the sick, etc., were not reckoned by Jesus among His own “ greater” works (see on 5:20). The “ greater things” which the apostles were to achieve, were the far-reaching spiritual effects which their preaching was to bring about. The teaching of the Incarnate Son was confined to one country, and while He was in the flesh His adherents were few. But His Church made conquest of the nations of the world. ὅτιἐγὼπρὸςτὸνπατέραπορεύομαι . His departure from their visible presence increased the apostles’ spiritual power (see on 16:7 above). As He goes on to explain (vv. 13, 14), their spiritual effectiveness in prayer will be increased beyond all limits hitherto presupposed, for their prayers will be offered “ in His Name.” For πρὸςτὸνπατέραπορεύομαι , cf. v. 28; and see on 16:28. 13. καὶὅτιἄναἰτήσητεκτλ . “ And” (further, in addition to the promise of v. 12, and following from it) “ whatsoever ye shall ask in my Name, I will do it.” See on 15:16 for this great promise, here repeated for the fifth time. It is not said here to whom the prayer is addressed, but we should probably understand τὸνπατέρα as at 15:16, 16:23. Jesus is the Way (v. 6), and while prayers are naturally addressed to the Father, they are addressed through Jesus, “ in the Name of” Jesus. There is, however, an advance here on the teaching of 15:16, 16:23. In the former passages it is the Father who answers prayer, who gives what the faithful petitioner asks; but here and at v. 14 it is the Son who is to grant the boon, ποιήσω being twice repeated. For, in the teaching of Jesus as presented in Jn., what the Father does, the Son does (cf. 10:30). Swete’ s paraphrase is thoroughly Johannine. “ We pray to the Father in Christ’ s Name; we receive the answer from the Father. Yet we receive it through the Son and by the action of the Son.” The difference between δώσει , “ He will give,” of 16:23, and ποιήσω , “ I will do,” of 14:13 is the difference between the Jewish and the Christian doctrine of prayer. ἵναδοξασθῇὁπατὴρἐντῷυἱῷ . This is only verbally similar to 13:31, where see note. All that is done by Christ in His heavenly ministry is a “ glorification” of the Father, a revelation to men of His power and compassion. This is the final cause of Christ’ s work. For the absolute use of υἱός in Jn., see on 3:35. 14. This verse is wholly omitted in two minor uncials, as well as in 1, 22, b, ful, the Sinai Syriac, and Nonnus— a strong and unusual combination. The omission may be due to homoioteleuton, v. 14 being repeated from v. 13. ABL and fam. 13, indeed, repeat τοῦτοποιήσω from v. 13, but א DWΘ in v. 14 replace τοῦτο by ἐγώ . So ADL follow v. 13 in reading αἰτήσητεἐνκτλ , but א BWΓΔΘ have αἰτήσητέμεἐνκτλ . If the verse is to be retained, it must be taken as a repetition in slightly different terms of what has been said already: a construction which is quite in the style of Joh_1 ἐγώ clearly lays special emphasis on Jesus being Himself the answerer of the prayer: “ I will see that it is done.” But the insertion of με after αἰτήσητε , which the best MSS support, involves the harsh and unexampled phrase, “ If ye shall ask me in my Name.” No doubt, it may be urged that the man who is in Christ alone can offer petitions to Christ which are certain of acceptance. He whose will is in harmony with Christ’ s will, and who therefore can truly pray “ in His Name,” may be assured that Christ will perform what he asks. Yet the expression “ ask me in my Name” is awkward, and does not occur elsewhere, the other passages in these discourses in which prayers in the Name of Christ are recommended explicitly mentioning the Father as Him to whom these prayers should be addressed (cf. 15:16, 16:23, 24). The Johannine teaching would not indeed stumble at the addressing of prayer to Christ. He who prays to the Father, prays to the Son, so intimate is their ineffable union (cf. 10:30); but, nevertheless, no explicit mention of prayer to the Son is found elsewhere in Jn., unless 16:23 (where see note) is an exception. We conclude that με must be rejected here,2 despite its strong MS. support; and we read ἐάντιαἰτήσητεἐντῷὀνόματίμου , ἐγὼποιήσω , the thought being carried on from the previous verse, a special emphasis being laid upon ἐγώ . Love Issuing in Obedience Will Be Followed by the Gift of the Paraclete, Revealing the Union of the Father and the Son (vv. 15-20) 15. ἐὰνἀγαπᾶτέμε , τὰςἐντολὰςτὰςἐμὰςτηρήσετε (so א BL, which is to be preferred to τηρήσατε of ADΘ and the rec. text), “ if you love me, you will keep my commandments,” as it is said again (v. 23), ἐάντιςἀγαπᾷμε , τὸνλόγονμουτηρήσει . Love issues in obedience. The converse, “ he who keeps my commandments loves me,” is found at v. 21 (the love then fulfilling itself in knowledge, 1 John 2:3). For the verb ἀγαπᾶν , as used in Jn. of the love of His disciples for Jesus, see on 3:16. The phrase τηρεῖντὰςἐντολάς is thoroughly Johannine (cf. 15:10, 1 John 2:3, 1 John 2:4, 1 John 2:3:22, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 2:5:2, 1 John 2:3). It is the phrase used for “ keeping” the Ten Commandments (cf. Matthew 19:17, 1 Corinthians 7:19); and that the precept “ keep my commandments” should be placed in the mouth of Jesus is significant of His claim to be equal with God (cf. 13:34). In Jn. τηρεῖντὰςἐντολάςμου is used interchangeably with τηρεῖντὸνλόγονμου (8:51, 14:23, 24, 15:20, 1 John 2:5). 16. κἀγὼἐρωτήσωτὸνπατέρα . See on 11:22, 16:23, 26 on ἐρωτᾶν as the verb used of the prayers of Jesus Himself; cf. 17:9. καὶἄλλονπαράκλητονδώσειὑμῖν . The Sinai Syriac renders “ He will give you Another, the Paraclete” ; but the more natural rendering is “ He will give you another Paraclete,” sc. another besides myself. Jesus does not directly call Himself a “ Paraclete,” nor is the term applied to Him anywhere in the Gospels (cf. 1 John 2:1); but He has just spoken of Himself (vv. 13, 14) as discharging in the future the functions of a παράκλητος , or a Helper and Friend at the court of heaven, in that it is He who will cause to be fulfilled the prayers which are addressed to the Father. For παράκλητος see on 15:26. ἵναᾖμεθ ʼ ὑμῶν . The rec. text has μένῃ for ᾖ (perhaps from v. 17). εἰςτὸναἰῶνα . Jesus had been with them as Helper and Friend on earth only for a short time, but the “ other Paraclete” would be in fellowship with them “ for ever,” i.e. until the end of the present dispensation (cf. Matthew 28:20). See on 4:14 for εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , which is generally used as including eternity. 17. For τὸπν . τῆςἀληθειας , see on 15:26. With the sharp contrast between the “ world” and the “ disciples” in regard to their faculty of spiritual perception, cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14. ὃὁκόσμοςοὐδύναταιλαβεῖν . It could not have been said to the “ world,” λάβετεπνεῦμαἅγιον (20:22). That gift could be received only by spiritually minded men. ὅτιοὐθεωρεῖαὐτό . θεωρεῖν (see on 2:23) is generally used in Jn. of bodily vision, but sometimes (as at 6:40, 12:45) of mental and spiritual appreciation. The analogy of v. 19 would suggest that bodily vision is intended here, as there. The only kind of vision that the “ world” has is physical, and with this the Spirit cannot be perceived. Observe that it is not said that the disciples could thus behold the Spirit. οὐδὲγινώσκει . So it is said in the Prologue (1:10), ὁκόσμοςαὐτὸνοὐκἔγνω . The world did not recognise Jesus as the Word: nor does it recognise the Spirit. ὑμεῖςγινώσκετεαὐτό . Disciples are not “ of the world” (15:19): they can, and will, recognise the workings of the Spirit, as they have in some measure recognised Christ for what He was (cf. v. 9). ὅτιπαρ ʼ ὑμῖνμένει , “ because He abides with you,” καὶἐνὑμῖνἐστίν , “ and is in you,” the present tenses being used proleptically of the future. The rec. has ἔσται , which is a correction of the better reading ἐστίν (BD*W). First it is said that the Spirit of Truth abides μετὰὑμῶν , then παρ ʼ ὑμῖν , and finally ἐνὑμῖν , the last phrase signifying the indwelling of the Spirit in the individual disciple (Romans 8:9, 1 John 2:27, 2 John 1:2), while the other phrases (the former of which occurs also in 2 John 1:2) lay the emphasis on the fellowship of the Spirit with the disciples collectively, that is, with the Church (cf. ἡκοινωνίατοῦἁγίουπνεύματοςμετὰπάντωνὑμῶν , 2 Corinthians 13:14). 18. οὐκἀφήσωὑμᾶςὀρφανούς . ὀρφανός occurs in the N.T. again only at James 1:27, and there in its primary meaning of “ fatherless.” It has been thought that this is the idea here also; at 13:33 Jesus addressed his disciples as τεκνία , which suggests the relation of a father to his children. But, although ὀρφανός , both in the LXX and in classical literature, generally means “ fatherless” in the most literal sense, it may be used of bereavement of any kind. ὀρφανῷσὺἦσθαβοηθός (Psalms 10:14) appears in Coverdale’ s Psalter as “ Thou art the helper of the friendless, ” which brings out the sense well. Milligan (Vocab. s.v.) quotes a modern Greek song where friendless must be the meaning; and also Epictetus, iii. xxiv. 14 for this more general sense. The rendering “ comfortless” of the A.V. cannot be defended. “ I will not leave you friendless” means, then, “ I will not leave you without a Helper and Friend , such as I have been.” ἔρχομαιπρὸςὑμᾶς , “ I am coming to you,” not, as in v. 3, in the Parousia, but after His Resurrection, when the Spirit will be imparted (20:22). See on 16:23 for the Day of the Spirit’ s Advent. 19. ἔτιμικρὸν (see on 16:16) καὶὁκόσμοςμεοὐκέτιθεωρεῖ , “ the world perceiveth me no longer,” θεωρεῖν (see on 2:23) being used here of any kind of vision, for Jesus will have been removed from the world’ s sight after His Passion. ὑμεῖςδὲθεωρεῖτέμε , “ but you perceive me,” sc. with the spiritual perception which the disciples were to have of the Risen Lord. Jesus had indeed told them at an earlier point in this last discourse that, like the world, they would see Him no longer with the eyes of the body after His Passion: οὐκέτιθεωρεῖτέμε (16:10). The assurance of the present verse is in verbal, although not real, contradiction with the former warning. He had led them on step by step, in the endeavour to make them understand that it was better for them that He should be removed from their bodily eyes (16:7), and that He would be present with them spiritually. And, at last, He assures them— so intimate and vital will His presence be— “ you shall perceive me” ὑμεῖςθεωρεῖτέμε , the present tense being used proleptically to mark the certainty of the future. θεωρεῖν is the verb used of Mary’ s “ seeing” the Risen Lord (20:14), as it is used here of the disciples’ “ seeing” Him after His Passion, while such “ seeing” would be impossible for the unbelieving world. A comparison of 14:19 with 16:10 goes far to show that 16:10 must be regarded as an earlier utterance than 14:19. See Introd., p. xxi. ὅτιἐγὼζῶκαὶὑμεῖςζήσετε . So BL, but א ADΓΔΘ have ζήσεσθε . This had been said before (6:57, where see note), and the thought is present also in Paul (Romans 5:10, 1 Corinthians 15:21, 1 Corinthians 15:22, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 2:5; cf. Revelation 20:4). But the words “ because I live, you also shall live,” have here a direct connexion with the context. Jesus has just assured the disciples that they shall “ see” Him in His Risen Life. But this would only be possible— for ordinary physical vision is not in question— for those who are in spiritual sympathy with Him, who are “ in Him” and in whom He abides (v. 20), who share His Life. And so He adds, “ because I live, you also shall live” ; not ye do live (in the present), for He was not yet risen from the dead, and His quickening power was not yet set free in those who “ believed on Him.” 20. ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳ , i.e. in the new Dispensation of the Spirit, which will begin with the Resurrection. See on 16:23. γνώσεσθεὑμεῖςκτλ , “ you will know” (ὑμεῖς being emphatic) “ that I am in my Father, etc.” At v. 10 (where see note) Jesus had indicated that the disciples ought to have reached as far as faith in His ineffable union with the Father; but He now promises that they shall know it, and recognise it as true, when the illumination of the Spirit has been granted to their minds. καὶὑμεῖςἐνἐμοὶκἀγὼἐνὑμῖν . He had given this to them as a precept of life (15:4, where see note); but the assurance that they might indeed reckon themselves as “ in Him” could not be complete until the realisation that they shared His Life (v. 19) was confirmed by the Spirit’ s internal witness. This assurance is the highest point in Christian experience. Cf. 17:21, 23, 26; and see especially the note on 17:18. The Loving Disciple is Loved by God, and to Him Jesus Will Manifest Himself (V. 21) 21. What has heretofore been said in terms primarily applicable to the listening disciples is now said more generally. The teaching of v. 21 is for all future believers. Not only for the apostles, but for every disciple, the sequence of spiritual experience is Obedience, Love, Life, Vision. ἔχωντὰςἐντολάς (the phrase does not occur again) is to have them in one’ s heart, to know them and apprehend their meaning; but τηρεῖντὰςἐντολάς is to keep them, which is a harder thing. See on v. 15 above, where (as at v. 23) it is said that love issues in obedience; here the point is, that obedience is the proof of love. ἐκεῖνος : he it is (and no other) who loves me. ὁδὲἀγαπῶνμεἀγαπηθήσεταιὑπὸτοῦπατρόςμου . This has been said before at 16:27, where φιλεῖν was used instead of ἀγαπᾶν (but see on 21:15), and where, in accordance with Jn.’ s usual style, the active voice was preferred to the passive. Abbott (Diat. 1885j) notes that in this verse is the only instance in Jn. of ὑπό followed by a genitive of the agent. κἀγὼἀγαπήσωαὐτόν . Cf. Proverbs 8:17. καὶἐμφανίσωαὐτῷἐμαυτόν . ἐμφανίζειν (in Jn. only here and at v. 22) is used as in Exodus 33:13, Exodus 33:18 of a special manifestation of the Divine; cf. also Wisd. 1:2, 17:4, Matthew 27:53. The reference is to that fuller revelation of Christ which will be made through the Spirit’ s illumination: cf. 16:14. Jude Asks Why Jesus Will Not Manifest Himself to the World; No Direct Answer is Given, the Former Teaching Being Repeated (vv. 22-24) 22. λέγειαὐτῷἸούδαςκτλ . This is the fourth interruption of the discourse by an apostle anxious to understand what was being said (cf. 13:37, 14:5, 8); this time the speaker is Judas the son of James (Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, who is also called Thaddeus Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:3; see on 2:12 above). Syr. sin. reads “ Thomas” here for “ Judas,” and Syr. cur. has “ Judas Thomas,” which apparently was the personal name (Judas the Twin) of the doubting apostle. The Syriac vss. have confused the undistinguished apostle, Judas the son of James, with the better known Judas Thomas. οὐχὁἸσκαριώτης . Judas Iscariot had left the company some time before (13:30), but Jn. is anxious that the name “ Judas” shall not mislead. For “ the Iscariot,” the man of Kerioth, see on 6:71. καὶτίγέγονενκτλ ., “ What, then, has happened that, etc.” For the initial καί , which is retained by א , see on 9:36. It is omitted by ABDLΘ , but its omission is probably due to a mistaken correction of the text by scribes who did not understand the initial καί . Jude catches at the word ἐμφανίζειν . This is what he has been waiting for. For this verb seemed to suggest (see Exodus 33:13, Exodus 33:18) a visible manifestation of Jesus in glory, which had been the hope of the Twelve. They clung to the thought of a Messianic theophany which should convince the world. There was a truth behind this Jewish expectation, as Jesus had said on former occasions (5:27, 28). But the promise to the faithful in these Last Discourses was not that of any speedy return of the Son of Man in the clouds, although it was misinterpreted thus by some. The ἐμφανισμός which Jesus promised was the illumination of the heart of the individual disciple: “ I will manifest myself to him,” not to the world. Judas is perplexed by such a limitation, as it seems to him, of the Messianic hope. What, then, about your manifestation of your glory to the world? See on v. 8 for similar perplexity exhibited by his brother apostle Philip. Both of them desired the same kind of public vindication by Jesus of Himself as His incredulous “ brethren” had demanded when they said φανέρωσονσεαυτὸντῷκόσμῳ (7:4). Such vindication, however, was not given. Even after He had risen, Jesus was not seen by those who hated Him or were sceptical as to His claims. ὁθεὸς … ἔδωκεναὐτὸνἐμφανῆγενέσθαι (Acts 10:40), not to everybody, but only to the select few. And the only answer that Jesus gives to Jude is to repeat the assurance that He will, in truth, manifest Himself to every loving and obedient disciple: a promise which points forward to the illumination which the Spirit is to give. No direct answer is given as to the manifestation in glory of Jesus to the world at large. This is in complete correspondence with the habit of Jesus when problems were put to Him by questioners as to the destiny or the duty of other people. He rebuked Peter for asking about John’ s future career (21:22). “ Are there few that be saved?” another asked Him (Luke 13:23). But His answer was to bid the man look to his own salvation: “ Strive to enter in at the strait gate.” And so here, it is said (in effect) to Jude: “ If you love and obey me, I will come and abide with you; that is enough for you to know.” 23. ἀπεκρ . Ἰησοῦςκαὶκτλ . The rec. inserts ὁ before Ἰησοῦς , but om. א ABDLWΓΔΘ : see on 1:29. ἐάντιςἀγαπᾷμεκτλ . The answer of Jesus to Jude is indirect, and begins by repeating what He had said before v. 15 (cf. v. 21) as to the necessity of obedience for a true disciple. τὸνλόγονμουτηρήσει . For τὰςἐντολάς of v. 21, the specific commandments of Jesus, is substituted here τὸνλόγον , the message of Jesus as a whole. For the phrase τὸνλόγοντηρεῖν , see on 8:51, 17:6. Jn., as has been pointed out before, is fond of changing slightly the form of a great saying, when he repeats it (see on 3:17). καὶὁπατήρμουἀγαπήσειαὐτόν . Cf. 17:23. This must be taken to mean something more than the fundamental Johannine doctrine that “ God loved the world” (3:16), although this tremendous fact is prior to, and at the root of, every special manifestation of God’ s love to individual disciples. καὶπρὸςαὐτὸνἐλευσόμεθα . Here the singular ἔρχομαιπρὸςὑμᾶς (v. 18) is replaced by the plural ἐλευσόμεθα , marking the claim of equality with the Father which is prominent throughout the Fourth Gospel. Cf. 10:30 ἕνἐσμεν . In both passages the reference is to that Divine Advent in the disciple’ s heart which is mediated by the Spirit. Cf. Revelation 3:20 εἰσελεύσομαιπρὸςαὐτόν . καὶμονὴνπαρ ʼ αὐτῷποιησόμεθα . The Spirit παρ ʼ ὑμῖνμένει (v. 17), and the same must be true of the Father and the Son. “ In the coming of the Spirit, the Son too was to come; in the coming of the Son, also the Father.” 1 In v. 2 (where see note) the μοναί where man shall dwell with God in the future are promised; here we have the promise of a greater thing, the dwelling of God with man in the present. The main thought associated with the sanctuary in the Pentateuch was that there Yahweh dwelt with His people (Exodus 25:8, Exodus 29:45, Leviticus 26:11, Leviticus 26:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 6:16); but the indwelling promised here is associated with no special sanctuary or holy place. It is a Presence, real although invisible, in the disciple’ s heart (Matthew 28:20): the peculiar benediction of the kingdom which does not come “ by observation” (Luke 17:20). So Jn. writes later of the disciple who “ keeps His commandments,” that Christ “ abides in him,” adding “ this we know by the Spirit which He gave us” (1 John 3:24; cf. 1 John 4:13). ποιησόμεθα . So א BLW fam. 13; but AΘ have ποιήσομενμονὴνποιούμενος occurs in Thucydides (i. 131), the phrase being good classical Greek. 24. The implied argument of this verse is that the “ world,” which does not love Jesus and does not “ keep His commandments,” is spiritually incapable of apprehending such spiritual manifestations of God and Christ as those which have been promised to faithful disciples. Nothing is said of a manifestation in glory, such as that which Jude and his fellow-disciples longed to see (cf. v. 22). ὁμὴἀγαπῶνμεκτλ ., “ he that does not love me” (sc. the world) “ does not keep my sayings” (λόγοι as distinct from λόγος , His full message). λόγοι here is practically equivalent to ἐντολαί (v. 21). καὶὁλόγοςὃνἀκούετε . καί is for καίτοι , in accordance with Jn.’ s usage (see on 3:11): “ and yet, the word which ye hear,” i.e. which the world hears without understanding what it implies. The phrase ἀκούειντὸνλόγοντὸνἐμόν has appeared before at 8:43, where see note. οὐκἔστινἐμόςκτλ . Cf. 7:16 ἡἐμὴδιδαχὴοὐκἔστινἐμή , ἀλλὰτοῦπέμψαντόςμε . See also 8:28, 12:49; and for the thought of Christ being “ sent” by God, see on 3:17. Parting Words: A Summary of the Last Discourse (vv. 25-31) 25. ταῦταλελάληκαὑμῖν . This is the seventh time that this solemn refrain (see on 15:11) appears in the Last Discourse. Here ταῦτα may embrace all that has been said throughout the evening, and not only the sentences immediately preceding. “ These things have I spoken to you, while abiding with you,” sc. in the flesh. But this temporary companionship in the body is now to be replaced by a permanent spiritual abiding, in the Person of the Paraclete. 26. This is the fifth (and last) time that the Paraclete is mentioned (see on 15:26 for the meaning of the word). Here ὁπαράκλητος is for the first time identified with τὸπνεῦματὸἅγιον , an august title familiar to every Jew (cf. Psalms 51:11, Isaiah 63:10). The complete title does not occur again in Jn. (but cf. 20:22). We have it, however, in Mark 3:29, Mark 13:11, Matthew 12:32; cf. Luke 12:10, Luke 12:12. ὃπέμψει . For ὅ , א cL have ὅν . The Old Syriac treats the Spirit as feminine, but the Peshitta does not follow this Semitic doctrine. ὃπέμψειὁπατήρ . This is the Lucan doctrine, that the Father sends the Spirit (Luke 24:49, Acts 2:33), and we have had it already at v. 16; but at 15:26, 16:7 the Spirit is sent by the Son (see also 20:22). This is only an additional illustration of the Johannine doctrine that what the Father does, the Son does (see note on v. 13 above). ἐντῷὀνόματίμου . “ In my stead” does not convey the meaning adequately. At 5:43 Jesus said that He had come “ in the Name” of the Father, and at 10:25 that He wrought His works in the same Name; the meaning in both cases (see notes in loc.) being not only that He came as the Father’ s representative, but as One to whom “ the Name,” i.e. the providential power of the Father, had been given, and who was to reveal the Father’ s character and purpose. So here it is said that the Spirit will be sent “ in the Name” of Christ, to explain His mission and to reveal its consequences. As the Son was sent in the Name of the Father (5:43), so the Holy Spirit will be sent in future “ in the Name” of the Son. This does not imply that the Holy Spirit was not operative before the Incarnation, but rather that after the Passion and Resurrection (see on 16:23; and cf. 7:39) He will come with the more effective quickening power of the new revelation of God in Christ. ἐκεῖνος . It is He, the Spirit, whose twofold work is now described in relation primarily to the listening apostles, but probably what is said may apply in some measure to all Christian disciples of succeeding generations. ὑμᾶςδιδάξειπάντα . This has already been said at 16:13 ὁδηγήσειὑμᾶςεἰςπᾶσαντὴνἀλήθειαν . The two phrases are treated as identical at Psalms 25:5: ὁδήγησόνμεἐπὶτὴνἀλήθειάνσου , καὶδίδαξόνμε . Cf. also Psalms 25:9: ὁδηγήσειπρᾳεῖςἐνκρίσει , διδάξειπρᾳεῖςὁδοὺςαὐτοῦ . See, for other apparent reminiscences of the Psalter, on 16:13. πάντα in this verse corresponds to εἰςπᾶσαντὴνἀλήθειαν of 16:13, and stands in contrast to ταῦτα of v. 25, sc. the things that have already been taught by Jesus. For πάντα , cf. 1 John 2:27 τὸαὐτοῦχρίσμαδιδάσκειὑμᾶςπερὶπάντων . The reference is only (see again on 16:13) to religious doctrines , but of these Divine truths the Spirit is to teach new things as time goes on. καὶὑπομνήσειὑμᾶςπάνταἃεἶπονὑμῖν . BL add ἐγώ after ὑμῖν , and this would bring out the emphasis well; but it is omitted by most authorities. “ And He will bring to your remembrance all that I said to you,” the aor. εἶπον indicating that the personal oral teaching of Jesus was ended. This is the second side of the work of the Spirit, who not only was to reveal what was new, but was to recall to the memory of the apostles the old truths that Jesus had taught. Cf. 2:22, 12:16, Acts 11:16, for illustrations of the fact that after His Resurrection the apostles entered more fully into the meaning of His words than they had done at the time they were spoken. Here, however, the promise is that their memory of them shall be stimulated. Bengel says pregnantly, “ Exemplum praebet haec ipsa homilia.” ὑπομνήσειὑμᾶςπάντα . ὑπομιμνήσκειν does not occur again in Jn.; but cf. Luke 22:61, where Peter “ remembered” the words of Jesus. There is a literary parallel (but no more) in Jubilees xxxii. 25, where God says to Jacob after his vision, “ I will bring all things to thy remembrance.” 27. εἰρήνη , i.e. ש ל ו ם “ peace,” the ordinary salutation and the ordinary word of farewell in the East. The words παρ ʼ ὑμῖνμένων in v. 25 are suggestive of His departure, and He is not forgetful of the parting word of peace. Except in salutations (20:19, 21, 26, 2 John 1:3, 3 John 1:14), εἰρήνη is used by Jn. only here and at 16:33; and in both cases it refers to the spiritual peace which Christ gives. Just as in the Priestly Blessing (Numbers 6:26) the meaning of the familiar ש ל ו ם is transfigured, “ The Lord … give thee peace,” so here εἰρήνηντὴνἐμὴνδίδωμιὑμῖν conveys more than the customary “ Go in peace.” The peace which Jesus bequeaths is His to give as a permanent possession (cf. 16:33), and is given, not by way of hope or assurance of good will only, as the world (i.e. the ordinary run of mankind; see on 1:9) gives it in farewells, but in the plenitude of Divine power. εἰρήνηνδίδωμιὑμῖν is no less absolute a gift than that other ζωὴναἰώνιονδίδωμιαὐτοῖς (10:28). It is noteworthy that in the Apocalypse εἰρήνη is used only of earthly peace (6:4; cf. 1:4), while in Jn. it is used only of spiritual peace. Paul has it in both senses, but more frequently in the latter (cf. Colossians 3:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:16). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ The Vine and the Branches (vv. 1-8) 15:1. The comparison of Jesus to a Tree, and of His disciples to the branches which derive their life from the life of the Tree, is similar in some respects to an illustration used by Paul to explain the relation of the individual Israelite to his forefathers, Abraham and the rest. “ If the root is holy, so are the branches” (Romans 11:16). Israel is compared to an olive tree, the roots being the patriarchs and the branches their descendants. But the illustration of Jesus conveys a deeper lesson, as we shall see. The question presents itself: Why is the vine selected as the tree best fitted to bring out the lesson which it was the purpose of Jesus to teach? A vine has none of the dignity of the olive, with its fine trunk and spreading branches. Vines, indeed, in the East generally trail on the ground, although they are sometimes supported on stakes (cf. Ezekiel 17:6f.), or entwine themselves round a greater tree (as in the parable in Hermas, Sim. ii.). The olive was regarded in an older parable as fit to be the king of trees (Judges 9:8). It is the most important of the fruit trees of Palestine, and was a familiar object in Jerusalem, as the name “ the Mount of Olives” indicates. Vines were also plentiful, especially in Judæ a (cf. Genesis 49:11), but for strength and stateliness they are much inferior to the olive, as to many other trees. The reason generally assigned by exegetes for the employment here of the figure of a vine is that it is frequently used in the O.T. as a type of Israel. But it is always thus used of degenerate Israel. “ What is the vine tree more than any other tree?” Ezekiel asks (15:2), and he declares that as vine branches are only fit for burning, the vine of Jerusalem must be devoured by fire. So again (Ezekiel 19:10), Israel was once a fruitful vine, but she was plucked up and destroyed. The choicest vine was planted in the vineyard of Yahweh, but it only brought forth wild grapes (Isaiah 5:1). Israel was planted as a noble vine, but it became degenerate (Jeremiah 2:21). Israel is a luxuriant vine, but judgment comes on her (Hosea 10:1). The vine from Egypt of God’ s planting spread far and wide, but the fences of its vineyard were broken, and it was ravaged by wild beasts (Psalms 80:8-13). God had chosen “ of all the trees … one vine,” as He had chosen one people, but it came to dishonour (2 Esd. 5:23). Always in the O.T., where Israel is compared to a vine, the comparison introduces a lament over her degeneracy, or a prophecy of her speedy destruction. See also Revelation 14:19, where the vintage of the earth is cast into the winepress of the wrath of God. None the less, the vine was the national emblem, and on the coins of the Maccabees Israel is represented by a vine. And it has been thought that when Jesus said “ I am the True Vine,” the comparison in view was that between the degenerate vine of Israel and the Ideal Vine represented by Himself. That is to say, the True Vine is now brought before the disciples as the new ideal of the spiritual Israel. This, however, involves a comparison of the Church of Christ with the True Vine (cf. Justin, Tryph. 110), rather than an identification of Christ Himself with it. No doubt, by describing His disciples as the branches, Jesus connected them as well as Himself with the mystic vine of His similitude; but the emphasis in the sentence ἐγώεἰμιἡἄμπελοςἡἀληθινή is on ἐγώ , as in all the other great similitudes of the Fourth Gospel. ἐγώεἰμι marks the style of Deity, which cannot be shared (see Introd., p. cxviii). The main thought is not of the Vine as the Church, but of the Vine as representing Him who is the source of the Church’ s life. We take the view that the Vine of the allegory was directly suggested here by the wine of the first Eucharist, which had just been celebrated.1 ἡἄμπελοςἡἀληθινή . Burkitt2 points out that an early Syriac rendering of this similitude was “ I am the Vineyard of Truth,” i.e. the True Vineyard. This does not appear in Syr. sin. or the Peshitta, but it may have been in the Diatessaron. The confusion between Vineyard and Vine may be due to ἄμπελος having been taken as equivalent to ἀμπελών , a usage which Moulton-Milligan (s.v.) illustrate from the papyri. ἄμπελος occurs again in the N.T. only in James 3:12, James 3:14:18, 19, and Mark 14:25 (and parls.), where Jesus said that He would not drink again of τὸγένηματῆςἀμπέλου until He drank it new in the kingdom of God. For ἀληθινός , see on 1:9. Jesus is the genuine Vine. καὶὁπατήρμου (see on 2:16) ὁγεωργόςἐστιν . γεωργός occurs again only at 2 Timothy 2:6, James 5:7, and in the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mark 12:1 and parallels). Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:9 θεοῦγεώργιον … ἐστέ . 2. πᾶνκλῆμακτλ Note the pendent nominative, as at 6:39, 17:2. κλῆμα is a word which does not appear again in the N.T.; but it is habitually used in the LXX for the “ shoot” of a vine (e.g. Numbers 13:24, Ezekiel 17:6), as distinct from the “ branch” of other trees. ἐνἐμοὶμὴφέρονκαρπόν . Note that a κλῆμα or branch may be truly in Christ, and yet may not bear fruit. μή expresses a hypothetical possibility. This severe warning, coming so soon after the beginning of the allegory, was probably an allusion to the failure and doom of Judas, who had gone forth to his treachery just before, in the arrangement of chapters here adopted. αἴρειαὐτό . “ He takes it away.” So, too, the κλάδοι of the olive which represented Israel in Paul’ s illustration, were of the true stock, but some of them were broken off by God (Romans 11:16, Romans 11:17). The action of the Great Husbandman in this is like that of every earthly γεωργός : inutilesque falce ramos amputans (Horace, Epod. ii. 13). Cf. Matthew 3:10, Luke 3:9. καὶπᾶντὸκαρπὸνφέρον , καθαίρειαὐτό The play on the words αἴρειν , καθαίρειν (suavis rhythmus, as Bengel says), cannot be reproduced in English. καθαίρειν , to cleanse, occurs in the N.T. again only at Hebrews 10:2 (of religious cleansing), and is rare in the LXX. It is used here in the sense of “ to cleanse by pruning,” as it is in Philo (de somn. ii. 9, cited by Cremer): “ As superfluous shoots grow on plants, which are a great injury to the genuine shoots , and which the husbandmen cleanse and prune , knowing what is necessary; so likewise the false and arrogant life grows up beside the true and humble life, of which to this day no husbandman has been found to cut off by the roots the superfluous and injurious growth.” In this passage καθαίρειν , “ to cleanse,” can hardly be distinguished from ἀποτέμνειν , “ to prune.” In the verse before us, however, the Great Husbandman does “ cleanse” the fruitful branches by pruning off useless shoots, so that they may bear fruit more abundantly. It is not as if the branches were foul; on the contrary, they are already clean by virtue of their share in the life of the Vine (v. 3). But pruning may be good for them, none the less. Such pruning, according to Justin (Tryph. 110), illustrates God’ s painful discipline for His true servants. The vine is a tree which specially needs attention, and it is essential to its fruitfulness that the already fruitful branches should be pruned regularly. Perhaps this is a warning anticipatory of the more explicit warning of vv. 20, 21. ἵνακαρπὸνπλείοναφέρῃ . Cf. Matthew 13:12. The order καρπὸνπλείονα is that of א BL latt. 3. ἤδηὑμεῖςκαθαροίἐστε . So Jesus had said before (13:10), the primary reference then being to bodily cleanness, although with an allusion to spiritual purity as well (see note in loc.). Here, the thought is carried on from v. 2, which spoke of the cleansing of the branches by the Great Husbandman . The disciples were not useless branches, presently to be cut off; they were in the way of bearing fruit, and already they had been “ cleansed” διὰτὸνλόγονὃνλελάληκαὑμῖν , “ by the word which I have spoken to you.” We have seen (on 6:57) that διά followed by an acc. is to be distinguished from διά with a gen. The text here is not διὰτοῦλόγου , which would suggest that the Word of Jesus is the instrument of cleansing; but διὰτὸνλόγον signifies rather that it is because of the Word abiding in them (v. 7) that they are kept pure. The λόγος which had thus, in some measure, been assimilated by them (cf. 5:38, 8:43) was the whole message that Jesus had delivered during His training of the Twelve. In so far as this continued to “ abide” in them (v. 7), in that degree were they “ clean.” As it abides in them, so do they abide in the True Vine (1 John 2:24). The cleansing τοῦὕδατοςἐνῥήματι of Ephesians 5:26 does not constitute a true parallel to the thought here. 4. μείνατεἐνἐμοί , κἀγὼἐνὑμῖν . This is an imperative sentence (for the aor. imper. see on 2:5). No doubt, the practical precept which was the issue of all the teaching of Jesus was just this; but we must not join the words to the preceding διὰτὸνλόγονὃνλελάληκαὑμῖν , as if the precept itself were the λόγος . The words ἐνἐμοὶμένει , κἀγὼἐναὐτῷ had been used before (6:56), but the promise of that passage has not heretofore been turned into an explicit precept (cf. 14:20). For λόγος as signifying not a single sentence, but the whole purport of the Divine revelation given by Christ, see on 5:38. καθὼςτὸκλῆμακτλ . Even the fruitful branch does not bear fruit of itself (cf. for ἀφ ʼ ἑαυτοῦ , 5:19, 7:18, 11:51, 16:13), but only in so far as it assimilates and is nourished by the sap of the vine. So the disciple of Jesus cannot bear fruit, unless he abide in the Vine. Here is the difference between the natural and the spiritual order. The vine shoot has not the power of choosing whether it will “ abide” in the vine, or cut itself loose. But in the spiritual sphere this “ abiding” is not maintained without the constant and conscious endeavour of the disciple’ s own will. Hence the urgency of the precept μείνατεἐνἐμοί . 5. ἐγώεἰμιἡἄμπελοςκτλ ., “ I am the Vine, ye are the branches,” the main theme being repeated with slight verbal alteration, as frequently in Jn. Cf. the repetitions of “ I am the Bread of Life” (6:35, 41, 48, 51), “ I am the Door” (10:8, 9), “ I am the Good Shepherd” (10:11, 14); and see on 3:16. ὁμένωνἐνἐμοὶκἀγὼἐναὐτῷ . The two “ abidings” go together; see on 6:56. οὗτοςφέρεικαρπὸνπολύν . This was the purpose for which the disciples were chosen (v. 16). For the emphatic οὗτος , “ he it is that … ,” cf. 4:47. ὅτιχωρὶςἐμοῦοὐδύνασθεποιεῖνοὐδέν . The branch is wholly dependent on the tree, by whose sap it is quickened and made fruitful. 6. ἐὰνμήτιςμένῃκτλ . μένῃ is the true reading (א *ABD) as against the rec. μείνῃ . ἐὰνμή with the pres. subj. is rare in the N.T., but we have it three times in vv. 4, 6. ἐβλήθηἔξω . The branch that does not bear grapes is cast out (apparently, out of the vineyard). The aorists ἐβλήθη , ἐξηράνθη , seem to look forward to the future Judgment of mankind, and treat it as already past, so certain and inevitable is it. Abbott (Diat. 2445) compares Isaiah 40:7, Isaiah 40:8 ἐξηράνθηὁχόρτοςκαὶτὸἄνθοςἐξέπεσεν , τὸδὲῥῆματοῦθεοῦἡμῶνμένει , where the aorists are used in the same way. But a Greek aorist may be used without reference to any special moment of time. ἐξηράνθη (it does not occur again in Jn.) is the word used, Mark 4:6, of the withering of the seed that had no root, as here of the vine shoot that is no longer “ in” the vine. καὶσυνάγουσιναὐτό . So א DLΔ fam. 13; the rec. has αὐτά with ABΓΘ . “ They” (sc. the servants of the Lord of the Vineyard, the subject being understood. but not expressed) “ collect” the useless branches. καὶεἰςτὸπῦρβάλλουσινκτλ ., “ and fling them into the fire.” Cf. Ezekiel 15:4, where the prophet says of the vine branch, “ it is cast into the fire for fuel.” The vivid picture of the labourers burning at the harvest all that is worthless, appears also in Matthew 13:40 as an illustration of the Last Judgment. 7. The figure of the tree and its branches is left aside for the moment; and the consequence of abiding in Christ is declared to be not only the capacity for “ bearing fruit,” but the acquisition of the power of efficacious prayer. This is the secret of the saints. ἐὰνμείνητεἐνἐμοὶ (cf. v. 4 and 8:31) καὶτὰῥήματάμου (sc. the “ sayings” which make up the λόγος of v. 3) ἐνὑμῖνμείνῃκτλ . The man of whom this is true is a master of prayer, and his petitions will be answered. In the Synoptists faith is the prerequisite for efficacious prayer: πάνταὅσαπροσεύχεσθεκαὶαἰτεῖσθε , πιστεύετεὅτιἐλάβετεκαὶἔσταιὑμῖν (Mark 11:24); “ if you had faith you would say to this tree, Be uprooted and planted in the sea, and it would obey you” (Luke 17:6; cf. Matthew 17:20). πάνταδυνατὰτῷπιστεύοντι (Mark 9:23) is true of the life of prayer. But in Jn. faith in Christ is more than belief in His message, or fitful attraction to His Person; it is a continual abiding “ in Him.” See further on v. 16 below; and cf. 6:29. ὃἐὰνθέλητεαἰτήσασθε . For ὃἐάν , B has ὃἄν , and א has ὅσαἐάν . ABDL support the imperative αἰτήσασθε , while א Θ have αἰτήσεσθε . ὃἐὰνθέλητεκτλ ., “ whatever you will, etc.” ; petitions prompted by the indwelling words of Jesus cannot fail to be in harmony with the Divine Will. A petitioner who “ abides in Christ” asks habitually “ in His Name” ; i.e. he asks as Christ would ask, and so his satisfaction is sure. See 14:13 and the note there; cf. also v. 16 below, and 16:23. γενήσεταιὑμῖν , “ it shall come to pass for you,” not as a boon granted arbitrarily, but as the inevitable sequence of the prayer. 8. ἐντούτῳ , sc. in the fact that His followers abide in Christ (v. 7), the reference being retrospective: “ in this is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit.” The γεωργός (v. 1) is always glorified if the trees of his planting are fruitful; and so in Isaiah 61:3 the purpose of the mission of Yahweh’ s servant was “ that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that He might be glorified.” The perfection of human character is the glory of God: all good works are ad maiorem Dei gloriam (cf. Matthew 5:16). So Jesus spoke of His signs as exhibiting the glory of God (11:40). The aor. ἐδοξάσθη is used proleptically. The issue is so sure that it is spoken of as already a fact. See, for a similar usage, v. 6 and 12:23, 13:1, 31. For the phrase ὁπατήρμου , see on 2:16. γενήσεσθε . So א A: γένησθε is read by BDLΘ . If γένησθε is read, the rendering is “ that ye bear much fruit and become my disciples.” But γενήσεσθε is better: “ that ye bear much fruit: so shall you become my disciples,” or literally “ disciples to me,” ἐμοί (cf. 13:35.) expressing the relationship more affectionately than μου (which is read by D*). Cf. 8:31, “ if ye abide in my word, ye are truly my disciples.” It is to have gone a long way in the Christian course to be able to appropriate the promise of v. 7; but the final cause of such progress is that “ fruit” may appear, not in service only but in the development of character, to the glory of God. And the highest aspiration of all is to become “ a disciple.” “ True discipleship is hardly begun until the earthly life is near its end and the fruit hangs thick and ripe upon the branches of the Vine” 1 Cf. the saying of Ignatius, when on his way to martyrdom, νῦνἅρχομαιμαθητὴςεἶναι (Rom_5). The Love of Jesus for His Disciples (vv. 9-11) 9. καθὼςἠγάπησένμεὁπατήρ (cf. 5:20, 17:24), κἀγὼὑμᾶςἠγάπησα (13:34), “ As the Father loved me, so also I loved you.” The words are spoken in retrospect of His association with the apostles, now that the hour of parting has come; but they convey an assurance of the depth and intimacy of His love to all future disciples. For the constr. καθὼς … κἀγώ in Jn., see on 6:57, 10:15; and cf. also 17:18. For the verb ἀγαπᾶν , see on 21:15. μείνατεἐντῇἀγάπῃτῇἐμῇ , “ abide in my love,” i.e. “ continue in the shelter of my love for you.” See on 5:42 for the Johannine use of the phrase ἡἀγάπητοῦΧριστοῦ . Judas had fallen away from the reach of this love of Christ, and so may any disciple. Hence the need of the precept μείνατε , “ continue.” (Cf. Jude 1:21 ἑαυτοὺςἐνἀγάπῃθεοῦτηρήσατε .) This “ is perhaps the nearest approach to an authoritative command to obey a moral or spiritual precept” that occurs in Jn. (Abbott, Diat. 2438). For the aor. imperative μείνατε , see on 2:5. 10. The precept is “ abide in my love,” and the way to obey it is to keep His commandments: ἐὰντὰςἐντολάςμουτηρήσητε , μενεῖτεἐντῇἀγάπῃμου . The ἀγάπη is the love of Jesus for His disciples, not their love for Him, as it is in 14:15. It is over subtle to attempt a distinction between ἐντῇἀγάπῃτῇἐμῇ of v. 9 and ἐντῇἀγάπῃμου of v. 10. Both phrases mean the same thing, sc. the love of Jesus for His own. Jn. is specially fond of ἐμός , which occurs 37 times in the Gospel, and always in words of Jesus.1 καθὼςἐγὼτοῦπατρόςμουτὰςἐντολὰςτετήρηκα . This is the high example set before the Christian disciple. Jesus had claimed (8:29) ἐγὼτὰἀρεστὰαὐτῷποιῶπάντοτε , and now, looking back, He can say τετήρηκα (cf. 17:4). No man could say with such complete assurance, “ I have kept the commandments of my Father” ; while it is possible at the end to say, with Paul, τὴνπίστιντετήρηκα (2 Timothy 4:7). καὶμένωαὐτοῦἐντῇἀγάπῃ . This is the eternal issue of the ministry of Christ, the resumption of His place in the bosom of Deity, who is Love (cf. 17:24). Westcott2 finds here an advance on the teaching of 14:15, 21; and if this could surely be traced, the traditional order of chapters (c. 14 preceding c. 15) would be in some degree corroborated. But his reasoning is precarious. The idea of the ἐντολαί given by Jesus is only found in cc. 13, 14, 15; and the relevant passages are quite consistent with the order of chapters adopted here, viz.: 15:10 “ If ye keep my commandments, ye will abide in my love.” As we have seen, this is the fundamental idea in the Allegory of the Vine. 15:12 Next, Jesus bids them love one another. 13:34 This commandment is repeated and described as “ new.” See Introd., p. xxi. 14:15 He tells His disciples that if they love Him, they must keep His commandments. 14:21 And, finally, He gives them the great promise, that if they thus show their love for Him, the Father will love them, and He Himself will love them and will manifest Himself to them. There is no “ advance” on this teaching in c. 15, nor could there be. The truth is, that we must not expect a continuous logical sequence in the discourses of the Fourth Gospel. The sacred words are set down as they are remembered by the aged disciple of Jesus,1 but there is no attempt to present them in the manner which would be suitable to a theological treatise. 11. In these Last Discourses the phrase ταῦταλελάληκαὑμῖν recurs like a solemn refrain seven times (15:11, 16:1, 4, 6, 25, 33, 14:25), just as ἐγὼκύριοςλελάληκα recurs several times in Ezekiel (5:13, 15, 17, 6:10, 17:21, 24 etc.). The ἐγώ of dignity (see Introd., p. cxvii) is, however, not prefixed to λελάληκα in Jn. It is improbable that there is significance in there being seven repetitions of ταῦταλελάληκαὑμῖν and no more.2 16:6 is a reference to 16:5 “ because I said these things” ; and in 16:25 ἐνπαροιμίαις comes between ταῦτα and λελάληκα , the emphasis being on the words “ in proverbs” and not on “ these things have I spoken.” See, for similar refrains, on 6:33, 39. In each case ταῦτα refers to what has been said in the preceding sentences; and in three cases the purpose of the teaching is indicated, sc. that the disciples might have joy (15:11), that they might have peace (16:33), and that they might be warned of future persecution (16:1, 4). To come back on a phrase in this way is thoroughly characteristic of the style of Jn.: cf. note on 3:16. ἵναἡχαρὰἡἐμήκτλ . Paul afterwards expressed the hope that his joy might be the joy of his disciples (2 Corinthians 2:3; cf. Philippians 2:2); but ἵναἡχαρὰἡἐμὴἐνὑμῖνᾖ has a more mystical significance here. Jesus had spoken ταῦτα , i.e. ἐὰντὰςἐντολάςμουτηρήσητε , μενεῖτεἐντῇἀγάπῃτῇἐμῇ , and He now says that the purpose of His speaking these words was ἵναἡχαρὰἡἐμὴἐνὑμῖνᾖ . For the joy of Christ must be shared by those who abide in His love. So shall their “ joy be fulfilled” (cf. 16:24, and especially 17:13). This is a favourite expression of Jn.; cf. 1 John 1:4 and 2 John 1:12, as also John 3:29, where it is put into the mouth of John the Baptist. The New Commandment to Love the Brethren (vv. 12-17) 12. αὕτηἐστὶνἡἐντολὴἡἐμήκτλ . Jesus had spoken of “ commandments” to the disciples whom He was so soon to leave, and had promised that if they kept His commandments they would “ abide in His love.” But He gives no detailed instructions, no set of precepts for the conduct of their lives. He gives only one commandment, for it will be enough, if fully realised. ἵναἀγαπᾶτεἀλλήλουςκτλ ., “ that you love one another.” This was the commandment, repeated a little later in the evening, when it is described as a new commandment, as something that had never been enjoined before (13:34, where see note). That Christian disciple must “ love” Christian disciple, because of their common discipleship, was a new idea, perhaps not yet universally understood. καθὼςἠγάπησαὑμᾶς . This mutual love is to be no faint affection of goodwill; it must be a love which will pour itself out in sacrifice, if it is to be like the love of Jesus for all of them. This is the commandment which must be fulfilled by the disciple who will claim the promise “ Ye shall abide in my love” (v. 10). You can live in the shelter of my love only if you love one another. Cf. Ephesians 5:2. Abbott (Diat. 2529) calls attention to the frequent use of the present subjunctive in these Last Discourses, “ that you may be loving,” etc., the precept extending to all future generations of Christian disciples. 13. μείζοναταύτηςἀγάπηνκτλ . He reminds the disciples what was the measure of His love for them, having just told them that their love for each other must be of the same type. He was about to lay down His life for them, and this is the supreme sacrifice of love. A man can show no greater proof of his love for his friends than to die on their behalf. The love of God, indeed, has a wider range, as Paul reminds us: “ While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” thus showing the all-embracing character of God’ s love (Romans 5:7, Romans 5:8). But here something less is commended to the imitation of the Christian disciple, for the “ new commandment” does not speak of universal brotherhood, but only of the obligations of Christian brethren to each other. The precept is reproduced, 1 John 3:16: ἐντούτῳἐγνώκαμεντὴνἀγάπην , ὅτιἐκεῖνοςὑπὲρἡμῶντὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦἔθηκεν · καὶἡμεῖςὀφείλομενὑπὲρτῶνἀδελφῶντὰςψυχὰςθεῖναι . For the expression τὴνψυχὴντιθέναι , see on 10:11; and for the position of οὐδείς , see on 1:18. ἵνατιςτὴνψυχήνκτλ . This is in apposition to ταύτης : cf. 4:34 for a similar use of ἵνα . τις is omitted by א DΘ and some Latin vss., but א cABD2L have it. 14. ὑμεῖςφίλοιμούἐστεκτλ . This is another way of expressing what has already been said in v. 10. Those who abide in Christ’ s ἀγάπη are His φίλοι : see on 21:15 for ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν . ἃἐγὼἐντέλλομαιὑμῖν . According to Matthew 28:20, this was also to be the burden of the apostles’ preaching: διδάσκοντεςαὐτοὺςτηρεῖνπάνταὅσαἐνετειλάμηνὑμῖν . ἅ . So א DL fam. 13. B has ὅ , and AΓΔΘ have ὅσα . 15. οὐκέτιλέγωὑμᾶςδούλουςκτλ . They were accustomed to call Him Mar as well as Rabbi (see on 1:38, 13:13), and δοῦλος , “ slave,” is the correlative of Mar, “ Lord.” He had applied the term δοῦλος to them, 13:16; and He had implied that to be His διάκονος was a dignity. There is nothing derogatory in being described as δοῦλοςκυρίου , ע ֶ ב ֶ ד י ְ ה ו ֹ ָ ה ; on the contrary, it was a title of honour, and as such is used of Joshua (Joshua 24:29), Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5), David (Psalms 89:20 etc.); in the N.T. Simeon uses it of himself (Luke 2:29), the Epistle to Titus begins ΠαῦλοςδοῦλοςΘεοῦ , and the Epistle of James has ἸάκωβοςΘεοῦκαὶΚυρίουἸησοῦΧριστοῦδοῦλος (James 1:1). To this day, Abd-allah is a favourite name in the East. Abraham was singularly honoured by being called the friend of Yahweh (Ἀβραὰμὃνἠγάπησα , Isaiah 41:8; cf. 2 Chronicles 20:7, James 2:23), and still is called by the Arabs, El-Khalil. This distinction between God’ s “ slave” and His “ friend” appears in Philo. He says that while we speak of God as the δεσπότης or κύριος of the external world, in reference to the spiritual world He is called σωτὴρκαὶεὐεργέτης . “ For wisdom is God’ s friend rather than His slave” (φίλονγὰρτὸσοφὸνθεῷμᾶλλονἢδοῦλον , de sobrietate, 11). Philo then cites Genesis 18:17 in the form “ Shall I hide it from Abraham my friend?” According to the Book of Wisdom (7:27), to be God’ s friend is a privilege of holy men in every generation. Thus the difference drawn out in the text between the δοῦλοι and the φίλοι of Jesus corresponds to the difference, familiar to the Jews, between the δοῦλοι and the φίλοι of God, and conveys an additional suggestion of the Divinity of Jesus, which is behind the teaching of the Fourth Gospel from beginning to end. The chief officials of an Eastern monarch were called his “ friends” (1 Macc. 2:18, 3:38, 10:65 etc.), and Swete suggests that there is here an allusion to this nomenclature. “ He has lifted them out of the condition of menial service, and raised them gradually into that of the friends of the Messianic king.” But this does not seem to be in harmony with vv. 14, 15b, where the duties and privileges of “ friends” as distinct from “ slaves” are explained. To be a δοῦλος of Jesus was the first stage in the progress of a Christian disciple; and the early Christian leaders, speaking of themselves, claim to be His δοῦλοι (Acts 4:29, Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:10, etc.), while they do not venture to claim the further honour of His φιλία , which was given to the Eleven on the eve of the Lord’ s Passion. The difference appears in this, that a slave obeys his lord, without claiming to know the reason for his lord’ s actions, while a friend shares his knowledge and is admitted to his secrets. ὁδοῦλοςοὐκοἶδενκτλ . Thus the apostles did not know the significance of the action of Jesus in washing their feet (13:7, 12). ὑμᾶςδὲεἴρηκαφίλους . So Luke records (Luke 12:4), at an earlier stage of their training, that Jesus addressed His disciples as “ my friends.” And He had implied many times that they were His friends, because He had expounded to them more freely than to others the mysteries of the kingdom of God (Mark 4:11). ὅτιπάνταἃἤκουσαπαρὰτοῦπ . κτλ . Always His message was of the things which He had “ heard” from His Father (cf. 8:26, 40); but He did not disclose everything to the multitudes. It was only to His chosen friends that He had made known the ὄνομα of the Father (17:26); but from them He had hidden nothing that they were able to bear (cf. 16:12). γνωρίζειν , “ to make known,” occurs in Jn. again only at 17:26. 16. The apostles were henceforth His chosen friends, and herein was encouragement for them, who were so soon to take up their mission, in the absence of their Master. It would be a mission of difficulty, but their Call was their Power. οὐχὑμεῖςμεἐξελέξασθε , ἀλλ ʼ ἐγὼἐξελεξάμηνὑμᾶς , “ You did not choose me, but I chose you,” the personal pronouns being repeated for emphasis. See on 6:70, 13:18 and v. 19, where the aor. ἐξελεξάμην is used as here to mark the moment when the apostles were selected from the larger body of disciples. Each of them was a σκεῦοςἐκλογῆς (Acts 9:15), and had been chosen by Jesus after a night of prayer (Luke 6:13). It is constantly taught in the Fourth Gospel that God’ s love precedes the movement of man’ s soul to Him (see on 3:16). καὶἔθηκαὑμᾶς ,1 “ and appointed you,” sc. to your special work; cf. for τίθημι used thus, Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 1:12. ἵναὑμεῖςὐπάγητε . ὑπάγειν is used at Luke 10:3 of the “ going forth” of the Seventy on their mission. For ὑπάγειν in Jn., see on 7:33. καὶκαρπὸνφέρητε , primarily the fruit of success in their apostolic labours, but also indicating the perfecting of personal character (cf. v. 4). καὶὁκαρπὸςὑμῶνμέῃ , “ and your fruit may abide.” Jesus had said to a group of disciples on a former occasion, ὁθερίζων … συνάγεικαρπὸνεἰςζωὴναἰώνιον (4:36), and the thought is the same in this passage. Cf. Revelation 14:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:58. ἵναὅτιἂναἰτήσητετὸνπατέραἐντῷὀνόματίμουδῷὑμῖν (cf. v. 7). This great promise occurs six times (with slight variations) in the Last Discourses (cf. 16:23, 24, 26, 14:13, 14); and in these passages the philosophy, so to speak, of Christian prayer is unfolded, as nowhere else in the N.T. In the Sermon on the Mount we have the simple words αἰτεῖτεκαὶδοθήσεταιὑμῖν (Matthew 7:7). But, when the Lord’ s Prayer is prescribed for use, it is made plain that there are conditions which must be fulfilled, if prayer is to be acceptably offered, and one of these is Thy Will be done. Prayer that is not submissive to that condition has no promise of answer. Another condition is suggested Matthew 18:19: “ If two of you shall agree as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my Father.” Prayer may be selfish, so that the granting of one man’ s petition may be the refusal of another’ s. But if men agree, that barrier is removed. If all men agreed in asking the Eternal for the same thing, the prayer could be offered with entire confidence. And Jn. tells that Jesus expressed the supreme condition of Christian prayer by saying that it must be offered ἐντῷὀνόματίμου , “ in my Name.” For Christ embraces all men. He is the Man. A petition which is one that He could offer is one the fulfilment of which could hurt none and would benefit all (cf. 11:22). So, in Johannine language, the prayer which is of certain efficacy must be ἐντῷὁνόματιαὐτοῦ , and that is enough. Jn. doe not speak of importunity in prayer, as Lk. does (Luke 11:8); but it is reiterated in the Fourth Gospel that the will of the man who prays must be in harmony with Christ’ s will (cf. 1 John 5:14). The man must be ἐνἐμοί , a phrase used several times in these Last Discourses (14:20, 15:4, 7, 16:33; cf. 6:56, 1 John 5:20), with which Paul’ s ἐνΧριστῷ should be compared (Romans 12:5, Romans 12:16:7, 1 Corinthians 15:18, 2 Corinthians 5:17).1 This condition has been already expressed in different words at v. 7: “ If ye abide in me, and my sayings abide in you, ask what you will, and it shall be done to you.” To pray “ in the Name” of Christ is not any magical invocation of the Name, nor is it enough to add per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, but it is to pray as one who is “ in Christ.” Such are the prayers of the saints. For the significance of “ the Name,” see on 1:12; and for ἐντῷὀνόματίμου in other contexts, cf. Luke 10:17, John 14:26, John 20:31, Ephesians 5:20. The repeated ἵνα … ἵνα challenges attention. The final cause of the choice of the apostles was that they should “ go forth and bear fruit,” in their own lives as well as in their missionary labours, so that at last they should become masters of effectual prayer. 17. ταῦταἐντέλλομαιὑμῖν (cf. v. 14), ἵναἀγαπᾶτεἀλλήλους (v. 12). The purpose of these instructions was that they might appreciate the urgency of this novel precept (see on 13:34) which enjoined the love of Christian disciple for Christian disciple. This is not any vague recommendation of universal brotherhood; it is something much more definite. Indeed, as vv. 18, 19 show, the doctrine of mutual love cannot be extended so as to embrace all mankind. For the “ world” hates Christians, as it hated Christ. There can be no reciprocity of ἀγάπη , in the special sense in which it is here enjoined, between the Church and the world. See on 1:9 for the Johannine use of the term κόσμος . It is solemnly repeated five times in vv. 18, 19. The World Hates Christian Disciples Because It Hated Christ (vv. 18-25) 18. εἰὁκόσμοςὑμᾶςμισεῖκτλ . The disciples are not to expect that the world will love them (cf. 1 John 3:13), and of its future hostility they are now warned explicitly (see on 16:4 below). Jesus had told His “ brethren” that the world could not hate them (7:7), but that was because they were on the world’ s side, and not on His, as all His disciples must be. γινώσκετεὅτοἐμὲπρῶτονὑμῶνμεμίσηκεν , “ know (scitote) that it has hated me first.” γινώσκετε is imperative, like μνημονεύετε in v. 20. Despite His words on a former occasion (7:7), the disciples had not yet realised the measure of the “ world’ s” hatred for Jesus, the world being here represented by the hostile Jews. ὑμῶν is omitted by א D a b c e ff2, but is found in א cABLNΘ f g l vg. etc. and the Syriac vss. If it be omitted, the constr. is easy; but if it be retained, πρῶτονὑμῶν presents the same difficulties as πρῶτόςμου in 1:15. Abbott (Diat. 1901) would translate here “ that it hath hated me, your Chief, ” which might be defended by the vg. priorem uobis. But this seems unsatisfactory, and it is best to take πρῶτονὑμῶν as if it were πρότερονὑμῶν (see on 1:15). 19. εἰἐκτοῦκόσμουἦτε . Those who are “ of the world” (cf. 1 John 4:5) are sharply contrasted by Jn. with the Christian disciples, whose “ otherworldliness” he always speaks of with emphasis. See, particularly, 17:14, 16. One of the characteristics of the writings of Jn. is that he always paints in black and white, without allowing for intermediate shades of colour. He will have no compromise with evil. For him the Church and the world are set over against each other, and he does not contemplate their reconcilement.1 ὁκόσμοςἂντὸἴδιονἐφίλει , “ the world would have loved its own,” that which is in harmony with worldly ideals. The apostles, on the other hand, are not “ of the world.” Out of it they had been chosen (see v. 16, and cf. 13:18), and so the world hated them. διὰτοῦτο refers to what has gone before, as at 6:65. Thus vv. 16-20 taught the apostles that if to abide in Christ is the secret of fruitful lives and of effectiveness in prayer, it also provokes the world’ s hostility. But this hostility carries with it a promise and a benediction (cf. 1 Peter 4:14, Matthew 5:11). With the Johannine teaching as to the hatred of the Church by the world (7:7, 17:14, 1 John 3:13), cf. the fine saying of Ignatius: “ Christianity is not talk, but power, when it is hated by the world” (Rom_3). 20. μνημονεύετετοῦλόγουοὗἐγὼεἶπονὐμῖν , “ Be mindful of the saying which I said to you.” μνημονεύειν occurs again in Jn. only at 16:4, 21. א reads here τὸνλόγονὃνἐγὼἐλάλησαὑμῖν . We have already had the saying οὐκἔστινδοῦλοςμείζωντοῦκυρίουαὐτοῦ at 13:16 (where see note), but Jesus probably repeated it more than once, the reference here perhaps being to the occasion when He gave a charge to the newly chosen apostles (Matthew 10:24; cf. Luke 6:40). They had been warned then that they would not be exempt from persecution (cf. Matthew 10:17-23); it was even more necessary that they should bear this in mind in the days that were coming. He had told them that He counted them as friends rather than servants (v. 15), but for all that the saying “ The servant is not greater than his lord” would be applicable to their situation in a hostile world. The moral He had drawn from this saying at the Last Supper, earlier in the evening, was different (13:16). εἰἐμὲἐδίωξαν , “ If they persecuted me,” the subject being ὁκόσμος , taken as a noun of multitude, from v. 19. Jn. has already spoken of the persecution of Jesus by the Jews, because of the freedom with which He treated the rules of the Sabbath (5:16). καὶὑμᾶςδιώξουσιν , “ they will persecute you also,” a warning repeated in other language at 16:33. Lk. records a similar warning (Luke 21:12), and Mark 10:30 notes that Jesus accompanied a promise of temporal blessings to the faithful with the significant addition of μετὰδιωγμῶν . There is no reason to doubt that Jesus did thus predict that persecution would be the lot of His disciples; and it is unnecessary to accumulate proofs that the prediction came true (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:12, 2 Corinthians 4:9, Galatians 4:29, 2 Timothy 3:12). εἰτὸνλόγονμουἐτήρησαν , καὶτὸνὑμέτεροντηρήσουσιν , “ if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.” For the phrase τὸνλόγοντηρεῖν , a favourite phrase in Jn., see on 8:51, 14:15. In Ezekiel 3:7 Yahweh is represented as saying to the prophet, “ They will not hearken unto thee, because they will not hearken unto me” ; and this would apply to the apostles of Jesus. But the saying recorded here by Jn. goes farther. Those who observe the word of Jesus will also observe the word of His apostles, it being implied of course that the apostles will utter no “ word” for which they have not the authority of their Master. A world which “ observed” the teaching of Jesus would inevitably “ observe” the teaching of those who could rightly claim His commission. The difficulty of drawing inferences from this great assurance, once Christendom was divided, is illustrated by the whole course of Christian history. Jesus, however, goes on to insist that it is the other alternative which the apostles must prepare to face; not acquiescence, but opposition, will be the portion of those who proclaim His gospel. 21. ἀλλὰταῦταπάνταποιήσουσινεἰςὑμᾶς , “ but all these things will they do to you.” The “ things” are not defined here. The whole verse is repeated in slightly different words at 16:3 (see note), where it follows the mention of excommunication and death; and if we could treat it here as a gloss that has crept into the text from below, the sequence of thought in vv. 20-24 would be easier to follow. But this would be an arbitrary alteration of the text. The sequence in Jn. is not always determined by logical considerations, and his reports of the words of Jesus are not to be taken as complete or exhaustive. Much more, doubtless, was said on this last night; what is preserved represents the long-pondered reminiscences of an aged disciple. διὰτὸὄνομάμου , “ for my Name’ s sake.” Persecution will come, but it will be easier to bear if they remember why it comes, and whose cause it is that they are upholding. This, again, had been said to them before, when they received their apostolic commission: ἔσεσθεμισούμενοιὑπὸπάντωνδιὰτὸὄνομάμου (Matthew 10:22; see above on v. 20). The same warning appears in the Marcan tradition in a different context (Mark 13:13, Matthew 24:9, Luke 21:17), but in identical terms. A few verses before these passages in Mk. and Lk., the apostles had been told that they would be haled before rulers and kings, ἕνεκενἐμοῦ (Mark 13:9) or ἕνεκεντοῦὀνόματόςμου (Luke 21:12); and there is no substantial difference in meaning between these expressions and διὰτὸὄνομάμου . The Name of God is equivalent in the O.T. to His revealed character (see on 1:12); and in 1 Samuel 12:22, 2 Chronicles 6:32, Jeremiah 14:21, we find διὰτὸὄνομα [τὸμέγα ], “ on account of His great Name,” sc. because He is what He is. In the N.T. we have the phrase διὰτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ , used of the Name of Christ, not only in the passages cited above, but at 1 John 2:12, Revelation 2:3. His “ Name” signified His revealed character, His Person; and those who suffered “ on account of His Name” suffered because they proclaimed His Name as supreme. Cf. Polycarp, Phil. 8: ἐὰνπάσχωμενδιὰτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ , δοξάζωμεναὐτόν . In the persecutions of the early centuries, to confess “ the Name” was to court death. Cf. 1 Peter 4:14, Acts 5:41; Ignatius, Eph_3. ὅτιοὐκοἴδασιντὸνπέμψαντάμε . Ignorance of the character of God is the cause of failure to recognise the claims of Christ, who came as the Ambassador of the Father. Cf. Luke 23:34, Acts 3:17, for ignorance as the cause of the Jews’ rejection of Christ; and see further on 16:3. Jesus said before (8:19; cf. 14:9) that to know Him is to know the Father; here He says that to know the Father is to know Him (cf. 8:42). For the conception of Jesus as “ sent” by the Father, which so frequently appears in Jn., see on 3:17. 22. That the Jews did not “ know” God as revealed in Christ would be the cause of their hatred of Christ and of Christians (v. 21); and this ignorance is now shown to be inexcusable, (a) because the words of Jesus should have found an echo in their minds (v. 22), and (b) because His works should have convinced them of His Divine mission (v. 24). The constr. εἰμὴ … ἁμαρτίανοὐκεἴχοσαν · νῦνδὲ … is identical in vv. 22, 24; and it is noteworthy that ἄν is omitted, which perhaps makes the sentence more emphatic, “ If I had not … assuredly they would have no sin.” In both verses εἴχοσαν (א BLN) is to be preferred to the rec. εἶχον . εἰμὴἦλθον . This is the Messianic ἔρχεσθαι . He who was to come had come. καὶἐλάλησααὐτοῖς , “ and discoursed to them” ; see on 3:11 for λαλεῖν . Cf. 12:48. ἁμαρτίανοὐκεἴχοσαν . For ἁμαρτίανἔχειν , cf. 9:41, 19:11, 1 John 1:8. But their failure to accept Jesus, when they had heard Him speak, was a moral failure, and therefore blameworthy. See on the parallel passage 9:41. Involuntary ignorance, on the other hand, is excusable; cf. Acts 17:30. νῦνδέ , “ but now, as things are.” πρόφασινοὐκἔχουσινκτλ . πρόφασις does not occur again in Jn.; cf. Psalms 141:4 (LXX). 23. Those who hate Christ, hate God, because in Christ’ s words and works God is revealed. ὁἐμὲμισῶνκτλ Cf. 5:23, 1 John 2:23. 24. εἰτὰἔργαμὴἐποίησακτλ . The Jews were blameworthy because they did not recognise that the “ works,” as well as the “ words” of Jesus revealed God. In all the Gospels, the impression made by His works of wonder is noted; e.g. Mark 1:27, Luke 4:36, John 3:2 (where see note) and 7:31. It is not the highest kind of faith that is thus generated (14:11), but nevertheless such faith is, in its measure, worthy and laudable (see on 2:11). And, more than once in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus Himself appeals to the witness of His ἔργα in confirmation of His Divine mission (5:36, 10:32, 37), as He does here. As His words were greater than those of any other (7:46), so were His works such as οὐδεὶςἄλλοςἐποίησεν (cf. 9:32, Matthew 9:33). If He had not wrought works of this wonderful character among them , the Jews would not have been counted blameworthy; but as things were, they were left without excuse (Matthew 11:21, Luke 10:13). ἐποίησεν . So א ABDLΘ ; the rec. has πεποίηκεν . νῦνδὲκαίκτλ ., “ but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father,” the perfects indicating the persistence of their hostility (cf. Abbott, Diat. 2443). The construction of the sentence, καί being four times repeated, shows that ἑωράκασιν as well as μεμισήκασιν governs τὸνπατέραμου no less than ἐμέ . Jesus said later on ὁἑωρακὼςἐμὲἑώρακεντὸνπατέρα (14:9); but the original fault of the Jews was, as He had said before (6:36), ἑωράκατέμεκαὶοὐπιστεύετε (see on 14:7). Neither in His words nor in His works did they discern the Divine mission of Jesus; and, not discerning who had sent Him, they hated Him and therefore implicitly His Father (v. 23). 25. For the ellipse ἀλλ ʼ ἵνα , cf. 9:3; and see on 13:18. ἵναπληρωθῇὁλόγοςκτλ . The hatred of the Jews for Jesus was part of the mysterious purpose of God, disclosed in the O.T. scriptures. See Introd., p. clv. The phrase “ their law” has already been discussed in the note on 8:17. “ The law” is used for the whole of Scripture (see on 12:34); but although a Greek Christian might readily say “ their law,” to suppose that Jesus thus separated Himself from the Jewish race is hard of credence. Two of His Words from the Cross are quotations from the Psalms, which, if the phrase “ their law” be His, He declines to recognise as having any special value for Him. The allusion is either to Psalms 35:19 or Psalms 69:4 (most probably from Psa_69, as this was regarded as a Messianic Psalm; see on 2:17), in both of which οἱμισοῦντέςμεδωρεάν faithfully reproduces the Hebrew. The hatred of the Jews for Jesus was gratuitous and without cause (δωρεάν ; cf. πρόφασινοὐκἔχουσιν of v. 22). Introductory Note on Παράκλητος (v. 26) The term παράκλητος does not occur in the Greek Bible outside the Johannine writings. On the other hand, Jn does not use παρακαλεῖν or παράκλησις , the latter word being specially Lucan and Pauline, while the former is common to most of the N.T. writers. Etymologically, παράκλητος is a passive form, and is equivalent to the Latin aduocatus, signifying one who is “ called in” to give help or advice, and being especially used of the counsel for the defence.1 In classical writers this is always the meaning. Demosthenes (de falsa leg. 341) has αἱτῶνπαρακλήτωνδεήσειςκαὶσπουδαί , and in Diog. Laert. iv. 50, Bion is made to say, “ I will do what is sufficient for you if you will send παράκλητοι (sc. representatives) and don’ t come yourself.” The term is used in the same way in Philo. Thus the city of Alexandria is called the παράκλητος by whom the emperor might be propitiated (in Flaccum, 4; cf. also de Josepho, 40). In de opif. mundi, 6, Philo says that God employed no παράκλητος (i.e. helper) in the work of creation. Again, in Vit. Mos. iii. 14, speaking of the high priest, “ one consecrated to the Father of the world,” Philo says that it was necessary that he should employ as his παράκλητος , “ a son most perfect in virtue.” 2 In like manner, Barnabas (§ 20) has πλουσίωνπαράκλητοι , “ advocates of the wealthy” ; and in 2 Clem. 6 we have the question, “ Who shall be our παράκλητος , i.e. our advocate, if we are not found doing what is right?” So in the Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (about 177 a.d., Eus. H.E. v. 1), it is said that Vettius Epagathus, confessing that he was a Christian, was taken into the order of martyrs , being called παράκλητοςΧριστιανῶν , having the Paraclete within himself. It may be added that the word was borrowed from the Greek by the Jews, and appears in Talmudic writings (see Wetstein on John 14:16) as פ ר ק ל ט in the sense of aduocatus. Although the verb παρακαλεῖν does not appear in Jn., an examination of its usage throws some additional light on the meaning of παράκλητος . παρακαλεῖν is to call a person to stand by one , and hence to help in various ways, e.g. a. as a witness, to be present when a thing is done. Cf. Demosthenes, c. Phorm. § 29. b. as an adviser. Cf. Xenophon, Anab. I. vi. 5, Κλεάρχονδὲκαὶεἴσωπαρεκάλεσεσύμβουλον . c. as an advocate. Cf. Æ schines, Fals. Leg., § 184: παρακαλῶδ ʼ Εὔβουλονμὲνἐκτῶνπολιτικῶνκαὶσωφρόνωνἄνδρασυνήγορον . The verb is specially applied to the invoking of a god, and calling him in to help: e.g. Thucydides, i. 118 fin., αὐτὸςἔφηξυλλήψεσθαικαὶπαρακαλούμενοςκαὶἅκλητος ; Epictetus, Diss. III. xxi. 12, τοὺςθεοὺςπαρακαλεῖνβοηθούς ; Plutarch, Alexander, 33, παρεκάλειτοὺςθεούς . It appears from these passages that παράκλητος is naturally used for a Divine helper called in, either as a witness (15:26), or as an advocate (16:8), or as an adviser (16:13). παρακαλεῖν is also used in the sense of encourage, e.g. Polybius, III. xix. 4, οἱπερὶτὸνΔημήτριονσυναθροίσαντεςσφᾶςαὐτοὺςκαὶπαρακαλέσαντες ; but παράκλητος , being a passive form, cannot be equivalent to “ one who encourages.” The familiar rendering “ Comforter” was introduced into our English versions by Wyclif, who meant by it “ confortator,” i.e. strengthener, not consoler (see his rendering of Php 4:13). But there is some patristic authority for the translation “ consoler.” Origen (de princ. II. vii. 4) says distinctly that while in 1 John 2:1 παράκλητος means intercessor, in the Fourth Gospel it means consoler. So, too, Cyril of Jerusalem says (Cat. xvi. 20) that the Spirit is called παράκλητος from παρακαλεῖν , “ to console,” as well as because He “ helps our infirmities” and “ makes intercession” for us (Romans 8:26). Gregory of Nyssa (c. Eunom. ii. 14) also calls attention to the two meanings of the verb παρακαλεῖν . It is perhaps in consequence of an early interpretation of παράκλητος in Joh_14 as “ consoler,” that Aquila and Theodotion render נ ָ ח ַ ם in Job 16:2 by παράκλητος , where the LXX has παρακλήτωρ . But the weight of evidence is undoubtedly in favour of “ advocate” rather than “ comforter” as the rendering of παράκλητος in Jn.; and the notes on 14:16, 26, 16:7 will show also that this rendering is more in accordance with the contexts in which it occurs. At 1 John 2:1 “ advocate” is the only possible rendering. The R. V. margin suggests “ Helper” as an alternative, and this is adopted by Moffatt. This might include the idea of consoling as well as of pleading one’ s cause; but its vagueness veils the meaning here and at 16:7. Witness to Christ in the Future Will Be Borne by the Paraclete as Well as by Christian Disciples (vv. 26, 27) 26. ὅτανἔλθῃὁπαράκλ . After ὅταν the rec. inserts δέ , with ADLΓΘ , but om. א BΔ ; the omission of a connecting particle is a familiar feature of Jn.’ s style. Verses 26, 27, follow at once upon the rebuke (vv. 21-25) pronounced upon the enemies of Jesus. Their hostility was blameworthy. And in the future they will be proved in the wrong by the witness of the Spirit (v. 26) as well as by the witness of the apostles (v. 27). The rendering of ὁπαράκλητος by advocate is here demanded by the context, to which the rendering comforter would be quite foreign. Jesus had explained that the hostility of the Jews to Him was sinful, for they ought to have recognised His Divine mission in His words and works (vv. 22-24). They hated Him, not knowing Him, although they ought to have known Him. But when the Paraclete came, He would bear true testimony to Jesus, being indeed the Spirit of Truth (v. 26). The Paraclete is the Divine aduocatus defending the Righteous One, and pleading His cause against false accusers. He is not, as at 1 John 2:1, represented as pleading the cause of man with God, but rather as pleading the cause of Christ with the world. See further on 16:8; and cf. Introd., p. xxi. ὃνἐγὼπέμψωὑμῖνκτλ . So also at 16:7, the promise is that Jesus will send the Paraclete; but at 14:16 He is to be given by the Father in response to the prayer of Jesus, and at 14:26 the Father is to send Him in the Name of Jesus. The Lucan doctrine is that Jesus sends the Spirit, “ the promise of the Father” (Luke 24:49, Acts 2:33); see further on 14:26. παρὰτοῦπατρός . Cf. 16:27, 17:8 and see on 1:14 for παρά as expressing the relation of the Son to the Father. The Paraclete is to be sent “ from the Father’ s side.” τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείας . The full phrase occurs again 16:13, 14:17, 1 John 4:6. In the last passage it is contrasted with τὸπνεῦματῆςπλάνης , as in Testaments of XII. Patriarchs (Judah, xx.), where the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit both wait upon man, and it is said that “ the spirit of truth testifieth all things and accuseth all.” It is probable that this sentence is a Christian interpolation introduced into the text of the Testaments; but see on 1:9, where there is another parallel to their language. In these Last Discourses, however, τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείας is but another name for the Paraclete who is to be sent after Jesus has been withdrawn from the sight of men. The spirit of truth is the Spirit which brings truth and impresses it on the conscience of the world. In this passage the leading thought is of the witness of the Spirit to Jesus, infallibly true, however perverted the opinion of the world about Him may be. The phrase τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείας has, like the phrase ὁἄρτοςτῆςζωῆς (see on 6:35), a double meaning. Primarily (a) it is the Spirit which brings truth and gives true testimony, but (b) this is the case because the Spirit has truth as the essential characteristic of His Being. So, also, the Logos is πλήρηςἀληθείας (1:14), and Jesus says, later in this discourse, ἐγώεἰμι … ἡἀλήθεια (14:6). ὃπαρὰτοῦπατρὸςἐκπορεύεται . ἐκπορεύεσθαι occurs once elsewhere in Jn., sc. at 5:29, where it is used of the dead “ coming forth” out of their graves. Here it is used in the same way of the Spirit “ coming forth” from God in His mission of witness (cf. ἐνπνεύματιἁγίῳἀποσταλέντιἀπ ʼ οὐρανοῦ , 1 Peter 1:12). To interpret the phrase of what is called “ the Eternal Procession” of the Spirit has been a habit of theologians, which has been the cause of the endless disputes between East and West as to the “ Procession” of the Spirit from the Son as well as from the Father. As far back as the fourth century, at all events,1 the clause τὸἐκτοῦπατρὸςἐκπορευόμενον has found a place in the Creed as descriptive of the Holy Spirit, and is taken from the verse before us. But to claim that this interpretation was present to the mind of Jn. would be to import into the Gospel the controversies and doctrines of the fourth century. ὃπαρὰτοῦπατρὸςἐκπορεύεται does not refer to the mysterious relationships between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but only to the fact that the Spirit who bears witness of Jesus Christ has come from God (cf. Revelation 22:1, where in like manner the river of the water of life is described as ἐκπορευόμενονἐκτοῦθρόνουτοῦθεοῦ ). ἐκεῖνοςμαρτυρήσειπερὶἐμοῦ . ἐκεῖνος calls special attention to the Spirit as the subject of the sentence, exactly as at 14:26. It is He, and none less than He, who shall bear august and true witness to the world about Christ. Cf. 1 John 5:6 τὸπνεῦμάἐστιντὸμαρτυροῦν , ὅτιτὸπνεῦμάἐστινἡἀλήθεια . However little modern conceptions of personality and of what it implies were present to the mind of the first century, the repeated application of ἐκεῖνος to the Spirit in these chapters (16:8, 13, 14, 14:26) shows that for Jn. τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείας meant more than a mere tendency or influence. 27. The Spirit was to be a Witness concerning Jesus in the future: the disciples’ ministry of witness had already begun. καὶὑμεῖςδὲμαρτυρεῖτε , “ ye also bear witness” (a statement of fact, not an imperative); cf. Luke 24:48. The twofold witness of the Spirit and of the disciples is indicated Acts 5:32; but Jn. specially dwells on this witness of the first disciples (cf. 3:11, 1 John 1:2, 1 John 1:4:14, 3 John 1:12; and see Introd., p. xci). The qualification for “ witness” is personal intimacy, ὅτιἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςμετ ʼ ἐμοῦἐστέ : cf. Luke 1:2, Acts 1:21. ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς occurs again 8:44 only, but is frequent in the Johannine Epistles, sometimes (e.g. 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 2:3:11, 2 John 1:5, 2 John 1:6) referring to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, as here, but sometimes also to the beginning of all things (e.g. 1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:2:13, 14, 1 John 1:3:8, as always in the Synoptists). See 8:44, 16:4. ἐστέ , “ ye are with me from the beginning.” So Jesus said τοσοῦτονχρόνονμεθ ʼ ὑμῶνεἰμί (14:9), using the present tense as here. The Twelve had been chosen ἵναὦσινμετ ʼ αὐτοῦ (Mark 3:14), and they continued to be in close fellowship with Him. 1 See Introd., p. xxi. 2 Ev. da Mepharr., ii. 143, 151. Moulton-Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, illustrated from the papyri, by J. H. Moulton and G.Milligan (1914-). This is being completed by Dr. Milligan; it is indispensable. א Ԡ Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv. B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv. L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2-20 21:15-25 are missing. A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50-8:52 are missing. D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v-vi. Græ co-Latin. Cc. 18:14-20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (Dsupp). Diat. E. A. Abbott’ s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.-X. (1900-1915). Δ̠ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix-x. Græ co-Latin. Γ̠ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix-x. Contains Son 1:1-13 8:3-15:24 19:6 to end. Θ̠ Koridethi (ε 050). Tiflis. vii-ix. Discovered at Koridethi, in Russian territory, and edited by Beermann &Gregory (Leipzig, 1913). The text is akin to that of fam. 13, fam. 1, and the cursives 28, 565, 700 See Lake and Blake in Harvard Theol. Review (July 1923) and Streeter, The Four Gospels. Cf. also J.T.S. Oct. 1915, April and July 1925. 1 Swete, The Last Discourse, etc., p. 81. 1 Cf. Introd., p. lxvi. 2 St. John, i. p. cxxx. 1 Cf. Introd., p. cxiv. 2 Cf. Introd., p. lxxxix. 1 The words καὶἔθηκαὑμᾶς are omitted (because of homoioteleuton, έξελεξάμηνὑμᾶς immediately preceding) by Δ 13 250, suggesting that the exemplars of these MSS. were written in lines of twelve letters (cf. Introd., p. xxix). N Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε 19). Dispersed through the libraries of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Vienna, and British Museum. vi. Some pages are missing. Edited by H. S. Cronin in Cambridge Texts and Studies (1899). 1 Cf. Introd., p. cxxxvii. 1 See, for this contrast, Hobhouse, The Church and the World; cf. Westcott, Epp. of St. John, p. 250 f., and Gore, Epp. of St. John, p. 154 f. 1 See Lightfoot, Revision of N.T., p. 50 f. 2 This “ son” is not the Logos (as has been erroneously stated), but the Cosmos (cf. Drummond, Philo Judœ us, ii. 238; Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, 197; and Bacon, Fourth Gospel, 298). Philo’ s use of παράκλητος does not relate the term to his Logos. 1 See Hort, Two Dissertations, p. 86. Future Persecution (16:1-4) 16:1. ταῦταλελάληκαὑμῖν : see on 15:11. ταῦτα covers all that has been said about future persecution (15:20), as well as about the promise of the Paraclete, who was to bear witness concerning Christ. ἵναμὴσκανδαλισθῆτε . This image of the σκάνδαλα of faith, the stumbling-blocks which trip up a disciple, is very common in the Synoptists, but in Jn. only here and at 6:61 (cf. 1 John 2:10). These parting counsels were given in order that they might not be surprised or “ offended” when troubles came. 2. ἀποσυναγώγουςποιήσουσινὑμᾶς , “ they will put you out of synagogue,” i.e. excommunicate you. For ἀποσυνάγωγος , see on 9:22 and 12:42. ἀλλ ʼ ἔρχεταιὥρα , “ indeed, furthermore, a time is coming.” ἀλλά has no adversative sense here, nor must we press ὥρα to mean “ the predestined time,” as if it were ἡὥρα (but cf. v. 4), although, as we have seen (2:4), the idea of the inevitableness of what has been foreordained is a favourite one in Jn. See 4:21. ἵνα , i.e. “ when” ; see note on 12:23. πᾶςὁἀποκτείναςὑμᾶς , “ whosoever killeth you,” whether he be Jew or Gentile. δόξῃλατρείανπροσφέρειντῷθεῷ , “ shall think (so blind will he be) that he is offering service to God.” (λατρεία does not occur elsewhere in the Gospels.) Paul’ s persecution of the early disciples was a notable instance of such mistaken zeal (cf. Acts 22:3, Acts 22:4, Acts 22:26:9, also 8:1, 9:1). A Midrash on Numbers 25:13 (cited by De Wette) has the maxim, “ Quisquis effundit sanguinem impii idem facit ac si sacrificium offerat.” And among Gentiles the same fanaticism has often displayed itself. Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) evidently thought that persecution of Christians to their death was morally justified. Many persecutors are sincere, but their sincerity does not excuse them, if they might have learnt the truth, and did not do so. 3. ταῦταποιήσουσινὑμῖν . The rec., with א DL and some vss., retains ὑμῖν , which ABΓΔΘ omit. Probably it ought to be retained (cf. 15:21). ὅτιοὐκἔγνωσανκτλ ., “ because they did not recognise the Father or me.” This is virtually repeated from 15:21 (where see note). That the Jews did not “ know” God, and thus did not recognise Divinity in Jesus, has been said several times before (7:28, 8:19); and that “ the world knew Him not” (1:10) when He came is the constant theme of the “ Gospel of the Rejection.” Ignorance, or want of appreciation of the true bearing of facts, may often be at the root of wrong doing, and it is wholesome to remember this. “ When some one does you an injury or speaks ill of you, remember that he either does it or speaks it, believing that it is right and meet for him to do so. … So you will bear a gentle mind towards him … saying each time, So it appeared to him” (Epictetus, Enchir. 42). Cf. Luke 23:34, Acts 3:17, 1 Corinthians 2:8. But the ignorance of the Jews of the true character of Jesus is always treated in Jn. as blameworthy and as deserving of punishment, for they ought to have known. 4. For ταῦταλελάληκαὑμῖν , see on 15:11. It is preceded by ἀλλά , not because what follows is in contrast with what goes before, but as a resumptive particle, v. 3 being in the nature of an explanatory parenthesis. ἡὥρααὐτῶν is the true reading (ABΘ syrr.), although αὐτῶν is omitted by א DΓΔ , to assimilate the sentence to the more usual ἔλθῃἡὥρα . ταῦτα refers primarily (but cf. v. 1) to the persecutions which have been foreshadowed (15:20, 16:1-3), of which Jesus says that when their hour comes the disciples will remember that He had predicted them. See on 13:19; and cf. 2:22. ἐγώ is emphatic, “ that I told you.” See Introd., p. cxvii. ταῦταδὲὑμῖνἐξἀρχῆςοὐκεἶπον . We cannot distinguish ἐξἀρχῆς from ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς of 15:27 (see on 6:64). The statement is precise: “ These things I did not tell you from the beginning” ; that is, He did not speak in the early stages of His teaching of the persecutions which would come upon His disciples after He had gone. That is what one would have expected; and the predictions of future persecutions in the Synoptists are mainly found at the close of His ministry, e.g. Matthew 23:34, Mark 13:9f. = Luke 21:12f. It is true that Mt. puts his parallel passage to Mark 13:9f. as early as the tenth chapter (Matthew 10:17f.); and it is also noteworthy that persecution is foreshadowed in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Luke 6:22). But Mt. has rearranged our Lord’ s sayings in such contexts as suit the frame of his narrative, and it is not surprising that he has placed the warning about persecution immediately after the charge to the Twelve. Nor is it to be thought that all the reported sayings in the Sermon on the Mount were delivered at one time: the Beatitude of the Persecuted would naturally be one of the last that would have been proclaimed, so austere a saying is it. There is, therefore, no good reason for doubting the statement which Jn. places in the mouth of Jesus, sc. that He did not speak at the beginning of His ministry of the ardua in store for His followers, although the perpetual burden of His exhortation was that they must be ready to “ take up the cross.” Cf. 15:18. The reason assigned for this reserve is ὅτιμεθ ʼ ὑμῶνἤμην , “ because I was with you.” That is, seemingly, as long as He was there, the attacks of His enemies would be directed against Him rather than against them; persecution of a serious kind would come upon them only after His departure. The Coming of the Paraclete Consequent on the Departure of Jesus (vv. 5-7) 5. ὑπάγωπρὸςτὸνπέμψαντάμε , repeated verbally from 7:33, where see note on ὑπάγειν . Cf. vv. 10, 17, 28, and 14:12. καὶοὐδείςκτλ . καί is used for ἀλλά , as often in Jn.: see note on 1:10. These words show that 13:36, 14:5 came after the present chapter in their original setting (see Introd., p. xx); for ποῦὑπάγεις ; is the question put by Peter directly, and indirectly by Thomas at 14:5. At the point which the discourse has now reached, the disciples were thinking rather of themselves and of the dangers in front of them (15:21, 16:2, 3), than of the issue of their Master’ s mission. For the Johannine use of ἐρωτᾶν , primarily meaning “ to ask a question,” see on 11:22. The “ going” of Jesus “ to the Father” throughout this chapter refers directly to His Death, when He re-entered the world of spirit (cf. Luke 23:46). This was the moment when His mission was completed: τετέλεσται (19:30). Jn. lays no stress on the Ascension as distinct from the Resurrection of Christ (although he makes allusion to the Ascension as a specific event, 6:62). See 20:17. For him the hour of the “ glorification” of Jesus was the hour of His Passion (cf. 13:31 and 14:7). 6. ὅτιταῦταλελάληκαὑμῖν , sc. because He had told them of the persecutions which they would experience: see on 15:11. λύπη is found in Jn. in this chapter only (vv. 20, 21, 22); λύπη , λυπεῖν , are never used of Jesus in the Gospels. 7. For the asseveration τὴνἀλήθειανλέγω , cf. Romans 9:1, 1 Timothy 2:7. Jesus had used it before, in disputation with the Jews (8:45, 46). Here, however, it introduces with solemnity the enigmatical saying “ it is expedient for you that I go away,” and is used like the prelude ἀμὴνἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν (vv. 20, 23), which is a feature of the Fourth Gospel (see on 1:51). συμφέρει (cf. 11:50, 18:14) ὑμῖνἵναἐγὼἀπέλθω . This was a hard and perplexing saying. The disciples, who had been accustomed to look to Jesus for counsel and guidance in every difficulty, were now told that it would be better for them that He should go away than that He should stay with them. (1) Hitherto, He had trained them for His service by precept and visible example, but this method of spiritual direction was only preliminary. His strange words told them now that there is a better education in discipleship than that which can be supplied by a visible master, whose will for his disciples can never be misunderstood. The braver and more perfect disciple is he who can walk by faith, and not by sight only (cf. 20:29). So much might be reasoned out after reflexion on the way in which Jesus dealt with some would-be disciples who wished to be always by His side (cf. Luke 8:38, Luke 9:57). (2) But the reason assigned by Jesus Himself for the profitableness to His disciples of His departure is quite different. He said that if He did not go away from them, the Paraclete would not come to them, and that the mission of the Spirit could not begin until He had gone. This is one of those profound spiritual sayings in the Fourth Gospel which cannot be fully explained; but we have it hinted at before in the evangelist’ s words, “ the Spirit was not yet, for Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Why the Spirit’ s influence could not be released during the earthly ministry of Jesus, as it was after His Passion and Resurrection, is a question to which no complete answer can be given. Perhaps it provides the supreme illustration of the gospel law that life comes only through death: a principle which is applied by Paul as well as by Jn., when he speaks of the Risen Christ (who had passed through death) as a Quickening Spirit. See further on 7:39 above.1 It has been well said that “ the Coming of the Holy Ghost was not merely to supply the absence of the Son, but to complete His presence.” 2 ἀπέλθω . Three verbs are used in this passage (vv. 7-9) of Jesus “ going” to God; and attempts have been made to distinguish their meaning. Thus, ἀπέρχεσθαι is “ to depart,” simply; πορεύεσθαι is “ to journey,” sc. with a definite purpose, the purpose here being the sending of the Paraclete; while ὑπάγειν , the word most commonly used in Jn. by Jesus of His “ going to the Father” (see on 7:33), is “ to withdraw,” sc. from the visible presence of men. But such distinctions are over subtle; e.g. in 11:8 ὑπάγειν is not used of a withdrawal, but of going to Judæ a with a definite purpose. Again, Mark 14:21 has ὑπάγει where the parallel Luke 22:22 has πορεύεται ; in Tob. 8:21 B has πορεύεσθαι , while א has ὑπάγειν . These verbs are discussed at length by Abbott (Diat. 1652-1664), who endeavours to distinguish the Johannine usage of each: see on 7:33, and cf. 6:67. ἐὰνγὰρμὴἀπέλθω . After ἐὰνγάρ AΓΔ ins. the emphatic ἐγώ , as in the preceding clause; but om. א BDLΘ . ὁπαράκλητος (see on 15:26) οὐκἐλεύσεταιπρὸςὑμᾶς . So א ADΘ ; but BL have οὐμὴἔλθῃ , an even stronger negative. The language of this passage implies that the mission of the Paraclete, to help and to bear witness, will be of a different order from that influence of the Spirit of God which is a frequent topic of the O.T. writers. His mission will, henceforth, be primarily a mission of witness, bearing testimony to Jesus as the Revealer of God. The Spirit of God had always been at work in the world, inspiring, enlightening, strengthening mankind; but that He was to come as the παράκλητος of Jesus and His disciples was a new thing. Henceforth He will come ἐνὀνόματιΧριστοῦ (see note on 14:26). ἐὰνδὲπορευθῶ , πέμψωαὐτὸνπρὸςὑμᾶς . See 15:26, where we have ἐγὼπέμψωὑμῖν , ὑμῖν and πρὸςὑμᾶς being identical in meaning. Jn. is apt (see on 3:17) to repeat an important statement in slightly different words. The Work of the Paraclete (vv. 8-15) 8. In the following verses the work of the Paraclete is predicted in some detail. We have already had His office described as one of witness (15:26): He is to vindicate Jesus to the world. But He is also to vindicate the apostles in the testimony which they are to deliver (15:27). They will be exposed to persecution (16:1, 2); but, notwithstanding this, they will have a powerful advocate by their side (16:7). He will be their παράκλητος no less than the παράκλητος of Jesus; or, rather, He will be theirs because He is His. In the Synoptists, this promise of support and Divine help in persecution is recorded more briefly, but quite explicitly. “ When they lead you to judgment … be not anxious what you shall speak … ; for it is not you that speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:11, Matthew 10:19, Luke 12:11, Luke 21:15). Here is assured to the apostles the help of the παράκλητος , as the advocate for their defence, who speaks through their mouths. In the present passage Jn. presents this thought more fully. The παράκλητος will not only provide their defence, but He will assume the part of the prosecutor, who convicts their accusers and the accusers of Jesus of being in the wrong. All early Christian preaching was, of necessity, apologetic and polemical. The first heralds of the gospel had to defend their new message, and were constrained to attack the Jewish and heathen doctrines in which much of evil was present. Both in defence and attack, the Holy Spirit was their unseen παράκλητος . καὶἐλθὼνἐκεῖνοςἐλέγξεικτλ . ἐλέγχειντιναπερίτινος (cf. 8:46) is a classical construction (Aristoph. Plutus, 574), “ to convict one of anything.” ἐλέγχειν is to cross-examine for the purpose of convincing or refuting an opponent (the word being specially used of legal proceedings), and the ἔλεγχος may be brought to a head by means of witness or testimony.1 Philo speaks of the ἔλεγχος of a man’ s conscience, and in one place identifies it with the Logos (τὸνσωφρονιστὴνἔλεγχον , τὸνἑαυτοῦλόγον , quod det. pot, c. 40; cf. also c. 8). In another passage (de animal. sacr. idon. 11), when speaking of a penitent going into the Temple, he calls the ἔλεγχος or conviction of his soul a “ blameless advocate,” παράκλητοςοὐμεμπτός . This brings together the ideas of παράκλητος and ἔλεγχος , as in the verse before us. ἐλέγξειτὸνκόσμονπερὶἁμαρτίας . Jesus had confidently asked τίς … ἐλέγχειμεπερὶἁμαρτίας ; (8:46; cf. Luke 3:19 for the constr.); but the Paraclete would definitely convict the world of sin, as Jesus Himself had begun to do while He was in the flesh (7:7). This would not be until the Passion had been fulfilled (cf. 8:28; and see on v. 7 above). An early illustration of this “ conviction” is given Acts 2:36, Acts 2:37, where the crowds who had heard Peter’ s inspired preaching were “ pricked to the heart” : cf. 1 Corinthians 14:24, 1 Corinthians 14:25. It will be observed that in vv. 7-11, as well as at 15:26, the Paraclete is spoken of, not as man’ s advocate with God (1 John 2:1), but as Christ’ s advocate with the world. See Introd., p. xxi. 9. Abbott (Diat. 2077) notes that in Johannine words of Jesus, μέν occurs only twice (here and at v. 22), in both cases being followed by δέ . περὶἁμαρτίαςμέν , ὅτιοὐπιστεύουσινεἰςἐμέ . This was the sin to which He had just referred (15:22), and which He had already said (15:26) that the witness of the Paraclete would expose. It is the touchstone of moral character to discern God in Christ, as is repeatedly insisted on by Jn.: cf. 3:18, 36, 9:41, 1 John 5:10. This is “ to believe on Him” : cf. 1:12, 4:39, and see 8:24. The primary thought is of the vindication of Jesus to the world, which shall be “ convicted” by the Paraclete of the sin which is inherent in its rejection of Jesus. But, although it is not directly stated here, the fact that the Spirit “ convicts” of sin has been the experience of every disciple, as well as of the antagonists, of Jesus. 10. περὶδικαιοσύνης . Syr. sin. has (at v. 8) “ He will reprove the world in its sins and about His righteousness.” This brings out that the δικαιοσύνη of which the world will be “ convinced” to its shame is the δικαιοσύνη of Christ. It will be “ convicted of righteousness” by pointing to Christ the Righteous One (1 John 2:1, 1 Peter 3:18, Acts 3:14, Acts 7:52). The Jews, as Paul says, were “ ignorant of God’ s righteousness” (Romans 10:3); they had not perceived that a new type of righteousness had been exhibited in the Person of Jesus, in whom was “ no unrighteousness” (7:18 above). But the words used here go deeper. “ He shall convict the world of righteousness, because I go to the Father.” Absolute Righteousness could be revealed only in the Risen Christ. With the Passion, His Revelation of the Father was completed (see on v. 5); and henceforth the Paraclete was to convince the world of the Perfect Righteousness which is in Christ revealed and made accessible to men. It is apposite to cite here the testimony of one of the most impartial of modern historians. “ It was reserved for Christianity,” writes Lecky,1 “ to present to the world an ideal character, which through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists.” If we put this tribute into Johannine language, we shall say that the Spirit has convinced the world of the Righteousness of Christ. ὅτιπρὸςτὸνπατέραὑπάγω . Cf. vv. 5, 16, 17, 19, 28; and see 7:33 for ὑπάγω . After πατέρα , the rec. inserts μου , with AΓΔΘ , but om. א BDLW. καὶοὐκέτιθεωρεῖτέμε , “ and ye behold me no longer,” sc. with the bodily eyes, for Jesus will have entered into the region of spirit: cf. vv. 16, 17, 19. There is no contradiction between this and ὑμεῖςθεωρεῖτέμε of 14:19 (q.v.), θεωρεῖν being there used of spiritual vision. See on 2:23 for the various usage of this verb in Jn. 11. περὶδὲκρίσεως . As the Spirit will convict the world of its sin, and reveal the true δικαιοσύνη , thereby the spiritual significance of judgment will be disclosed (cf. 5:30, Acts 17:31). There is nothing arbitrary in the Divine judgment; it is the inevitable issue of moral laws. Good is not the same as evil, and the sharpness of the distinction is revealed by the Spirit in His assurance of κρίσις , i.e. separation or judgment. He will convince the world at once of the justice and the inevitableness of God’ s judgments. The world (see 8:23) is not yet judged; but it will be judged at last; and the assurance of this is part of the message of Christ’ s Passion; for in this, which was apparently defeat but really victory, ὁἄρχωντοῦκοσμοῦτούτου (cf. 12:31, 14:30 for this title) κέκριται , “ the prince of this world has been judged.” See on 12:31, where this has been said before, in similar words; and cf. 13:31, where the Passion is regarded as already begun. For this aspect of the Passion, that it is the defeat of the Evil One, cf. Hebrews 2:14, “ that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” In later times, pious imagination played round the idea of the defeat and judgment of Satan, and the legend of the Harrowing of Hell, first found in the Gospel of Nicodemus, was widespread. All that is said in Jn. is κέκριται , “ he has already been judged” (cf. Luke 10:18), and this will issue in final expulsion from the domain over which he claims rule (12:31). In the fifth century Freer MS. (W), which contains the last twelve verses of Mark, there is interpolated after Mark 16:14, in which Jesus has rebuked the unbelief of the disciples, a remarkable passage which recalls the order of ideas in John 16:8-11, as follows: “ And they excused themselves, saying that this age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who, through the agency of unclean spirits, does not allow the true power of God to be apprehended. Wherefore, they said to Christ, reveal now Thy righteousness. And Christ said to them, The limit of the years of Satan’ s authority has been fulfilled , but other terrors draw near, and I was delivered up to death on behalf of those that have sinned, that they may be turned to the truth and sin no more, so that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness in heaven. But go ye into all the world, etc.” Here we have a complaint of unbelief caused by Satan, to be cured by the revelation of Christ’ s righteousness, to which Christ replies that Satan’ s power is ended, that is, “ he has been judged” (John 16:11). The impending “ terrors” may be the persecutions foretold in John 16:2, John 16:3. In this apocryphon there may be preserved an independent tradition of words recorded in John 16:2-11. 12. ἔτιπολλὰἔχωὑμῖνλέγεινκτλ . So א BL, but the rec. has λέγεινὑμῖν . The constr. is thoroughly classical; cf. Demosth. Olynth. ii. τὰμὲνἄλλασιωπῶ , πολλ ʼ ἄνἔχωνεἰπεῖν . At 15:15 Jesus had assured His disciples that He had withheld from them nothing of His Father’ s purpose, but this was necessarily subject to the reservation that there were some matters which they could not understand. All revelation is subject to the condition “ Quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis.” So He now tells them that there are many things which they cannot yet bear (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:2). βαστάζειν is used figuratively (as at Acts 15:10) of “ bearing” a mental burden; see on 12:6. For ἄρτι , see on 9:19: its position here at the end of the sentence gives it emphasis. The words of this verse show that the full Christian message is not contained in such teaching as, e.g., is found in the Synoptic Gospels. That marks a stage only in the revelation of God in Christ. If the challenge “ Back to Jesus” means that we may safely neglect the interpretation of His gospel put forth by the Christians of the Apostolic age, then it is misleading. It is part of the teaching of Jesus Himself, if John 16:12 truly expresses His mind, that much would be learnt of Divine things under the guidance of the Spirit, which could not have been taught with profit during His public ministry on earth. 13. We have here a new thought as to the office of the Paraclete. Hitherto He has been presented as the vindicator of Jesus to the world, by His witness (15:26), and His convincing and convicting power (16:9-11). But now He appears in a different capacity, sc. as a Guide and Teacher of the faithful (vv. 13-15). Cf. 14:26, where a short summary is given of what is said more fully here as to the office of the Spirit in relation to the Church. ὅτανδὲἔλθῃἐκεῖνος , τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείας . This is repeated from 15:26, where see the note. ὁδηγήσειὑμᾶςεἰςτὴνἀλήθειανπᾶσαν . So AB, but the rec. has πᾶσαντὴνἀλήθειαν . ἐντῇἀληθείᾳπάσῃ is read by א DLWΘ , and supported by many O.L. texts: a reading perhaps due to the greater frequency of ἐν than εἰς after ὁδηγέω in the Psalms (e.g. 5:8, 27:11, 67:4, 106:9, 119:35). The Vulgate rendering docebit uos omnem ueritatem has been thought to represent διηγήσεταιὑμῖντὴνἀλ . πᾶς ., a reading which is found in Cyril Hier. (Cat. xvii. 11) and in Eusebius, but which is not supported by any extant Greek MS. of the Gospel. Wordsworth and White (in loc.) suggest that we have here a trace of a Greek MS. used by Jerome which is now lost, but the inference is doubtful.1 Neither διηγέομαι nor ὁδηγέω are used elsewhere by Jn., but the true Greek reading may be taken to be ὁδηγήσειὑμᾶςεἰςκτλ . The Spirit is represented as the Guide or Leader who points the Way to the Truth , Christ being Himself both the Way and the Truth (14:6). In Revelation 7:17 ὁδηγεῖν is used of the Lamb leading the saints to fountains of living water; but the thought and the language of the verse before us seem to go back to the O.T. conception of the Divine leadership of Israel as a whole and of individual Israelites, which is so often expressed in the Psalms. Cf. Psalms 143:10 τὸπνεῦμάσουτὸἄγιονὀδηγήσειμεἐντῇεὐθείᾳ , Psalms 25:5 ὁδήγησόνμεἐπὶτὴνἀλήθειάνσου . See also Psalms 107:7. We have a similar phrase in Philo (de vit. Mos. iii. 36), who says that sometimes a guess is akin to a prophecy, for the mind would not hit on the point so directly, were not a divine spirit leading it towards the truth, εἰμὴκαὶθεῖονἦνπνεῦματὸποδηγετοῦνπρὸςαὐτὴντὴνἀλήθειαν . In this verse, then, the work of the Paraclete as a guide is brought into close relation with what is said in the Psalms (especially Psalms 143:10) as to the work of the Spirit of Yahweh. The Paraclete is not explicitly identified with the “ Holy Spirit,” a Name familiar to every Jew, until 14:26; but what is said at this point prepares us for the identification. ὁδηγήσειὑμᾶςκτλ ., “ He will guide you” sc. the apostles, to whom the words were addressed. It is natural, and in a sense legitimate, for modern readers to give the promise a wider reference, and to interpret it of a gradual revelation of the truth to the Church under the guidance of the Spirit.2 But it is not clear that the author of the Fourth Gospel would have recognised such an interpretation of the words which he records. For him, the revelation to the apostles after the Descent of the Spirit was final and complete (cf. 20:22 and Hebrews 1:1). In any case, by “ all the truth” is meant here “ all the truth about Christ and His Gospel” ; the thought of the gradual revelation of scientific truth, and the ever-increasing knowledge of the works of God in nature, is not present in the text. The promise to the apostles did not mean, e.g., that they would be divinely guided into all truth as to economic law or as to the distribution of property (Acts 4:35). See further on 14:26. οὐγὰρλαλήσειἀφ ʼ ἑαυτοῦ . This is the reason why the guidance of the Paraclete is sure and trustworthy in the things of God and Christ. As the Son did not speak “ of Himself” (12:49, 14:10, and cf. 7:17, 5:19), so the Spirit will not speak “ of Himself.” ἀλλ ʼ ὅσαἀκούσειλαλήσει . So BDW; the rec. has ἅσαἄνἀκούσῃΘ has ὅσαἄνἀκούσει ; א L read ἀκούει . “ Whatsoever He shall hear (sc. from God), that will He speak” ; cf. 8:26, where Jesus says, “ The things which I heard from Him, these I speak unto the world.” Westcott calls attention to the difference of tense, ἤκουσα at 8:26, ἀκούσει here. In the former passage, the message which the Son had to deliver was complete and definite, but here the thought is of a message being enlarged from time to time. This is attractive, but it is not certain (see above) that this thought of the continuous education of the Church was really present to the mind of the evangelist. καὶτὰἐρχόμεναἀναγγελεῖὑμῖν . It was popularly believed that Messiah when He came would reveal new truths: cf. ἀναγγελεῖἡμῖνπάντα . Here it is thrice repeated (vv. 14, 15) that the Spirit’ s office will also include that of “ declaring” or “ reporting” Divine things. To report τὰἐρχόμενα is to predict the future, so that prophecy in the sense of prediction is included here in the work of the Paraclete. This is the only place in Jn. where any of the Pauline χαρίσματα of the Spirit is mentioned (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:29, 1 Corinthians 12:30); and Wendt would treat the words τὰἐρχ … ὑμῖν as an editorial addition, regarding them as out of harmony with the context.1 But we have already seen that the description of the Paraclete’ s office as “ guiding into truth” recalls O. T. phrases as to the work of the Holy Spirit, a main part of which, to Jewish thought, was the inspiration of the prophets. That it should be said of the promised Paraclete τὰἐρχόμεναἀναγγελεῖὑμῖν is entirely in harmony with the identification of Him with the Divine Spirit (cf. Revelation 1:1, Revelation 22:6). To Jewish thought the expected Christ was ὁἐρχόμενος , the Coming One (Luke 7:20, John 6:14); and to Christian thought He is still ὁἐρχόμενος , for He is, in some sense, to come again. There is a hint of apocalyptic prevision of the Last Things in τὰἐρχόμεναἀναγγελεῖ , such as Jn. keeps in the background for the most part, although we have it in the Synoptists (Mark 13:26). See Introd., p. clix. 14. ἐκεῖνοςἐμὲδοξάσει . The Spirit was not to come until Jesus had been “ glorified,” i.e. in His Passion (7:39); but thenceforth every fresh revelation of the Spirit, all new insight into the meaning of Christ’ s gospel, would be a fresh “ glorification” of Christ, an enlargement of man’ s sense of His majesty. As the Son had “ glorified” the Father while He was on earth (17:4), so the Spirit will “ glorify” the Son after He has departed from human vision. ὅτιἐκτοῦἐμουλήμψεταικαὶἀναγγελεῖὑμῖν . This “ glorification” will be brought about by the Spirit’ s revelation of Christian truth. The advanced Christology of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Fourth Gospel itself, as compared with that to which the apostles had attained before the Passion, is a signal illustration of this. See 14:22, where the question of Jude shows that very different thoughts as to the future “ glorification” of Jesus filled the hearts of the apostles. They expected a visible manifestation in glory, which should convict the world and put it to shame. 15. πάνταὅσαἔχειὁπατὴρἐμάἐστιν . This is the perpetual claim of the Johannine Christ, repeated once more at 17:10. So Paul can speak of “ the unsearchable wealth of the Christ” (Ephesians 3:8). διὰτοῦτο , referring to what precedes (see on 5:16). “ Wherefore I said that (ὄτι recitantis) He takes of mine and shall show it unto you,” repeated from v. 14, with the slight verbal change of λαμβάνει for λήμψεται of v. 14 (which is retained by the rec. with א cA, the Latin vss., and Syr. sin.). This repetition of a striking phrase, a word or two being altered, is a feature of Johannine style (see on 3:16). ἀναγγελεῖὑμῖν , thrice repeated at the end of vv. 13, 14, 15, is like a solemn refrain, calling special attention to the revealing office of the Spirit. The Disciples’ Perplexity as to Jesus’ Return (vv. 16-19) 16. μικρόν , “ a little while” ; see on 7:33, 13:33, 14:19. Jesus dwells again and again on the nearness of His Passion. οὐκέτι is the true reading at this point ; but the rec. has οὐ (assimilated to v. 17), with AΓΔ . καὶοὐκέτιθεωρεῖτέμε is here repeated from v. 10. “ A little while, and ye no longer behold me,” sc. with the bodily eyes . On the day after these words were spoken, He would meet death, after which they would no longer be able to look upon His face as heretofore. It is to be observed that οὐκέτι (see on 4:42) always means “ no longer” in Jn., sc. that the action in question is discontinued; it does not necessarily mean “ never again.” καὶπάλινμικρὸνκαὶὄψεσθέμε , “ And again, a little while,” sc. the period between His Death and His Resurrection, “ and ye shall see me.” ὄπτομαι , a verb always used in Jn. of the vision of spiritual realities (see on 1:51), now takes the place of θεωρεῖν . παλὶνδὲὄψομαιὑμᾶς , Jesus says, in like manner, at v. 22. The “ seeing” of the Risen Lord in His spiritual body, and His “ seeing” of His disciples after His Resurrection, are more suitably expressed by ὄπτεσθαι than by θεωρεῖν (although cf. 20:14). The rec. adds (from v. 10 or v. 17), after ὄψεσθέμε , ὅτιἐγὼὑπάγωπρὸςτὸνπατέρα , with ANΔΘ ; but the phrase is not found at this point in א BDLW or Pap. Oxy. 1781. 17. The disciples were puzzled. ὑπάγωπρὸςτὸνπατέρα (v. 10) seemed to indicate a final withdrawal of His visible presence, and yet He used the word μικρόν (v. 16), which suggested that it would be only temporary. εἶπανοὖνἐκτῶνμαθητῶναὐτοῦκτλ . We must supply τινές . For a similar elliptical construction, cf. 7:40; and for πρὸςἀλλήλους , cf. 4:33. They repeated the enigmatic words of Jesus to each other, being unable to catch their meaning. Note that they quote Jesus as having said Μικρὸνκαὶοὐθεωρεῖτέμε , and Jesus is represented in verse 19 as repeating οὐθεωρεῖτε . This provides one more illustration of Jn.’ s habit of altering slightly a striking phrase when it is reproduced for the second or third time (see on 3:16). Such verbal alterations are not to be taken as indicating a subtle change of meaning; they exemplify merely the freedom of Jn.’ s style. 18. τίἐστιντοῦτο . So א BD*LΘ and Pap. Oxy. 1781; but the rec. has τοῦτοτίἐστιν , with A.2Δ N. ὅλέγει , τὸμικρόν ; “ What is this that He says, this word μικρόν ?” τό before μικρόν singles out the word as the point of difficulty. οὐκοἴδαμεντίλαλεῖ . (See on 3:11 for the frequent inter-changeability of λέγειν and λαλεῖν in Jn.) “ That which is quite clear to us was to them all mystery. If Jesus were about to found an earthly kingdom, why should He depart? If not, why should He return?” (Godet). 19. ἔγνωἸησοῦςὅτικτλ . He recognised that the disciples wished to interrogate Him . Cf. 2:24. The rec. adds οὖν after ἔγνω , with AΔ N; but om. א BDLW. For οὖν , Θ has δέ . Also the rec. has ὁ before Ἰησοῦς , with א ADNΘ ; but om. BLW and Pap. Oxy. 1781. See on 1:29; and cf. 6:15. The repetition of phrases in vv. 16-19 is quite in the Oriental manner of narrative. The crucial word μικρόν is repeated 7 times; and “ A little while, and ye behold me not, and again, a little while, and ye shall see me,” is said 3 times over. Although the Fourth Gospel is thoroughly Greek, the Semitic undertone is often present. Words of Comfort and Hope (vv. 20-24) 20. In the answer which Jesus gives to the bewildered disciples, He fixes on the word μικρόν , which was the centre of their difficulty, and says nothing about the meaning of “ I go to the Father.” Their short time of sorrow at His departure will be followed by a season of joy. That is enough for them to know at the moment. ἀμὴνἀμήνκτλ . See on 1:51. κλαύσετεκαὶθρηνήσετε . These are the verbs used of the loud wailings and lamentations customary in the East after a death. They both occur Jeremiah 22:10; for κλαίειν see on 11:31, and for θρηνεῖν cf. 2 Samuel 1:17. That the women lamented for Jesus on the way to the Cross is told Luke 23:27; and that they were wailing on the morning of the Resurrection is mentioned Mark 16:10; cf. John 20:11 Μαριάμ … κλαίουσα . Pseudo-Peter (§ 12) adds that the apostles also exhibited their sorrow by weeping, ἡμεῖς … ἐκλαίομενκαὶἐλυπούμεθα . It is plain that κλαύσετεκαὶθρηνήσετε in the present passage refers to the grief which the disciples will display when their Master is taken from them. ὁδὲκόσμοςχαρήσεται : but the hostile world, i.e. the Jewish adversaries of Jesus, will rejoice that the Prophet whom they hate (15:18) has been removed. ὑμεῖςλυπηθήσεσθε , referring to the inward grief which they will feel (cf. 21:17, the only other place where the verb is found in Jn.). ὑμεῖς is emphatic. ἀλλ ʼ ἡλύπηὑμῶνεἰςχαρὰνγενήσεται . So it came to pass. ἐχάρησανοἱμαθηταὶἰδόντεςτὸνκύριον (20:20). Cf. ἀπὸπένθουςεἰςχαράν (Esther 9:22; and see Jeremiah 31:13). See also 2 Ezr 2:27. 21. ἡγυνή , sc. any woman, what follows being universally true; Cf. ὁκόκκος (12:24) or ὁδοῦλος (15:15). Abbott (Diat. 1948) takes the article as indicating that it is the woman of a household, i.e. the wife, that is in question. But this is to miss the point. The image of a woman in travail is frequent in the O.T., where the suddenness and inevitableness of travail pains are often mentioned (e.g. Isaiah 26:17, Isaiah 26:2 Esd. 16:38); but the thought of the joy which follows the pain does not occur except here. Some expositors have thought that the Birth of the Church and the travail pains of the Passion are contemplated in this passage (cf. Isaiah 66:7, Hosea 13:13, Mark 13:8); but it is over subtle and inconsistent with the context to bring in such an idea. The apostles were not in travail with the Church that was to be. The true (and only) exposition of this beautiful image is given in the verse which follows. The image provides a familiar and touching illustration of the truth that pain is often the necessary antecedent to the supreme joys of life. 22. καὶὑμεῖςοὖν . For the constr. see 8:38. This is the application of the image of the joy which follows the pain of childbirth. “ You now, indeed (for μέν , see on v. 9), have grief,” but presently you will rejoice. ἔχετε is to be preferred to ἔξετε of א cADLΘ . πάλινδὲὄψομαιὑμᾶς . Here is even a greater promise than ὄψεσθέμε of v. 16: it is better to be seen of God than to see Him (cf. Galatians 4:9). This was the promise of Jesus, that He would see His disciples after He was risen. καὶχαρήσεταιὑμῶνἡκαρδία The phrase is identical with that of Isa 66:14 (ὄψεσθε , καὶχαρήσεταιἡκαρδίαὑμῶν : cf. also Psalms 33:21) Cf. 20:14-16, when the promise was fulfilled in the first instance. Such joy is inalienable, οὐδεὶςαἴρειἀφ ʼ ὑμῶν , the future which is certain being represented by a present tense. Nevertheless BD*N Pap. Oxy. 1781 have ἀρεῖ , which Westcott adopts. But א ACD2LΔΘ and Pap. Oxy. 1228 give αἴρει . W has ἀφέρει . 23. ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳ . This phrase occurs again at v. 26, and at 14:20; and in each case it signifies the day when the Spirit has been released, Jesus having been “ glorified” (see on 7:39). The teaching of the Fourth Gospel is that the moment of consummation of the work of Jesus is the moment of His Death: τετέλεσται (19:30). After His Resurrection, He gave the Spirit to the assembled disciples: λάβετεπνεῦμαἅγιον (20:22). The Day of Pentecost is described in Act_2 as a Day when a special gift of spiritual power was manifested, and there is nothing in Jn. which is inconsistent with such a manifestation. But for Jn. the Day of the Spirit’ s Advent is the Day of the Resurrection of Jesus; and to introduce the thoughts of what happened at Pentecost into the exegesis of these Last Discourses is to make confusion. ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳ signifies the new Dispensation or Era of the Spirit, which began with the Resurrection, to the thought of Jn. ἐμὲοὐκἐρωτήσετεοὐδέν . ἐρωτᾶν may mean either “ to ask a question,” as often in Jn. (1:19, 21, 25, 5:12, 9:2, 15, 19, 21, 23, 16:5, 19, 30, 18:19, 21), or “ to entreat, to beseech, to ask a boon” (as at 4:31, 40, 47, 12:21, 19:31, 38). We have already noted (on 11:22) that it is the verb used of the prayers of Jesus by Himself (16:26, 14:16, 17:9, 15, 20), but that it is not used elsewhere in the Gospel of the prayers of men (cf., however, 1 John 5:16). Hence ἐμὲοὐκἐρωτήσετεοὐδέν may be translated in two ways: (1) “ In that day ye shall ask me no questions,” as they had desired to do, v. 19; cf. v. 30. When the Paraclete came, they would no longer need to ask Jesus questions, such as those addressed to Him at 13:36, 14:5, 22; for the Spirit would teach them all things (14:26, 16:13). But this seems to break the sequence of thought, and there is no mention of the Spirit in the immediate context. Further, as Field points out, the emphatic position of ἐμέ before the negative and the verb, naturally suggests a comparison with τὸνπατέρα in the next clause. (2) It is better to render, “ In that day, ye shall ask nothing of me.” The visible company of Jesus would be withdrawn, so that they would no longer be able to ask favours of Him or proffer requests to Him, face to face. But there is a great compensation, and its promise is introduced by the solemn prelude ἀμὴνἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν (see on 1:51). They can henceforth have direct access to the Father, and whatever they ask of Him, the due conditions of Christian prayer being observed (see on 15:16), shall be given. The view that the contrast is between “ asking me” and “ asking the Father” has been rejected by some commentators because ἐρωτᾶν is used in the first case, and αἰτεῖν in the second. But (see on 11:22) these verbs are not sharply distinguished in later Greek (cf. Acts 3:2, Acts 3:3 for an illustration of their being used interchangeably). The general purport of the teaching of these discourses is that it will be spiritually beneficial for the disciples that their Master should depart (16:7). New sources of knowledge and spiritual power will henceforth be available for them. They will be empowered to achieve great things on earth (14:12), and their prayers will have a potential efficacy, such as could not have been before it was possible to offer them in the Name of Jesus. δώσειὑμῖνἐντῷὀνόματίμου . This is the order of words in א BC*LΔ , and is supported by Origen and the paraphrase of Nonnus. The rec. has ἐντῷὀνόματίμουδώσειὑμῖν , with AC3DNWΓΘ , the Syriac and Latin vss. generally. If we adopt the former reading, which prima facie has the weight of MS. authority, the natural rendering of the sentence is, “ If you ask anything of the Father, He will give it to you in my Name.” This is difficult of interpretation. It is true that Jesus speaks later of “ the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my Name” (14:26, where see note), but that is a way of speaking which has parallels at 5:43, 10:25. To say that the Father gives in the Name of the Son a boon which has been sought in prayer is unlike anything elsewhere in the N.T. It is not adequate to interpret this as meaning only that the Son is the medium through which prayer is answered as well as offered. That is true in a sense (see on 14:13), but to speak of the Father acting ἐνὀνόματιτοῦυἱοῦ is foreign alike to Johannine doctrine and to Johannine phraseology. The phrase ἐντῷὀνόματίμου occurs 15:16, 16:23, 24, 26, 14:13, 14, 26 (7 times in all) in these Last Discourses; and in every case (except the last, 14:26, to which reference has already been made) it has reference to the essential condition of Christian prayer, sc. that it should be offered “ in the Name” of Christ. The Greek, however, does not necessarily require us to connect ἐντῷὀνόματίμου here with δώσειὑμῖν , even if δώσειὑμῖν precedes ἐντῷὀνόματίμου . For we have seen above (on 12:13) that εὐλογημένοςὁἐρχόμενοςἐνὀνόματικυρίου must be rendered “ Blessed in the Name of the Lord is He that cometh,” ἐνὀνόματικυρίου being taken with εὐλογημένος , although ὁἐρχόμενος immediately precedes. In the present passage, in like manner, it is legitimate to take ἐντῷὀνόματίμου with αἰτήσητετὸνπατέρα , although δώσειὑμῖν immediately precedes. The meaning, then, is exactly similar to that of 15:16 ἵναὅτιἂναἰτήσητετὸνπατέραἐντῷὀνόματίμουδῷὑμῖν . See notes on 14:13, 15:16. And that this is here also the true sequence of words is confirmed by the next verse, where Jesus goes on to say that hitherto the apostles had asked nothing in His Name. See on 20:31. 24. For ἓωςἄρτι , cf. 2:10, 5:17. Hitherto they had asked nothing in the Name of Jesus. They could not have done so, nor had they before this been taught to do so. The dispensation of the Spirit had not yet begun. Not yet could a Christian disciple say δι ʼ αὐτοῦἔχομεντὴνπροσαγωγὴν … ἐνἑνὶπνεύματιπρὸςτὸνπατέρα (Ephesians 2:18). αἰτεῖτε , “ Be asking,” the pres. indicating continuous prayer; καὶλήμψεσθε , “ and ye shall receive.” The new mode of prayer has a more certain promise of response than anything that had gone before, although αἰτεῖτεκαὶδοθήσεταιὑμῖν (Matthew 7:7) had been a precept of the Sermon on the Mount (see on 14:13). ἵναἡχαρὰὑμῶνᾖπεπληρωμένη . Christian prayer issues in the fulness of Christian joy. For this thought of “ joy being fulfilled,” which is frequent in Jn., see on 15:11 above, with the references there given. Jesus Ceases to Speak in Parables, and Promises the Disciples Direct Access to the Father Who Loves Them and to Whom He Returns (vv. 25-28) 25. ταῦταἐνπαροιμίαιςλελάληκαὑμῖν . For παροιμία , see on 10:6; cf. Psalms 78:2. We have seen (on 15:11) that ταῦτα in the seven-times-repeated ταῦταλελάληκαὑμῖν refers in each case to what has immediately preceded. So here ταῦτα points back to the sayings in 16:15ff. about the approaching departure of Jesus. The apostles had not understood the meaning of ὑπάγωπρὸςτὸνπατέρα (v. 18), or of what Jesus had said about their seeing Him again. He puts it more plainly in v. 28, whereupon they reply at once that now they know what He means (v. 29). Whatever allusion ταῦταἐνπαροιμίαιςλελάληκαὑμῖν may carry to the veiled teachings suggested by the images of the Vine (15:1) and of the Woman in Travail (16:21), or more generally by the parables of the Ministry (Mark 4:33), the primary reference here is to vv. 15-18. For the phrase ἔρχεταιὥρα , see on v. 2 and 4:21. Here it must be equated with ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳ of v. 26 (see v. 23 above). When the visible presence of Jesus was withdrawn, and when His oral teaching was replaced by the fuller teaching of the Spirit (see on 14:26), then His revelation of the Father (the central theme of His ministry), conveyed through the Spirit, would be plainer. For παρρησία , “ unreserved and open speech,” see on 7:4. ἀπαγγελῶ . So ABC*DLWΘ , but the rec. (with N) has ἀναγγελῶ (from vv. 13, 14, 15). On the other hand, ἀπαγγέλλειν occurs again in Jn. only twice (1 John 1:2, 1 John 1:3), while we have ἀναγγέλλειν at John 4:25, John 4:5:15, John 4:16:13, John 4:14, John 4:15, 1 John 1:5. It is doubtful if any distinction in meaning can be traced. παρρησίᾳπερὶτοῦπατρὸςἀπαγγελῶὑμῖν means “ I will bring word to you plainly about the Father” ; ἀπαγγέλλειν , “ to report,” being a quite appropriate word to employ of the revelations which the Spirit is to bring. If it be urged that ἀπαγγελῶ must refer to some future oral teachings of Jesus Himself, then we must suppose that the post-Resurrection discourses contained such fuller and plainer doctrine (cf. 20:17); but it is most likely that the future disclosures of the Spirit are in view. 26. ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳ (see on v. 23) ἐντῷὀνόματίμουαἰτήσεσθε (see on 15:16 for this phrase). With the coming of the Paraclete, the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God as revealed in Christ would be better understood. They would know more of God as Father, and so would be bolder and more ambitious in prayer (cf. 1 John 5:14 αὕτηἐστὶνἡπαρρησίαἣνἔχομενπρὸςαὐτόν , ὅτιἐάντιαἰτώμεθακατὰτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ , ἀκούειἡμῶν ). Cognitio parit orationem (Bengel). καὶοὐλέγωὑμῖνὅτιἐγὼἐρωτήσωτὸνπατέραπερὶὑμῶν , “ I do not say to you that I will entreat the Father for you” (see for ἐρωτᾷν on 11:22, 16:23), because in the dispensation of the Spirit prayer in the Name of Jesus does not fail to reach the Father and to receive its answer. The prayers of those who are “ in Christ,” and offered “ in His Name,” are virtually His prayers. Before the Coming of the Spirit He did pray for His disciples (14:16, 17:9, 15, 20), but here the thought is of the ideal disciple after the Spirit has descended. This does not exclude the perpetual intercession of Jesus for sinful disciples; ἐάντιςἁμάρτῃ , παράκλητονἔχομενπρὸςτὸνπατέρα , ἸησοῦνΧριστὸνδίκαιον (1 John 2:1; cf. Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25). But the true disciple is encouraged to be bold in prayer for himself, and the reason why he may be bold is now stated. 27. αὐτὸςγὰρὁπατὴρφιλεῖὑμᾶς , “ for the Father Himself loveth you.” There will be no reluctance in His answer to the prayers of those who love Jesus and have faith that His mission was from the Father. Field calls attention to the “ elegant Greek use” of αὐτός in the sense of αὐτόματος , proprio motu, and compares Homer, Iliad, viii. 293, τίμεσπεύδοντακαὶαὐτὸνὀτρύνεις . This is one of the many passages in which the Greek of the Fourth Gospel does not resemble translation-Greek. At 3:16, the love of God for the κόσμος (all mankind) has been mentioned; here and at 14:21, 23, 17:23 it is rather the special love of God for those who are disciples of Jesus that is in view (as at 1 John 4:19). Here the verb φιλεῖν is used, the only instance in which Jn. employs it to express the love of God for man; in the other passages he uses ἀγαπᾶν . It is clear (see further on 21:15) that the attempt to distinguish ἀγαπᾶν from φιλεῖν in Jn. cannot be sustained. ὅτιὑμεῖςἐμὲπεφιλήκατε , “ because you are they who have loved me,” ὑμεῖς and ἐμέ being both emphasised. Here, again, φιλεῖν is used of the love of His disciples for Jesus (21:15-17 providing the only other examples of this phraseology in Jn.; but cf. Matthew 10:37, 1 Corinthians 16:22); while in 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28, ἀγαπᾶν is consistently used to express this affection (cf. 21:15, 16). καὶπεπιστεύκατε (the perfect tenses bring back the discourse from a prospect of the future to the facts of the present) ὅτιἐγὼπαρὰτοῦθεοῦἐξῆλθον . To have believed this is to have accepted the central message of the Gospel. παρὰτοῦθεοῦἐξῆλθον . So א AC3NWΓ and Syr. sin. (see on 8:42). The rec. for θεοῦ has πατρός (from v. 28), with א ca BCDL. W om. the repeated ἐξῆλθονπαρὰτοῦπατρός in the next verse. Cf. παρὰσοῦἐξῆλθον (17:8); and see on 1:14, 7:29 for παρά as expressing the relation of the Son to the Father. See on 13:3 for ἀπὸθεοῦἐξῆλθεν . 28. Here, in four short phrases, we have the Pre-existence of Christ, His Incarnation, His Death, and His Ascension. ἐκτοῦπατρός . For ἐκ (BCL) the rec. has (from v. 27) παρά , with א AC2NΓΔΘ . παρά in v. 27 and ἐκ in v. 28 cannot be differentiated in meaning without over subtlety. The classical distinction between these prepositions was being obliterated by the first century. To interpret ἐκθεοῦ or ἐκτοῦπατρός in the Fourth Gospel as if we had to do with the formal theology of the Nicene Creed is not legitimate (see on 8:42). We cannot press the force of ἐκ so as to make it indicate the unique relation of the Son to the Father, in a fashion that παρά will not indicate it equally well. It must be remembered that ὁὢνἐκτοῦθεοῦ at 8:47 does not mean Jesus, the Eternal Son, but any man who hears with understanding the Divine message. παρά in v. 27, ἐκ in v. 28, and ἀπό in v. 30 carry the same meaning for Jn. καὶἐλήλυθαεἰςτὸνκόσμον , sc. at the Incarnation. Cf. 11:27, 18:37 for this phrase; and for κόσμος , see on 1:10. πάλιν (next, marking the sequence; cf. 1 John 2:8) ἀφίημιτὸνκόσμον . Hitherto the apostles had not understood that He was going to leave the world. καὶπορεύομαιπρὸςτὸνπατέρα . We shall have this phrase again 14:12, 28; it is not to be distinguished from ὑπάγωπρὸςτὸνπατέρα (16:10, 17; cf. 7:33, 16:5 and note on 16:7). The Disciples Now Become Confident of Their Faith, and are Warned that It Will Fail Them in the Hour of Trial (vv. 29-32) 29. The rec. adds αὐτῷ after λέγουσιν , but om. א BCD*NWΘ . Ἴδε , an interjection of astonished admiration; see on 1:29 for its frequency in Jn. νῦνἐνπαρρησίᾳλαλεῖς , “ now you are speaking explicitly.” But they did not really understand, as they thought they did. The promise of teaching ἐνπαρρησίᾳ in v. 25 was for a future day. The rec. omits ἐν before παρρησίᾳ , but ins. א BCD. καὶπαροιμίανοὐδεμίανλέγεις . For παροιμία , cf. v. 25; and see note on 10:6. In the latter part of the Epistle to Diognetus, which Light-foot places at the end of the second century, there is a reference to the manifestation of the Logos, παρρησίᾳλαλῶν (§ 11), which may be a reminiscence of this verse. See on 17:3. 30. νῦνοἴδαμενκτλ . They were so surprised that He had discerned their thoughts, and so bewildered at His words (see v. 19), that they assure Him of their absolute confidence in Him as all-knowing. With οἶδαςπάντα cf. 21:17. Jn. comes back again and again to the penetrating insight of Jesus into men’ s thoughts; see on 2:25. ἵνατίςσεἐρωτᾷ , “ that any one shall question thee,” ἐρωτᾶν being here used in its most frequent sense of asking questions; see on v. 23 above. ἐντούτῳ , “ by this,” ἐν being used in a quasi-causal sense, as at 13:35, where see note. πιστεύομενὅτιἀπὸθεοῦἐξῆλθες . Nicodemus had confessed as much (3:2); what Jesus had said of their faith was that they had come to believe ὅτιἐγὼπαρὰτοῦπατρὸςἐξῆλθον . But they were not yet strong in this faith, as He reminds them in His reply. See note on 13:3 and also on v. 28 above. Strictly, ἀπό ought to signify mission, while παρά or (especially) ἐκ ought to signify origin; but these prepositions are not sharply distinguished in Jn. 31. The form of the reply of Jesus is comparable with that in 13:38, the disciples’ expression of confidence being repeated, and then a warning given. Here, however, the reply does not begin with an interrogative. The stress is on ἄρτι , coming at the beginning of the sentence (cf. Revelation 12:10). ἄρτιπιστεύετε , “ at this moment you believe.” He had just before recognised their belief as genuine, so far as it went (v. 27; cf. 17:8), and He does not question it now. But He goes on to warn them that this faith will not keep them faithful in the time of danger which is imminent. To translate “ Do ye now believe?” is inconsistent with what has gone before, and also with the position of ἄρτι in the sentence. For ἄρτι as compared with νῦν , see on 9:19. 32. For ἰδού , see on 4:35; it has an adversative force: “ At this moment you believe, it is true, but an hour is imminent when you will all abandon me.” ἔρχεταιὥρα , “ an hour is coming.” See on 4:23 and on vv. 2, 25. It is not ἡὥρα , which would indicate the inevitableness of the predestined hour, and this thought is not prominent yet. καὶἐλήλυθεν . The time for His arrest was at hand; cf. ἐλήλυθενἡὥρα (12:23), and cf. 4:23, 5:25. After καὶ the rec. text has νῦν , but om. א ABCDL. ἵνασκορπισθῆτε . The ἵνα marks the predestined sequence of events. σκορπίζειν occurs again at 10:12, and we find διασκορπίζειν at 11:52. The prophecy Zechariah 13:7, which (in the A text) runs as follows, πατάξοντὸνποιμένακαὶδιασκορπισθήσονταιτὰπρόβατα . is cited as a prediction of the arrest of Jesus by Mark 14:27 (followed by Matthew 26:31), as well as by Barnabas (v. 12) and Justin (Tryph. 53). Jn. does not mention Zechariah, but he places in the mouth of Jesus a prediction which reproduces the significant word σκορπισθῆτε . Cf. the verbal parallel ἐσκορπίσθησανἕκαστοςεἰςτὸντόποναὐτοῦ (1 Macc. 6:54). For εἰςτὰἴδια , “ to his own home,” see note on 19:27 below. Cf. Appian, 6:23 (quoted by Field), ἀπέλυετοὺςαἰχμαλώτουςεἰςτὰἴδια . κἀμὲμόνονἀφῆτε , “ and shall leave me alone.” This is the only word of reproach, and it is softened by the next words, “ yet not alone, because, etc.” καί , “ and yet.” Jn. never uses καίτοι : see on 1:10. οὐκεἰμὶμόνος , ὅτιὁπατὴρμετ ʼ ἐμοῦἐστίν . So Jesus had said before, and in almost identical terms. See 8:16, 29 and the notes there. Jn. does not tell of the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus after His arrest, as in Mark 14:50, except by implication (see on 18:15). Jesus Bids His Disciples to Be Courageous, for He Has Overcome the World (V. 33), In the Passion, Which is His Glorification (13:31B, 32) 33. ταῦταλελάληκαὑμῖν : see on 15:11. Here ταῦτα seems to refer to what has been said in v. 32 about the dispersion of His disciples after their Master’ s arrest (cf. 16:1, 4). The purpose of these instructions was ἵναἐνἐμοὶεἰρήνηνἔχητε (see for εἰρήνη on 14:27). Peace can be found only in Christ (cf. 15:5-7); ἐνἐμοί is in antithesis to ἐντῷκόσμῳ which follows. For κόσμος , see on 1:9; here it is “ the world” which “ hates” Christ’ s disciples (cf. 15:18), and in which therefore “ tribulation” must be their portion. θλίψις occurs in Jn. only here and at v. 21; but cf. Revelation 1:9, Revelation 2:22 and Acts 14:22, where Paul exhorts the disciples of Antioch ὅτιδιὰπολλῶνθλίψεωνδεῖἡμᾶςεἰσελθεῖνεἰςτὴνβασιλείαντοῦθεοῦ . The rec. text (cf. v. 22) has ἔξετε with D 69, but the true reading is ἕχετε , “ ye are having tribulation” ; their trial has begun. θαρσεῖν occurs only here in Jn. (cf. Mark 6:50, Matthew 9:2, Matthew 9:22); but the same counsel in different words is given again 14:1, 27. ἐγώ is the ἐγώ of dignity (see Introd., p. cxvii). νικᾶν is rare in the LXX except in the later books, and in the N.T. except in the Apocalypse. It does not occur again in the Fourth Gospel, but is found 6 times in 1 Jn. Sometimes it is transitive, as here and at Luke 11:22, Romans 12:21, Revelation 11:7, Revelation 12:11, Revelation 13:7, Revelation 17:14, and 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:14, 1 John 2:4:4, 1 John 2:5:4, 1 John 2:5; sometimes it is used absolutely, as in Revelation 2:7, Revelation 2:11, Revelation 2:17, Revelation 2:26, Revelation 2:3:5, Revelation 2:12, Revelation 2:21, Revelation 2:5:5, Revelation 2:6:2, Revelation 2:15:2, Revelation 2:21:7. The verb is only once used in the LXX of God as the Conqueror, sc. Psalms 51:4 (quoted Romans 3:4), νικήσῃςἐντῷκρίνεσθαι ; and in the N.T. it is applied to the conquests of Christ only here and at Revelation 3:21, Revelation 5:5, Revelation 6:2, Revelation 17:14. (Cf. 1 Ezr 3:12 ὐπὲρδὲπάντανικᾷἡἀλήθεια .) In all the passages of 1 Jn. where it appears, it is used of the spiritual conquests of Christian believers. νικᾶν , then, is a favourite word both with the author of the Fourth Gospel and the author of the Apocalypse, both of whom apply it— alone among N.T. writers— to the victory of Christ. The phrase νικᾶντὸνκόσμον is found only here and at 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:5. Here the majestic announcement ἐγὼνενίκηκατὸνκόσμον is placed in the mouth of Jesus, when His public ministry had, to all seeming, ended in failure. In 1 Jn., the apostle claims for himself and his fellow-believers that their faith is “ the victory which overcomes the world.” The words of Joh 14:12 that they should do “ greater things” than their Master did, are coming within the range of their spiritual understanding. ἐγὼνενίκηκατὸνκόσμον is thus a prophetic word for those who are “ in Christ.” א Ԡ Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv. D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v-vi. Græ co-Latin. Cc. 18:14-20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (Dsupp). L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2-20 21:15-25 are missing. A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50-8:52 are missing. B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv. Γ̠ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix-x. Contains Son 1:1-13 8:3-15:24 19:6 to end. Δ̠ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix-x. Græ co-Latin. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 17:1 ff. Of the Prayer of Jesus which is now recorded, it would be too much to suppose that we have the exact words, or even an exact translation of the Aramaic words which He used. We have not here a shorthand report, taken down at the time, but rather the substance of sacred intercessions preserved for half a century in the memory of a disciple. On the other hand, the occasion must have been felt by all who were present to be specially momentous, and the words used of extraordinary significance. They would be remembered when other things were forgotten, as the Last Prayer of Jesus, said in the hearing of His disciples, when the Last Discourse was ended, before He went to meet the Cross. The topics upon which He dwelt— His coming glorification, His committal of His chosen friends to the compassionate protection of the Father while they were in the world with its trials, His intercession for those other disciples who were to receive the Gospel through the ministry of the Eleven, His prayer that the mutual love of Christian for Christian might at last convince the hostile world of the truth of His claims— these things could never pass from the memory of one who heard Him speak of them at the last. Phrase after phrase is repeated, and more than once, as is characteristic of the style of Jn.; but Jn. is drawing all the while upon the tenacious memory of an old man recalling the greatest days of his life. This, at any rate, seems more probable than the hypothesis that the Prayer is a free composition of the evangelist himself. To take such a view would be to ascribe the deepest thoughts in the Fourth Gospel to the disciple rather than to the Master. As Harnack says, the confidence with which Jn. makes Jesus address the Father. “ Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” (v. 24), “ is undoubtedly the direct reflection of the certainty with which Jesus Himself spoke.” 1 No other long prayer of Jesus is recorded. His habit of prayer at crises or great moments is often mentioned (Mark 1:35, Mark 6:46, Luke 3:21, Luke 3:5:16, Luke 3:6:12, Luke 3:9:18, Luke 3:28, Luke 3:11:1), but these prayers were usually (as it seems) offered in private, and were overheard by none. Something, however, of His methods of prayer may be gathered from the Synoptists. Two, at any rate, of His ejaculations from the Cross were verses of the Psalms (Psalms 22:1, Psalms 31:5), hallowed by long and venerable use. That they should come to His lips in the agony of death, shows that they were familiarly used by Him in life. Again, it was His habit to begin with the word “ Father” (cf. Luke 22:42, Luke 22:23:34, Luke 22:46, Matthew 11:25, and John 11:41, John 12:27), as this great Prayer begins (17:1). He prayed, at the end at least, for His own needs, when distressed in spirit (Luke 22:43, John 12:27), and the prayer of c. 17 begins with intercession for Himself. He prayed for His disciples (Luke 22:32), and He is represented as doing so in 17:9-19. The solemn note of thanksgiving at the beginning of His Prayer of Consecration (17:1, 2) has a parallel at John 11:41, and also in Matthew 11:25f., a passage which recalls the manner of Joh 17:1-3 more than any other passage in the Gospels: “ I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes; yea, Father, for so it was well pleasing in Thy sight. All things have been delivered unto me of my Father, etc.” It has been pointed out1 that several of the thoughts underlying the Lord’ s Prayer, which Jesus prescribed for the use of His disciples, appear also in the great Prayer of Intercession in c. 17. With the opening address, “ Our Father,” cf. 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25 where “ Father” is used in the special and personal sense in which Jesus was accustomed to use it. “ Hallowed be Thy Name” is recalled, vv. 6, 11, 12, 26. Perhaps “ Thy kingdom come” is the form in which we may express something of what Christ expressed when He said “ Glorify Thy Son” (vv. 1, 5). “ As in heaven, so in earth,” has echoes in vv. 4, 5 With “ lead us not into temptation” cf. “ I kept them … I guarded them” (v. 12). And “ deliver us from evil” is almost verbally reproduced (v. 15). None of these coincidences or parallels is likely to have been invented by one setting himself to compose a prayer for the lips of Christ on the eve of His Passion; but, when taken together, they show that the spirit which breathes throughout c. 17 is similar to that with which we have been made familiar when reading Jesus’ words as recorded by the Synoptists and elsewhere in Jn. The prayer of c. 17 falls naturally into three divisions. First, Jesus prays for Himself (vv. 1-8); then, for the eleven apostles, His intimate friends (vv. 9-19); and lastly, for the disciples of future generations, who were to be evangelised through the ministry begun by the apostles (vv. 20-26). That is, the prayer begins with what is immediate, intimate, and urgent, and only gradually passes into intercession for that which is distant and of universal import. The Prayer of Jesus for Himself, and His Thanksgiving (17:1-8) 17:1. ταῦταἐλάλησενἸησοῦς , “ these things said Jesus,” viz. the discourse ending 14:31. The rec. has ὁ before Ἰης . but א BΘ om. See on 1:29. καὶἐπάραςτοὺςὀφθαλμούςκτλ . See on 11:41. The rec. text has ἐπῆρε … καὶεἶπε with AC3NΓΔ ; but ἐπάρας … εἶπεν is found in א BC*DLWΘ . πάτερ . For this beginning of the prayers of Jesus, see on 11:41; πάτερ is repeated, vv. 5, 11, 21, 24, 25. ἐλήλυθενἡὥρα , sc. the hour of His “ glorification,” as He had already told them (13:31, 32 and 12:23), had come. The same prescience is ascribed to Him at Gethsemane in Mark 14:41. The idea that the whole course of His Ministry and Passion was predetermined runs through the Gospel, e.g. 7:30, 8:20, 13:1; see on 2:4. δόξασόνσουτὸνυἱόν . Here is the only personal intercession throughout this Prayer of Consecration. He cared nothing for the “ glory” which men can bestow , but He prays that the Father may “ glorify” Him in His impending Passion . This goes deeper than a prayer for support in the hour of death. A martyr might pray for such signal measures of grace to be bestowed in the day of trial, that all who perceived his courage and faith might recognise that he was honoured of God. The “ glorification” of Jesus included this. The centurion, standing by the Cross, was constrained to say, as he watched the bearing of the Crucified, “ Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39, Matthew 27:54; cf. Luke 23:47). But there was more than this. The “ glorification” of Jesus in the Passion was the Divine acceptance of His Sacrifice by the Father, the sealing of His Mission as complete. Cf. Philippians 2:9, “ Wherefore God highly exalted Him and gave Him the Name that is above every name.” ἵναὁυἱὸςδοξάσῃσέ . The redemption of mankind through the Crucified is a glorification of the Father. The final cause of the Passion, viewed sub specie æ ternitatis, is “ ad majorem dei gloriam,” as was every incident in the ministry of Jesus. See on 11:4 and cf. 1 Peter 4:11. 2. The constr. ἵνα … καθὼς … ἵνα , which we have here, appears also 13:34, 17:21, in each case the clause introduced by καθώς being parenthetical, and the second ἵνα being reiterative, the clause following it being identical in meaning with that introduced by the first ἵνα . Consequently ἵναπᾶνὃδέδωκαςαὐτῷκτλ . in this verse is only another way of saying ἵναὁυἱὸςδοξάσῃσέ of v. 1. καθὼςἔδωκαςαὐτῷἐξουσίανκτλ . To the Son, the Father gave authority to determine the final destinies of mankind (see on 5:27). His ἐξουσία is over “ all flesh” (although not fully acknowledged by the world), πᾶσασάρξ being the rendering of the phrase ב ּ ָ ל ־ ב ּ ָ ש ׂ ָ ד , very common in the O.T., representing all humanity in its weakness (see Hort on 1 Peter 1:24), but infrequent in the N.T. except in quotations (cf. Matthew 24:22, Romans 3:20, 1 Corinthians 1:29, Galatians 2:16). ἵναπᾶνὃδέδωκαςαὐτῷκτλ . The meaning is “ that He may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given to Him” (see on 6:37), the latter clause limiting the πᾶσασάρξ which has preceded. This consummation of His redemptive work is the “ glorification” of the Father by the Son. πᾶνὃδέδωκαςαὐτῷ . The constr. with a nom.-pendens is like πᾶνὃδέδωκένμοι of 6:39, where see the note on the collective use of the neuter singular, which perhaps is here a forecast of ἵνα … ἓνὦσιν of v. 21. πᾶνὃδέδωκαςαὐτῲ is the Universal Church (cf. v. 24). There are many variants for δώσῃ (א cAC). Westcott adopts δώσει , but ἵνα with the future is infrequent in Jn. א * has δώσω , and D avoids all difficulty of construction by reading ἔχῃ , and omitting αὐτοῖς . See Abbott (Diat. 2422, 2690, 2740). ἵνα … δώσῃαὐτοῖςζωὴναἰώνιον . Cf. 10:28, 1 John 2:25, Romans 6:23, and see on 6:39, 40; and for the conception of ζωὴαἰωνίος , see on 4:14. αὐτοῖς refers to all who are included in πᾶνὃδέδωκαςαὐτῷ , with disregard of formal grammar. As Blass notes (Gram. p. 166), this is a usage with classical precedent. 3. This verse seems to be an explanatory comment on the phrase “ eternal life,” which the evangelist says that Jesus used in His prayer. Jn. often supplies such comments (see Introd., p. cxvi), and this is quite in his manner. To suppose that he means to represent Jesus as introducing a definition of “ eternal life” into His prayer, and as calling Himself “ Jesus Christ” when speaking to His Father, is not a probable hypothesis. Further, the sequence of thought from v. 2 to v. 4 is direct, and the interposition of a parenthesis in a prayer is unlikely. αὕτηδέἐστιν … ἵνα … For this Johannine construction, cf. 1 John 3:11, 1 John 5:3 (also 15:12). א BCΘ have γινώσκωσιν , but ADLNWΔ read γινώσκουσιν . For the possibility of “ knowing” the Father, see on 14:7: the present tense marking that continual growth in the knowledge of God which is a characteristic of spiritual life, as physical growth is a characteristic of bodily life. The prophet’ s ideal was, “ We will follow on to know the Lord,” διώξομεντοῦγνῶναιτὸνκύριον (Hosea 6:3). Cf. Jeremiah 9:24. τὸνμόνονἀληθινὸνθεόν . For μόνος as applied to God, see on 5:44 above. He is described as ἀληθινός , Exodus 34:6, Numbers 14:18, Numbers 14:1 Esd. 8:39, Psalms 86:15, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Revelation 6:10; and cf. especially 1 John 5:20, οὗτόςἐστινὁἀληθινὸςθεὸςκαὶζωὴαἰώνιος . For ἀληθινός , see on 1:9. The adjectives μόνος and ἀληθινός express the central truth of Monotheism. Wetstein quotes a verbal parallel from Athenæ us (vi. p. 523c): describing the flattery of the Athenians in their reception of Demetrius, he says, ἐπᾴδοντες , ὡςεἴημόνοςθειςἀληινός . This shows how natural is the combination of μόνις and ἀληθινός . Cf. Philo, Leg. All. ii. 17, μὰτὸνἀληθῆμόνονθεόν . That to know God is, itself, eternal life, is a doctrine which has its roots in Jewish sapiential literature. Wisdom “ is a tree of life to them that lay hold on her” (Proverbs 3:18). Again, περίσσειαγνώσεωςτῆςσοφίαςζωοποιήσειτὸνπαρ ʼ αὐτῆς (Ecclesiastes 7:12). An even nearer parallel to Jn.’ s definition of eternal life is: εἰδέναισουτὸκράτοςῥίζαἀθανασίας (Wisd. 15:3). Alford appositely cites the words of Irenæ us: ἡδὲὕπαρξιςτῆςζωῆςἐκτῆςτοῦθεοῦπαραγίνεταιμετοχῆς · μετοχὴδὲθεοῦἐστὶτὸγινώσκεινθεόν , καὶἀπολαύειντῆςχρηστότητοςαὐτοῦ (Hæ r. iv. 20. 5). A little lower down (§ 5, where the Greek is deficient) Irenæ us combines with wonderful insight the two thoughts that the giving of eternal life by the Son is a glorification of the Father (v. 2), and that eternal life is the knowledge of God (v. 3), although he does not cite the present passage. “ Gloria enim dei uiuens homo; uita autem hominis uisio dei.” It would not be easy to express these profound thoughts more succinctly. The writer of the last paragraphs of the Epistle to Diognetus (whom Lightfoot identifies with Pantæ nus1), commenting on the presence in Paradise of both the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, says: οὐδὲγὰρζωὴἄνευγνώσεως , οὐδὲγνῶσιςἀσφαλὴςἄνευζωῆςἀληθοῦς (§ 12. 4). καὶὃνἀπέστειλαςἸη . χρ . To “ know” Jesus Christ is eternal life; cf. 6:68. Jn. treats this knowledge as on a par with the knowledge of “ the only true God.” So the apostles were bidden to “ believe” not only in God, but in Christ (14:1). For the thought of Jesus as “ sent” by God (cf. vv. 8, 18, 21, 23, 25), see on 3:17 above. The only other place in the Fourth Gospel where the historical name “ Jesus Christ” occurs Isaiah 1:17 (see note, in loc.) 4. ἐγώσεἐδόξασαἐπὶτῆςγῆς . This is in direct sequence with v. 2 (v. 3 being parenthetical). He had spoken of the “ glorification” of the Father by Him, which was to be consummated in the gift of eternal life through His ministry to those whom the Father had given Him. This “ glorification” had been His aim throughout His earthly sojourn. “ I glorified Thee on earth” (the aorist ἐδόξασα being the aorist of historical retrospect) by making known as never before the nature of God. τὸἔργοντελειώσαςὃδέδωκάςμοιἵναποιήσω . This had been His purpose throughout (see on 4:34), from the day when He asked οὐκᾔδειτεὅτιἐντοῖςτοῦπατρόςμουδεῖεἶναίμε ; (Luke 2:49). His “ works” had been “ given” Him by the Father to accomplish (3:35, 5:36). They had now been accomplished, and presently He would say τετέλεσται (19:30). For τελειώσας (א ABCLNW) the rec. has ἐτελείωσα , and for δέδωκας CDW have ἔδωκας . The variants δέδωκα , ἔδωκα frequently occur (cf. vv. 6, 8, 24, etc.) in similar contexts throughout the Gospel. Abbott (Diat. 2454) holds that “ the aorist usually describes gifts regarded as given by the Father to the Son on His coming into the world to proclaim the Gospel; the perfect describes gifts regarded as having been given to the Son and as now belonging to Him.” But we cannot always press this distinction. 5. καὶνῦν , “ and now,” that this earthly ministry is ended . δόξασόνμε . There is emphasis on νῦν . The glorification prayed for here transcends the glorification in the Passion prayed for in v. 1. Here the thought is of a heavenly glorification already predicted, 13:32, ὁθεὸςδοξάσειαὐτὸνἐναὐτῷ . For Jesus asks now, with lofty assurance , that the eternal glory which was His before the Incarnation (cf. 1:1) may be resumed in fellowship with the Father . Cf. Proverbs 8:30, John 6:62, and Revelation 3:21. The glory of the Eternal Word is distinguishable from the glory of the Incarnate Word (see on 1:14); the spheres of life are different, ἐπὶτῆςγῆς (v. 4) implying the Incarnate Life, but παρὰσεαυτῷ implying life in the bosom of the Godhead. As He had said, “ Before Abraham was, I am” (8:58), so here He expresses His sure conviction that He was in eternal relation with God. τῇδόξῃᾗεἶχον … παρὰσοί indicates a real, and not only an ideal, pre-existence. πρὸτοῦτὸνκόσμονεἶναι . See 1:1, v. 24, and cf. Proverbs 8:23. For κόσμος , see on 1:9. 6. ἐφανέρωσάσουτὸὄνομα . This means the same thing as ἐγώσεἐδόξασαἐπὶτῆςγῆς of v. 4, and as ἐγνώρισατὸὄνομάσου of v. 26, although different phrases are used to bring out the full meaning. For the “ Name” of God as indicating His true nature, see on 12:28 and especially on v. 11 below. For the verb φανεροῦν , see on 1:31. One of the Messianic Psalms has the aspiration, διηγήσομαιτὸὄνομάσουτοῖςἀδελφοῖςμου (Psalms 22:22), and in the apostolic age the words were interpreted of Christ (Hebrews 2:12). As He looks back on His ministry, He can say that this has been accomplished: ἐφανέρωσάσουτὸὄνομα . Although the disciples had not appreciated all of His teaching, they had learnt, through Him, something more of the nature of God than any Jew had learnt before. τοῖςἀνθρώποιςοὓςἔδωκάςμοιἐκτοῦκόσμου . See on 6:37 for the thought of disciples being “ given” to the Son by the Father, which recurs throughout the Priestly Prayer of Jesus (vv. 2, 9, 12, 24). σοὶἦσαν , “ they were thine,” and σοίεἰσιν , “ they are thine” (v. 9). This means more than that they were “ Israelites indeed” (1:47); it is rather that they were among the men ἐκτοῦθεοῦ of whom He spoke before (8:47). καὶτὸνλόγονσουτετήρηκαν . This was some of the fruit of His ministry; the chosen disciples (except Judas) had “ kept” the Divine word revealed to them through Jesus. Cf. 8:51, 14:23 for the phrase τὸνλόγοντηρεῖν , and see on 5:38. ἔδωκας is the true reading in this verse, in both places where it occurs, as against the rec. δέδωκας . The reference is to the definite “ gift” of the faithful disciples chosen ἐκτοῦκόσμου . See on v. 4 above. There is a passage in the Odes of Solomon (xxxi. 4, 5) which recalls the thought of this verse: “ He offered to Him the sons that were in His hands. And His face was justified, for thus His holy Father had given to Him.” Cf. also v. 11. 7. νῦνἔγνωκανκτλ . The disciples had said (16:30) νῦνοἴδαμενὄτιοἶδαςπάντακτλ ., but their confidence was not so deep-rooted as they had supposed. Yet they had come to recognise (ἔγνωκαν expressing the gradual growth of their spiritual insight) that His words were divine (v. 8), or (as it is expressed in this verse) that “ all things which Thou hast given me are from Thee” (see on 3:35). Godet calls attention to the apparent scantiness of the spiritual harvest for which Jesus gives thanks in these verses. “ Eleven Galilæ an peasants after three years’ labour ! But it is enough for Jesus, for in these eleven He beholds the pledge of the continuance of God’ s work upon earth.” For ἔγνωκαν , there is a Western variant, ἔγνων (א latt. syrr.), the mistaken correction of a scribe who returns to the first person of v. 6. For δέδωκας (see on v. 4), AB have ἔδωκας . And for εἰσίν (א BCLNW) the rec. has ἐστίν , with ADΓΔΘ . 8. ὅτιτὰῥήματακτλ ., “ that the words which Thou gavest me I have given unto them.” For ῥήματα , see on 3:34: cf. 5:47, 6:63, 68. These “ words” of Jesus were “ given” Him by the Father, as has been said before. See on 12:49, and cf. 15:15, 17:14. καὶαὐτοὶἔλαβον . The chosen disciples had received and appropriated His words, which “ abode” in them (cf. 15:7). Here was the token that the disciples were, indeed, ἐκτοῦθεοῦ (cf. 8:47). The rec. has δέδωκας for ἔδωκας (ABCDW), but the sense requires the aorist here (see on v. 4). The ῥήματα of Jesus were “ given” to Him by the Father, when He entered on His mission (see on 3:35). καὶἔγνωσαν … καὶἐπίστευσαν . Here, again, we have the aorist tense. The disciples recognised, “ knew of a truth,” i.e. inferred from what they saw and heard, that Jesus had come from God (cf. 3:2); and, further, they believed (for this was not a matter of merely intellectual inference) that God had sent Him. But perhaps we must not lay stress on the distinction between ἔγνωσαν and ἐπίστευσαν here; for at 16:27 Jesus has already said to the Eleven, πεπιστεύκατεὅτιἐγὼπαρὰτοῦπατρὸςἐξῆλθον . And at 8:42 οὐδὲγὰρἀπ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦἐλήλυθα , ἀλλ ʼ ἐκεῖνόςμεἀπέστειλεν is a single sentence, the “ sending” by the Father being the only possible alternative to Jesus having come “ of Himself.” Cf. 11:42 ἵναπιστεύσωσινὅτισύμεἀπέστειλας , and for the “ sending” of the Son by the Father, see on 3:17. For the combination of πεπιστεύκαμεν and ἐγνώκαμεν , see on 6:69. σύμεἀπέστειλας is found five times in this Prayer of Christ (cf. vv. 18, 21, 23, 25), the phrase being repeated like a kind of solemn refrain (see on 15:21) The Prayer of Jesus for the Eleven— (1) that They May Be Divinely Guarded (vv. 9-16) and (2) that They May Be Consecrated Men (vv. 17-19) 9. ἐγὼπερὶαὐτῶνἐρωτῶ . From v. 9 to v. 19, we have the prayer of Jesus for His chosen disciples, that the Father may guard them from evil, and that He may sanctify them in the truth. He had prayed for Peter that his faith should not fail (Luke 22:32), but this prayer does not contemplate any failure of faith among the Eleven, in the days to come when their Master had returned to His glory. For ἐρωτᾶν , which is the verb generally used by Jesus of His own prayers, see on 11:22, 16:23, and cf. 16:26, 14:16. οὐπερὶτοῦκόσμουἐρωτῶ , i.e. “ I am not praying for the world now” ; the prayers which follow were for those who loved Him, not for those who rejected Him. But this is not to be interpreted as indicating that Jesus never prayed for His enemies (cf. Luke 23:34 and His own precept Matthew 5:44). The κόσμος (see on 1:9) was hostile to Him, but God loved it (3:16); and even this Prayer of c. 17, which was primarily a prayer for Himself and His own disciples, present and future, does not exclude the thought of the world’ s acceptance of Him at last (v. 21). The language of 1 John 5:16, “ there is a sin unto death: I do not say that he should pray for that,” is verbally similar, but the thought there is different, viz. of the propriety or duty of praying for a fellow-Christian whose sin is πρὸςθάνατον . ἀλλὰπερὶὧνδέδωκάςμοι , ὅτισοίεἰσιν , sc. because they are God’ s. See on v. 6, from which verse this clause is repeated. Only in this chap. (cf. vv. 15, 20) is ἐρωτᾶν used by Jn. absolutely or intransitively, being generally followed by the account of the person who is asked either to give something or to reply. See on [8]:7. 10. καὶτὰἐμὰπάντασάἐστιν . So He had said before; see on 16:15. καὶτὰσὰἐμά . This goes further than the preceding clause. Meyer cites Luther’ s comment: “ This no creature can say in reference to God.” καὶδεδόξασμαιἐναὐτοῖς . The apostles were Jesus’ own men, not only because the Father “ gave” them to Him, when they were chosen, not only because all that belonged to the Father belonged to Him, but for the additional reason that He had been “ glorified” in them. He was “ glorified” in the physical miracle of the Raising of Lazarus (11:4), much more in the spiritual miracle of the faith of the Eleven. They exhibited and continued to exhibit the power of the message which He brought. So Paul said of his Thessalonian converts ὑμεῖςγάρἐστεἡδόξαἡμῶν (1 Thessalonians 2:20). Cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:10 of the future “ glorification” of Christ in His saints. Through misunderstanding of the meaning, for δεδόξασμαι D has ἐδόξασάςμε (cf. v. 1). 11. The occasion and ground of the prayer are now more distinctly stated. He is going away from the disciples whom He had trained and guarded; henceforth the relations between Him and them will be different from those of the days of His ministry in the flesh. He had told them about this, but they had hardly understood it (13:33, 36; cf. 16:10, 16). They will need a special measure of the Father’ s care. Swinburne has finely paraphrased some of the thoughts behind vv. 11, 12: “ Who shall keep Thy sheep, Lord, and lose not one? Who save one shall keep, Lest the shepherd sleep? Who beside the Son?” οὐκέτιεἰμὶἐντῷκόσμῳ . Cf. v. 14. His visible ministry in the world of men is over. Meyer cites Calvin’ s comment: “ nunc quasi provincia sua defunctus.” The rec. text has οὗτοι , but א B have αὐτοί . αὐτοὶἐντῷκόσμῳεἰσίν : the disciples are still in the world and have their service and ministry to fulfil. κἀγὼπρὸςσὲἔρχομαι , repeated v. 13; cf. 13:3, 14:12. After ἔρχομαι D adds οὐκέτιεἰμὶἐντῷκόσμῳκαὶἐντῷκόσμῳεἰμί , a Western gloss, which has some support from a c e, and which evidently was added because the scribe stumbled at the words, “ I am no longer in the world.” πάτερ . B reads πατήρ (with N), as it also does at v. 21 (with D), at vv. 24, 25 (with A), and (teste Abbott, Diat. 2053) at 12:28. But, although the nom. with the article sometimes takes the place of the voc. (e.g. Matthew 11:26, Luke 10:21), πατήρ without the article is not easy to defend. At v. 5 D, in like manner, has πατήρ for πάτερ . πάτερἅγιε . The holiness of God is fundamental in the Hebrew religion. This is a characteristically Jewish mode of address in prayer; cf. 2 Macc. 14:36, ἅγιεπαντὸςἁγιασμοῦΚύριε , and 3 Macc. 2:2, ἅγιεἐνἁγίοις , μόναρχε , παντοκράτωρ . The conception goes back to Leviticus 11:44 (quoted 1 Peter 1:16); cf. Isaiah 6:3, Psalms 71:22, and esp. Luke 1:49, ἅγιοντὸὄνομααὐτοῦ (Psalms 111:9). See also 6:69, ὁἅγιοςτοῦθεοῦ , as used of Christ, and 20:22, λάβετεπνεῦμαἅγιον , of the Spirit. We find πάτερδίκαιε in v. 25, but πάτερἅγιε does not appear again in the N.T. A remarkable parallel, which may be a reminiscence of the language of this verse, occurs in the Post-Communion Thanks-giving in the Didache (§ 10), εὐχαριστοῦμένσοι , πάτερἅγιε , ὑπὲρτοῦἁγίουὀνόματόςσου , οὗκατεσκήνωσαςἐνταῖςκαρδίαιςἡμῶν , καὶὑπὲρτῆςγνώσεωςκαὶπίστεωςκαὶἀθανασίας , ἧςἐγνώρισας (cf. v. 26) ἡμῖνδιὰἸησοῦτοῦπαιδόςσου . τήρησοναὐτούς , “ keep them,” as now specially needing care. For τηρεῖν , of keeping persons safe, cf. vv. 12, 15, Acts 16:23, Acts 16:24:23, Acts 16:25:4, Acts 16:21, and esp. Jude 1:1, “ kept for Jesus Christ,” ἸησοῦΧριστῷτετηρημένοις . For τηρεῖν , of keeping or observing commandments, see on 8:51. ἐντῷὀνόματίσου , “ in Thy Name,” i.e. under Thy Fatherly protection. The Name of God expresses (see on 5:43) the revelation of His Being, especially as exhibited in His help in time of need. Cf. Psalms 44:6, ἐντῷὀνόματίσουἐξουθενώσομεντοὺςἐπανιστανομένουςἡμῖν , Psalms 54:1, ὁθεός , ἐντῷὀνόματίσουσῶσόνμε , and Psalms 124:8, ἡβοήθειαἡμῶνἐνὀνόματικυρίου . In such contexts the “ Name” of God is equivalent to what a modern writer would call His “ Providence” ; and this, in the N.T. and especially in Jn., is associated with the doctrine of God as Father. ᾧδέδωκάςμοι . The reading here and in v. 12 presents difficulty, and the variants are important. (1) The rec. text has οὓςδέδωκάςμοι , but this is poorly attested (D2, 69 f g q vg. cop.), and οὕς may have come from 18:9, or from v. 6. It gives an excellent sense; that His disciples were “ given” to Jesus by the Father is said five times elsewhere in this chapter (vv. 2, 6, 9, 12, 24; see on 6:37 for other references). (2) ὃδέδωκάςμοι is read by D2 ful. This might have the same meaning as οὕς , and ὃδέδωκας is the right reading at vv. 2, 24. For this collective use of the neuter sing., see on 6:37. Field, whose opinion is always weighty, prefers ὅ . (3) But the harder reading, ᾧ , has such strong attestation that it must be accepted. It is supported by the great bulk of MSS and vss., including א ABCLWΘ . ᾧ must refer to ὀνόματι , so that “ in Thy Name, which Thou hast given me” is the only possible rendering. This is accepted by most modern editors, including Westcott and Abbott (Diat. 2408 f). Burney (Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 103), while recognising that ᾧ is the reading best attested, holds that οὕς must have been intended by the evangelist, and he traces the variants to the ambiguity of the relative particle ד ּ ְ , which might stand for either οὕς , ὅ , or ᾧ . But this does not explain the superior attestation of ᾧ , even if an Aramaic origin for the Fourth Gospel were accepted. We have seen (on 3:35) that it is a favourite thought with Jn. that the Father gave all things to the Incarnate Son; but it is only here and at v. 12 that the idea is expressed that the Father has given His “ Name” to Christ, and that it is in this “ Name” that Jesus guarded His disciples. This does not mean only that the Son was “ sent” by the Father (see on 3:17), and that therefore His ministry was accomplished “ in the Name of the Father” (see on 5:43, 10:25) as His delegate and representative; but that in Christ God was revealed in His providential love and care, His “ Name,” that is, His essential nature as Father, being exhibited in the Incarnate Son. Thus that “ the Name” of the Father was “ given” to Christ is yet another way of expressing the essential unity of the Father and the Son (see on 10:30). This transcends any such idea as that of Num 6:27, where the “ Name” of Yahweh is “ put” upon Israel by the priestly blessing; or of Exo 23:21, where it is said of the guardian angel of the people, “ My Name is in him” ; or of Jer 23:6, where the “ Name” of the Messianic King is “ Yahweh our Righteousness.” The nearest parallel is Philippians 2:9, ἐχαρίσατοαὐτῷτὸὄνοματὸὑπὲρπᾶνὄνομα (cf. Revelation 19:12); but in no N.T. passage except John 17:11, John 17:12 is found the conception of the Father giving His “ Name,” in the sense of His revealed character as Fatherly Providence, to Christ. See on v. 22 for the δόξα which the Father had given to the Son. This interpretation , viz. that the Father gave His “ Name” to the Son, is in consonance with the thanksgiving quoted above from the Didache, according to which the Father causes His “ Name” to tabernacle in the hearts of believers, i.e. His Fatherly protection rests upon them. ἔδωκας is read by א LNW, but the true reading is δέδωκας (see on v. 4), the perfect indicating not merely one act of giving at a definite moment in time, but a continuous “ giving” of the Father to the Son, throughout His earthly ministry. ἵναὦσινἓνκαθὼςἡμεῖς , sc. that the apostles might be united in will and purpose and spiritual fellowship even as the Father and the Son are united (see on 10:30). They had been given a “ new” commandment, enjoining all disciples to love one another (see on 13:34), and the Fatherly protection of God is now invoked for them, that they may be kept of one mind in their sacred fellowship. At v. 21 the thought is no longer of the apostles only, but of all future generations of Christian disciples, for whom again the prayer is ἵναπάντεςἓνὦσιν . The petition ἵναὦσινἕν , as applied to the apostles, was fulfilled in their case, for otherwise the earliest apostolic preaching could not have achieved its wonderful success; but it was not fulfilled in such fashion that no differences of opinion as to method were observed among the apostolic body, or that they were always right, as compared, e.g., with Paul (cf. Acts 11:2, Galatians 2:11, etc.) See further on v. 21. It is probably due to its difficulty that the whole clause, ᾧδέδωκάςμοι , ἵναὦσινἓνκαθὼςἡμεῖς , is omitted in the O.L. texts a b c e ff2 and by the Coptic Q. 12. After ὅτεἤμηνμετ ʼ αὐτῶν , the rec. with AC3NΓΔΘ inserts the explanatory gloss ἐντῷκόσμῳ , but om. א BC*DLW. ἐγὼἐτήρουναὐτούςκτλ ., “ I (ἐγώ being emphatic) used to keep them,” ἐτήρουν marking the continual training of disciples that was so great a feature of the ministry of Jesus. ἐντῷὀνόματίσουᾧδέδωκάςμοι , repeated from v. 11 (where see note) in the Johannine manner. It is “ in the Name,” that is, in the sure protection of the Father’ s providence and love, that Jesus guarded (and guards) His disciples. καὶἐφύλαξακτλ ., “ and I guarded them (sc. while I was with them in the flesh), and none perished.” For φυλάττειν , cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:3, Jude 1:24; and see Wisd. 10:5, where τηρεῖν and φυλάττειν are both used of the Divine guardianship of Abraham. The rec. text, as in v. 11, has οὕς for ᾧ , and omits καί before ἐφύλαξα , making the latter govern οὕς directly; א BC*LW ins. καί . καὶοὐδεὶςἐξαὐτῶν (cf. for constr. 7:19) ἀπώλετοκτλ ., “ and not one of them perished, except the son of perdition.” The falling away of Judas has already been described (13:27); ἀπολλύναι is used of the final “ perishing,” as at 3:16 (where see note) 10:28. Jesus is represented as speaking of the fate of Judas as if it were already in the past (see 6:64, 70). Cf. 6:39, 10:28, where his exceptional case is not in view; and see note on 18:9, where is quoted this saying of Jesus that He lost none of those whom the Father had “ given” to Him. It has often been discussed by theologians whether Judas had really been predestined to destruction, or whether his fall from faithfulness was of his free choice. Such questions are foreign to the philosophy of the first century. For Jn., all that happened to Judas was, indeed, predestined, but that this involves any difficulty as to his guilt does not suggest itself to the evangelist. εἰμὴὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλείας . The play on words ἀπώλετο … ἀπωλείας can hardly be reproduced in English. The constr. υἱόςτινος (see on 12:36) is not exclusively Hebraic, but it is frequent in Eastern literature. Antichrist is called ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλείας (2 Thessalonians 2:3), the same expression being applied to those who perished in the Flood (Jubilees, x. 3), and to Satan (Evang. Nicodemi, xx.). It signifies one whose end will be perdition, not necessarily that this is inevitable but that it will be so because of his own acts. He is one of whom it may be said, “ good were it for him if he had not been born” (Mark 14:21). Cf. υἱὸςγεένης (Matthew 23:15), υἱὸςθανάτου (2 Samuel 12:5), and τέκναἀπωλείας (Isaiah 57:4). Judas was “ the son of loss,” although Jesus came to save the lost. For him Jesus did not pray (cf. 1 John 5:16). ἀπώλεια is generally used in the N.T. for the final “ loss” of a man (it does not occur again in Jn.); but at Mark 14:4 it is the word for the “ waste” of the ointment, of which (as Jn. tells, 12:4) it was Judas that complained. It has been suggested that possibly this incident was in mind when Judas was called ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλείας , “ the son of loss,” the man who really wasted what was precious.1 But the ordinary interpretation is simpler and more probable. ἵναἡγραφὴπληρωθῇ . It is not quite certain whether this is a comment of Jn. on the words of Jesus which he has just narrated, or whether he means to place it in the mouth of Jesus Himself.2 It is to be observed that in 18:9, where the words, “ of those whom Thou hast given me, I lost not one,” are cited from the present passage, there is no appeal to the O.T., but Jn. applies ἵναπληρωθῇὁλόγοςκτλ . to the saying of Jesus as carrying with it the certainty of its fulfilment. Probably here ἵναἡγραφὴπλ . is a reflective gloss or comment added by the evangelist or an early editor. ἡγραφή always refers in Jn. to a definite passage of the O.T. (see on 2:22), and the Scripture here indicated was probably Psalms 41:9, which was cited before (13:18) as foreshadowing the treachery of Judas. Psalms 69:25 and 109:8 are cited in Acts 1:20 in reference to his miserable and execrated end, and his replacement by Matthias, but Psalms 41:9 is more in place here. 13. νῦνδὲπρὸςσὲἔρχομαι , repeated from v. 11; cf. 14:12. καὶταῦταλαλῶ , “ And I say these things,” viz. “ I say them aloud,” for λαλῶ implies this. ἐντῷκόσμῳ , sc. before my departure. ἵναἔχωσινκτλ . The prayer was spoken aloud, so that the apostles might overhear His intercessions for them, and hearing might rejoice. See on 11:42, where Jesus is represented, in the rec. text, as having said explicitly that some words of His thanksgiving were uttered διὰτὸνὄχλον . τὴνχαρὰντὴνἐμὴνπεπληρωμένηνἐνἑαυτοῖς . This is a phrase several times repeated in Jn.; see on 15:11, 16:24. To hear Jesus rejoice when speaking in prayer of the faithfulness of His chosen friends would awaken in them feelings of joy, which would be His joy “ fulfilled in them.” For ἑαυτοῖς (א ABNW), the rec. has αὐτοῖς (probably from the next line). 14. ἐγὼδέδωκααὐτοῖςτὸνλόγονσου , repeated from v. 8, τὸνλόγον being substituted for τὰῥήματα (see on 5:38), the perfect δέδωκα in both cases implying that Jesus had continued to give to the disciples the revelation of the Father, and was still giving it. καὶὁκόσμοςἐμίσησεναὐτούς . This was the badge of a disciple (15:18, 19, where the verb is in the present tense, μισεῖ , which D substitutes here for the harder ἐμίσησεν ). We should expect the perf. μεμίσηκεν as in 15:24, if not μισεῖ ; this is one of the cases in which Jn. uses the aorist as if it were a perfect (cf. 12:28, 13:34, 15:15; and see Abbott, Diat. 2441). ὅτιοὐκεἰσὶνἐκτοῦκόσμου . A fine and eloquent exposition of the thought that Christian disciples generally, and not the apostles only, are in the world but not of the world is given in the second-century Ep. to Diognetus (vi. 3), with a probable allusion to vv. 11, 14. See on 3:16. καθὼςἐγὼοὐκεἰμὶἐκτοῦκόσμου . So He had said at 8:23, where see note. 15. οὐκἐρωτῶἵναἄρῃςαὐτούςκτλ . The question as to how far Christians were to separate themselves from the company of non-Christians, from the Jewish and heathen world, was urgent and difficult in the apostolic age. In 1 Corinthians 5:10, Paul explains, in terms similar to those of this passage, that for a complete dissociation from heathen of evil lives, a Christian disciple would have to “ go out of the world.” On the other hand, he is equally explicit in his statement (Galatians 1:4) that the purpose of the sacrifice of Christ was that He might deliver us from the present evil age . These two principles are tersely enunciated in the present verse. The apostles would have to live in the world, for that was to be the theatre of their evangelical ministry; but they would need the special grace of God to keep them from its evil influences. ἀλλ ʼ ἵνατηρήσῃςαὐτοὺςἐκτοῦπονηροῦ . This is the first petition of Jesus for the Eleven, viz. for their protection and deliverance. τηρεῖνἐκ is found again in N.T. only at Revelation 3:10, a passage very similar to the present: ὅτιἐτήρησαςτὸνλόγον … κἀγώσετηρήσωἐκτῆςὥραςτοῦπειρασμοῦ . A nearer parallel is in 1 John 5:18, where it is said of a child of God, that Christ τηρεῖαὐτόν , καὶὁπονηρὸςοὐκἅπτεταιαὐτοῦ . ὁπονηρός appears again 1 John 2:14, 1 John 5:19 . The agency of the personal devil, Satan, is not doubted by John 13:27, and the references to ὁἄρχωντοῦκόσμουτούτου (12:31, 14:30, 16:11). In the words ἵνατηρήσῃςαὐτοὺςἐκτοῦπονηροῦ , we probably have an echo of the clause in the Lord’ s Prayer, ῥῦσαιἡμᾶςἀπὸτοῦπονηροῦ (Matthew 6:13; see above on v. 1).1 Some commentators have endeavoured to distinguish the meaning of ἀπὸ from that of ἐκ in constructions like this (see on 1:44), but this is over subtle. Cf. the parallelism in Psalms 140:1: ἐξελοῦμεἐξἀνθρώπουπονηροῦ ἀπὸἀνδρὸςἀδίκουῥῦσαίμε . 16. This verse is repeated from v. 14, οὐκεἰμί here preceding ἐκτοῦκόσμου , according to א ABcDLW. 17. Here is the second petition for the Eleven (cf. v. 15), viz. for their consecration. ἁγιάζειν (see on 10:36) connotes not so much the selection of a man for an important work as the equipping and fitting him for its due discharge. It is applied to the divine separation of Jeremiah for the work of a prophet (Jeremiah 1:5); and also to Aaron and his sons for their priestly office, Exodus 28:41, where the Divine command to Moses is ἀγιάσειςαὐτούς , ἵναἱερατεύωσίνμοι . (See Additional Note on 18:15.) ἁγιάζειν is not equivalent to καθαρίζειν ; one who is not ἡγιασμένος is not necessarily impure. Of the apostles it had already been said ἤδηὑμεῖςκαθαροίἐστε , and the effective instrument of their purification was the λόγος which Jesus had spoken to them (15:3), as the Divine λόγος is said here also to be the medium of their consecration. But the two ideas of ἁγιασμός and καθαρισμός are not identical. Just because the Eleven were already, in a sense, pure, being not “ of the world” even as their Master was not “ of the world” (v. 16), is their consecration for their future task a fitting boon to be asked in prayer of God who is Himself ἅγιος (v. 11). Cf. Paul’ s prayer for his Thessalonian converts that God would consecrate them wholly (ἁγιάσαιὑμᾶςὁλοτελεῖς , 1 Thessalonians 5:23). ἐντῇἀληθείᾳ . Truth would be the medium of their consecration, as (although this is not expressed in the present passage) the “ Spirit of Truth” would be the Agent (cf. 16:13). See also 8:32. So Paul said of his Thessalonian converts that God had chosen them εἰςσωτηρίανἐνἁγιασμῷπνεύματοςκαὶπίστειἀληθείας (2 Thessalonians 2:13). Westcott makes the pregnant comment that “ the end of the Truth is not wisdom … but holiness.” After άληθείᾳ the rec. text adds σου , but om. א ABCDLWΘ . What is meant by ἀληθείᾳ is explained in the next clause. ὁλόγοςὁσὸςἀλήθειάἐστιν . It is not always noticed that this is a quotation from the LXX of Psa 119:142, ὁλόγοςσουἀλήθεια (cf. 2 Samuel 7:28). Jesus had already said of the disciples, τὸνλόγονσουτετήρηκαν (v. 6, where see note); and thus they were in the way of consecration, which is in truth (cf. 14:6). Such consecration is not an isolated event in the life-history of a disciple, but is a continuous process (cf. οἱἁγιαζόμενοι , Hebrews 2:11). Westcott quotes an interesting parallel from a Jewish prayer for the new year: “ Purify our hearts to serve Thee in truth. Thou, O God, art Truth, and Thy word is truth, and standeth for ever.” 18. καθὼςἐμὲἀπέστειλας . For this thought, five times expressed in this chapter, cf. v. 8 and see on 3:17. That the relation between Jesus and His disciples is comparable with that between the Son and the Father is several times stated in the discourses of Jesus as reported by Jn. As is the love of the Father to the Son, so is the love of Jesus for His disciples (15:9). The glory which the Father gave to the Son was given by Jesus to His disciples (17:22). As the Son lives by the Father , so His disciples live by Jesus (δι ʼ ἐμέ , 6:57). As the Father knows the Son, and the Son the Father, so does Jesus know His sheep, and they know Him (10:14, 15). As the Son is “ in” the Father, so are His disciples “ in” Jesus (14:20). These are amazing teachings, but they are deep-rooted in the Fourth Gospel. And, corresponding to them, we have the saying of this verse that as the Father sent the Son into the world, so Jesus sent His apostles into the world. The comparison καθὼς … καί in such passages can never be exact or definite (see on 6:57), but at the same time it points in each case to something more than a superficial analogy. κἀγὼἀπέστειλααὐτοὺςεἰςτὸνκόσμον . The words carry a reference not only to the original choice of the Twelve, ἵναἀποστέλλῃαὐτοὺςκηρύσσειν (Mark 3:14; cf. Luke 9:2), but to their future mission, the aorist being used because of the certainty of this predetermined future in store for them. The actual commission is recorded at 20:21, 22: καθὼςἀπέσταλκένμεὁπατήρ , κἀγὼπέμπωὑμᾶς … λάβετεπνεῦμαἅγιον . (No distinction can be drawn between ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω in such passages; see on 3:17.) Cf. also 4:38. 19. καὶὑπὲραὐτῶνἐγὼἁγιάζωἐμαυτόν . ἐγώ is om. by א W, but ins. BCDLNΘ rightly: it is here emphatic. ὑπέρ is a favourite prep. with Jn., who always uses it as meaning “ on behalf of.” See on 1:30, and cf. 6:51. ἐγὼἁγιάζωἐμαυτόν . At 10:36 He had spoken of Himself as One ὃνὁπατὴρἡγίασεν . But there is no inconsistency. The Father “ consecrated” Jesus for His mission to the world; and now that His mission is about to be consummated in death, Jesus “ consecrates” Himself, as He enters upon the Passion. So He had said before of His life, “ I lay it down of myself” (10:18). In His death He was both Priest and Victim. The two petitions for the disciples were for their deliverance from the Evil One (v. 15), and for their consecration (v. 17). These are the two purposes of the Atonement, as set out Titus 2:14, “ Who gave Himself for us, in order that He might (1) redeem us from all iniquity, and (2) purify to Himself a peculiar people zealous of good works.” So here the “ consecration ” of Himself to the Cross by Jesus was not only that His chosen apostles might in their turn be guarded and consecrated, but that the same consecration might be the portion of all future disciples (v. 20). There is a special emphasis on ἐγώ . No one else could say, “ I consecrate myself.” It is only through His consecration that His disciples can be consecrated; and so in Hebrews 10:10 we find the confession, “ We have been consecrated through the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ.” In a sense, He is the consecrator of all such: “ He that consecrates and they that are being consecrated are all of one” (ἐξἑνός , Hebrews 2:11), a thoroughly Johannine statement, although it does not appear in Jn. ἵναὦσινκαὶαὐτοὶἡγιασμένοιἐνἀληθείᾳ . Cf. v. 17 for truth, the Divine λόγος , the full revelation of the Father, as the medium of consecration to the Christian life. The Prayer of Jesus for All Future Disciples (vv. 20-26) 20. We now reach the third division of the Prayer of Jesus, which passes from the thought of the apostles to the thought of all those who should reach discipleship through their ministry. ἀλλὰκαὶπερὶτῶνπιστευόντωνκτλ . πιστευόντων is a proleptic or anticipatory present participle, with the force of a future, qui credituri sunt (Vulg.). Some minuscules, which the rec. text follows, through misunderstanding, have adopted πιστευσόντων . διὰτοῦλόγουαὐτῶν . The “ word” of the evangelical preachers was the message of God in Christ which they brought, such preaching being an essential preliminary to faith. Cf. Romans 10:14. εἰςἐμέ . For πιστεύεινεἰς … , see on 1:12. 21. As the Church grew, so would the risk of disunion among its members be intensified. Jesus had already prayed that His apostles might be united in will and purpose even as the Father and the Son are united . He now repeats this petition for all future disciples, ἵναπάντεςἓνὦσιν , stating more fully what the nature of this ideal unity was to be. There is no suggestion of a unity of organisation, such as that which appears in Paul’ s conception of the Church as one body with many members, each performing its appropriate function (Romans 12:4f., 1 Corinthians 12:12f.). No biological analogy is offered here to assist us in comprehending the sense in which Christians are intended to be one. Jesus had said already that His sheep would ultimately be One Flock, even as they had One Shepherd (10:16). But the mystical phrases used in this passage transcend even that thought. For He prays that the unity of His disciples may be realised in the spiritual life, after the pattern of that highest form of unity, in which the Father is “ in” the Son and the Son “ in” the Father. This unity, however, as appertaining to Christian discipleship, is not invisible; it is to be such as will convince the world of the Divine mission of the common Master of Christians. And He has already explained that the badge of this unity is love, the love of Christian for Christian which all men may see (13:35). ἵναπάντεςἓνὦσιν . For the use of the neuter singular here, see on 10:30; and cf. ἵνατὰτέκνατοῦθεοῦ … συναγάγῃεἰςἕν (11:52). καθὼςσύ , Πάτερ , ἐνἐμοὶ (cf. 14:10, 20) κἀγὼἐνσοί (cf. 14:11). That men might come to acknowledge this central assertion of His claim had been the immediate object of His mission (see on 10:38). Jn. always expresses the voc. by πάτερ . In this passage πατήρ is read by BDW, and by AB at vv. 24, 25. See Abbott, Diat. 2052, and cf. note on [8]:10. ἵνακαὶαὐτοὶἐνἡμῖνὦσιν . Before ὦσιν the rec. text inserts ἕν , with א AC3LNΘ , but BC*DW a b c e om. ἕν . It has probably come in from the earlier clause ἵναπάντεςἓνὦσιν . The ideal is that all Christians may be ἐνἡμῖν . “ Abide in me” was the counsel of 15:4 (cf. 1 John 3:24, 1 John 5:20), but rightly obeyed this implies abiding in God; the use of the plural ἡμῖν here, recalling the plural verbs at 14:23. Cf. 1 John 1:3, ἡκοινωνίαἡἡμετέραμετὰτοῦπατρὸςκαὶμετὰτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . To be “ in Christ” is to be “ in God.” Those who are thus “ in God” share the Divine life in common, and are therefore one, ἓνκαθὼςἡμεῖς (v. 11); it being always remembered that καθώς in such passages is only suggestive of a partial, not a complete, analogy (see on v. 18 above, and cf. 6:57). Ignatius has some sentences reminiscent of these thoughts, where he approves the Ephesian Christians for being closely joined with the bishop: “ as the Church is with Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity (ἵναπάνταἐνἑνότητισύμφωναᾖ , Eph_5). ἵναὁκόσμοςπιστεύῃὅτισύμεἀπέστειλας . The consequence of the spiritual unity of Christians, as indicated by their common love for each other, is that the world will be at last convinced (cf. 16:8) that the mission of Jesus was divine, and that He is “ the Saviour of the world” (4:42). For such forecasts of universal homage, cf. Revelation 3:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:28. See v. 23 below. πιστεύῃ . So א BW, but the rec., with א cADLNΘ , has the inferior reading πιστεύσῃ . πιστεύῃ indicates the gradual growth of faith, “ may come to believe.” 22. κἀγὼτὴνδόξανκτλ . “ And I, even I, have given to them the glory which Thou hast given to me.” Quanta maiestas Christianorum! is Bengel’ s penetrating comment. But what is this δόξα It is not the glory of the Eternal Word, spoken of in v. 24. That a faithful disciple may hope to see, but not to share (although 1 Peter 5:1 seems to claim more than is suggested in Jn.). It is rather the glory of the Incarnate Word (see on 1:14), which Jesus exhibited in His earthly ministry (2:11), the manifestation of the Divine Nature in man. His disciples were the branches of which He was the Vine (15:5), or, as it is expressed in 2 Peter 1:4, they had become θείαςκοινωνοὶφύσεως , “ partakers of the Divine Nature.” See on 8:54 for the “ glorification” of the Son by the Father; and for the “ glorification” of believers, cf. Romans 8:30. For δέδωκας , ADNWΘ have ἔδωκας ; and for δέδωκα , א ANΘ have ἔδωκα . See on v. 4 for similar variants. ἵναὦσινἓνκαθὼςἡμεῖςἕν . The rec. adds ἐσμεν , but om. BC*DLW. The consequence of the imparting of His Incarnate δόξα to His disciples by Jesus would be that, sharing this in common with Him and with each other, they would be spiritually united, and thus be one, even as the Father and the Son are one. 23. ἐγὼἐναὐτοῖςκαὶσὺἐνἐμοί , the nature of the unity of believers being once again illustrated by that highest pattern of Unity, the Unity of the Godhead. “ I in them” ; so He had spoken before (14:20), and the idea of Christ being “ in” the believer is as familiar a thought to Paul as it is to Jn.; cf. Romans 8:10, 2 Corinthians 13:5, Galatians 2:20, Galatians 4:19. ἵναὦσιντετελειωμένοιεἰςἕν . The imparting of His δόξα to the disciples of Jesus would not only tend to unite them, but it would at last completely unite them, “ that they may be perfected (cf. for τελειοῦσθαι used thus, 1 John 2:5, 1 John 2:4:12, 1 John 2:17, 1 John 2:18; cf. Philippians 3:12) into one.” With τετ . εἰςἕν , cf. συναγάγῃεἰςἕν (11:52). ἵναγινώσκῃὁκόσμοςὅτισύμεἀπέστειλας . Here is the final consequence of the impartation of the “ glory” of Jesus to His disciples, viz. that the world might come to be assured of His Divine mission; the phrase being repeated from v. 21, γινώσκῃ being substituted for πιστεύῃ . Cf. the concluding words of the Farewell Discourse, ἵναγνῷὁκόσμος … (14:31). This is Jesus’ ideal of the world’ s future. καὶἠγάπησαςαὐτοὺςκαθώςκτλ . For thus will the world be led to the knowledge that God loved it with the same kind of love as that with which He loved His Son (5:20); and that therefore He had sent His Son. These are the thoughts of the “ comfortable word” of 3:16, which are here expressed as a prayer. For ἠγάπησας there is a Western reading, ἠγάπησα (D a b, etc.), which is a mistaken correction (introduced from 15:9), the connexion of the passage with 3:16 having been missed. 24. There follows the thought of those who have been “ perfected into one” on earth, sharing the fellowship of their common Lord in heaven, as they behold His eternal glory. πάτερ . See on v. 11. ὃδέδωκάςμοι . ὅ is for οὕς (cf. v. 12), the neuter singular suggesting their unity, as at 6:37, 39, where see note. θέλω . He does not now say ἐρωτῶ (v. 20 and see on 11:22), but θέλω , “ I wish.” He has said repeatedly that He did not come to do His own will , but the will of the Father (4:34, 5:30, 6:38-40); and in the Agony at Gethsemane He distinguishes His human will from the Father’ s (οὐτίἐγὼθέλω , ἀλλὰτίσύ , Mark 14:36). But at this moment of spiritual exaltation, the climax of His consecration of Himself to death, He realises the perfect coincidence of His will with the Father’ s, and so can say θέλω (cf. ὁυἱὸςοὓςθέλειζωοποιεῖ , 5:21). The use of θέλω at 21:22 is different, for there it is the θέλω of authority which the master may address to a disciple. ἵναὅπουεἰμὶἐγὼκἀκεῖνοιὦσινμετ ʼ ἐμοῦ , sc. hereafter in glory. See 12:26, 13:36, 14:3 for the thought of the spiritual fellowship of His disciples with Christ continuing after death. Cf. 2 Timothy 2:11, 2 Timothy 2:12, Romans 8:17. ἵναθεωρῶσιντὴνδόξαντὴνἐμήν . This is not the glory of the Incarnate Christ. That they had been permitted to see with the eyes of the body, ἐθεασάμεθατὴνδόξαναὐτοῦ (see on 1:14). θεωρεῖν is used here of spiritual perception (cf. 12:45, and see on 2:23). The δόξα , of which the vision is to be the portion of the saints, is the glory of the Eternal Logos, which He had with the Father “ before the world was” (v. 5). They are to see Him “ as He is” (1 John 3:2). ἣνδέδωκάςμοι . The rec. has ἔδωκας with BNΓΔΘ , but א ACDLW have δέδωκας (see on v. 4), which is accepted by Westcott-Hort against the testimony of B. Against the interpretation of δόξα here as referring to the glory of the Eternal Word, several exegetes have urged that a “ giving” of glory by the Father to the Son before the Incarnation is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. But there is no other passage which refers to the eternal relationships inherent in Deity with the same boldness and confidence of vision that appear in this Last Prayer of Christ. These are unique utterances (cf. also v. 5); and a clear distinction seems to be indicated between the δόξα of v. 22 which had been given to the disciples, and the δόξα of v. 24 which they might hope to contemplate hereafter, but which was given only to Christ. ὅτιἠγάπησάςμεπρὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου . This, in fact, is the δόξα of the Eternal Word. Eternal Love is Eternal Glory; even as Eternal Love and Eternal Glory may be regarded as respectively the subjective and objective aspects of Eternal Life. πρὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου . καταβολή occurs only once in the LXX (2 Macc. 2:29, of the foundation of a house), and eleven times in the N.T., in nine of which it is followed by κόσμου (ἀπὸκατ . κόσμ ., Matthew 25:34, Luke 11:50, Hebrews 4:3, Hebrews 9:26, Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8). We find πρὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου , as here, at Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20. The phrase also occurs in the Assumption of Moses, a first-century work, in a passage of which the Greek has been preserved (i. 13, 14, ed. Charles). The sentence “ in that Thou hast loved me before the foundation of the world,” suggests the idea of predestination, so frequently appearing in Jn. (see on 2:4). 25. Πάτερδίκαιε . That God is righteous is fundamental in the Jewish religion (cf. Jeremiah 12:1, Psalms 116:5, Psalms 119:137), and fundamental, too, in Christianity (Romans 3:26, Romans 3:16:5, 1 John 1:9). The appeal at this point of the Prayer is to the justice of God, that He may distinguish between those who accept the Divine mission of Jesus, and the hostile world which rejects Him. For the former, Jesus has made the request that they may be with Him, hereafter (v. 24). καί , before ὁκόσμος , “ is intended to keep the reader in suspense, aware that the meaning is incomplete” (Abbott, Diat. 2164). It is omitted by D ὁκόσμοςσεοὐκἔγνω . See on 8:55. ἐγὼδέσεἔγνων . This is a parenthetical sentence, the real antithesis to “ the world knew Thee not” being “ but these knew,” which follows. Jesus, as Incarnate, habitually claims a unique knowledge of God (7:29, 8:55, 10:15). καὶοὗτοιἔγνωσανκτλ . “ But these knew that Thou didst send me,” this being the important thing to be assured of, viz. that God had sent Jesus, this refrain occurring for the last time (see on v. 8). The thought of Jesus returns from the Church of the future to the disciples in whose company He offered a last prayer. Its final clauses have to do with them. οὗτοι , these, knew this much at least, that the mission of Jesus was divine. The contrast with the failure of “ the world” to recognise Him is brought up by καί , used here adversatively, as often in Jn. (see on 3:11): “ but these knew.” 26. καὶἐγνώρισααὐτοῖςτὸὄνομάσου , repeated in slightly different form from v. 6, where see note. For γνωρίζειν , cf. 15:15. καὶγνωρίσω , sc. in the Church of the future, by the Spirit which is to come (16:12, 25). ἵναἡἀγάπηἣνἠγάπησάςμεἐναὐτοῖςᾖ . This is not a prayer that God may love Christian disciples with the same kind of love as that with which He loved Christ. Already, at v. 23, we have seen that even “ the world” — in its alienation and hostility— was thus loved by God, although the world did not recognise it. But the prayer is that the love of God for all Christian disciples, similar as it is to the love of God for Christ, may be “ in them,” that is, their sense of it may become vivid and efficacious; so that they may recognise, in Paul’ s words, “ that the love of God has been shed abroad in their hearts, through the Holy Spirit” (Romans 5:5). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ The Arrest of Jesus in the Garden (18:1-11) 18:1. ταῦταεἰπών . As soon as the Prayer of Consecration was ended (see Introd., p. xx), Jesus and His disciples left the upper room, and went out, ἐξῆλθεν perhaps implying (as was in fact the case) that they went outside the city. σὺντοῖςμαθηταῖςαὐτοῦ , sc. with the faithful Eleven (see on 2:2). This is one of the very rare occurrences of σύν in Jn. (see on 12:2), and it is exchanged for μετά within a couple of lines, μετὰτῶνμαθητῶναὐτοῦ (v. 2). πέραντοῦχειμάρρουτοῦΚέδρων . The Kedron gorge between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives rarely has any water in it. It is called χείμαρρος by Josephus as well as in the LXX (Nehemiah 2:15, Nehemiah 2:1 Macc. 12:37), but it is nearly always dry, except after very heavy Rev_1 The modern name is Wā dy Sitti Maryam. The majority of texts give τῶνκέδρων ; א *DW have τοῦκέδρου ; and AΔ c e f g q vg. give τοῦκέδρων This last, despite the weakness of the MS. support, we take to be the true reading (as the Syriac vss. suggest), and that from which both the others have originated, owing to misunderstanding on the part of scribes. For κέδρων is the transliteration of the Hebrew ק ִ ד ְ ר ו ֹ ן , dark, the name as applied to a torrent being perhaps equivalent to our Blackwater. Josephus treats it as a declinable noun in the nom. case. Twice in the LXX (2 Samuel 15:23, 1 Kings 15:13) we find τῶνκέδρων after χείμαρρος , the word being taken as a gen. pl., and the rendering of the phrase being “ the ravine (or torrent) of the cedar trees.” It is said that at the time cedars grew on the Mount of Olives, and some may have been as low as the wā dy at its base. But it is not likely that the ravine was called Kidron on that account. A Greek scribe, finding τοῦκέδρων in his exemplar, would naturally take κέδρων as the gen. pl. of κέδρος , and would correct it either to τοῦκέδρου or to τῶνκέδρων .2 The reading has been much discussed, because assuming τῶνκέδρων to have been the original reading, it has been argued that the evangelist was but ill acquainted with Hebrew names, if he supposed that Kidron meant “ of the cedars.” But, as the LXX shows in the passages cited above, χείμαρροςτῶνκέδρων was treated as a correct rendering of נ ח ל ק ד ר ו ן , and it might have been adopted by Jn. as the title familiar to Greek ears. We hold, however, that it is not the original reading in this verse, so that the argument based on it is worthless. ὅπουἦνκῆπος . Jn. does not give the name Gethsemane,3 nor does Lk.; Mark 14:32, Matthew 26:36 have χωρίον (i.e. a farm or small property) οὗτὸὄνομαΓεθσημανεί . Jn. alone speaks of it as κῆπος , i.e. it was one of the private gardens in the eastern outskirts of Jerusalem (cf. 19:41 for the garden of Joseph). The word κῆπος is common in the LXX, but in the N.T. is found only here, at v. 26, 19:41 (cf. 20:15), and Luke 13:19. For ἦν , see on 11:18. εἰςὃνεἰσῆλθεν , the verb showing that it was an enclosed place. The site that is now shown was recognised as the Garden of the Agony in the fourth century at any rate, and it is quite possible that tradition accurately preserved its position from the beginning. Jn. does not insert at this point any account of the Agony in Gethsemane, as the Synoptists do (Mark 14:32f., Matthew 26:36f., Luke 22:39f.); but the allusion to “ the cup which the Father gave” (v. 11, where see note) indicates that the omission was not due to ignorance. We have seen (on 12:27) that the prayer there recorded is virtually the prayer of anguish at Gethsemane. It has been suggested, indeed, that the Prayer of the Agony, if it followed here, would be inconsistent with the Prayer of Consecration and Farewell that Jn. has just placed on record; so different are the sublime calm and dignity of c. 17 from the sadness and shrinking of “ remove this cup from me— yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt” (Mark 14:36). But such a criticism would be at variance with the facts of human experience, in which the moments of greatest spiritual depression and trial often follow close on moods of the highest spiritual exaltation. And it may have been so with the Son of Man Himself. 2. ᾔδειδὲκαὶἸούδας . The garden was a favourite resort of Jesus and His disciples , and probably belonged to a friend. It is specially mentioned by Jn. that Judas knew the place. Jesus was not now trying to escape arrest (cf. 10:40), for Jn. is anxious to indicate that His surrender to His captors was voluntary. Jesus had told Judas to delay no longer the execution of his purpose (13:27), and He proceeded the same night to a place where Judas knew that He was accustomed to resort. ὁπαραδιδοὺςαὐτόν , the pres. tense indicating that Judas was then engaged in the business of the betrayal. Cf. 13:11. τὸντόπον . Cf. Luke 22:40. πολλάκις , only here in Jn. Jesus went to the garden, as His custom was (κατὰτὸἔθος , Luke 22:39), and probably not only on this last visit to Jerusalem. συνήχθη tells only that this was a place of habitual resort of Jesus and His disciples, but possibly they may have slept there occasionally. (Cf. Luke 21:37, τὰςδὲνύκταςἐξερχόμενοςηὐλίζετοεἰςτὸὄροςτὸκαλούμενονἘλαιῶν .) If this be so, the sleep of the apostles in the garden during the hour preceding the arrest was natural indeed, although they had been bidden to keep awake. 3. The Synoptists say nothing about soldiers taking part in the arrest of Jesus, and mention only the emissaries of the Sanhedrim (Mark 14:43, Luke 22:52 stating that members of the Sanhedrim were themselves in the crowd). Jn. mentions these latter in the same terms that he has done before when telling of a projected arrest (7:32, where see the note for the constitution and authority of the Sanhedrim); but he adds here that Judas had brought with him also a detachment of soldiers . Troops were always quartered in Fort Antonia, at festival seasons when the city was crowded, to be ready in case of a riot; and a representation from the Sanhedrim to the military authorities that soldiers might be needed to help the Temple guard (ὑπηρέτας : cf. 7:32) would naturally have been acted on. Pilate, the procurator, seems to have known that something important was taking place that night, for he was ready at an early hour in the morning to hear the case (v. 28; cf. Matthew 27:19, for the dream of Pilate’ s wife). There is nothing improbable in Jn.’ s statement that soldiers were present at the arrest. The term σπεῖρα (if the soldiers were legionaries) was generally equivalent to the Latin cohors, which numbered 600 men. Polybius, indeed, uses it (xi. 23. 1) for manipulus, which is only one-third of a cohort. But here (if, as is probable, they were auxiliaries) and in the N.T. elsewhere (see esp. Acts 21:31) it numbered 1000 men (240 horse and 760 foot), commanded by a chiliarch (cf. v. 12 below), a tribunus militum. It is not, however, to be supposed that Jn. means that the whole strength of the regiment (cf. Mark 15:16) was turned out to aid in the arrest of Jesus; the words λαβὼντὴνσπεῖραν indicate no more than that Judas had got the help of “ the cohort,” i.e. a detachment, with whom the commanding officer of the garrison came (v. 12), in view of possible developments. Fam. 13 insert ὅλην before τὴνσπεῖραν (probably from Mark 15:16), which shows that the scribe of the common exemplar thought that τὴνσπεῖραν was not sufficiently definite. καὶἐκτῶνἀρχιερέωνκαὶἐκτῶνφαρισαίωνὑπηρέτας , i.e. officers of the Sanhedrim (see on 7:32 for οἱἀρχ . καὶοἱΦαρις ., as indicating the Sanhedrim in its official capacity). For ὑπηρέτας , cf. 18:12, 22, 19:6 and Matthew 26:58; they were the Temple police, under the control of the Sanhedrim. μετὰφανῶνκαὶλαμπάδων . It was the time of the Paschal full moon, but lights were brought, nevertheless, to search out the dark recesses of the garden, in case Jesus should attempt to hide Himself. φανός (ἅπ . λεγ . in N.T.) is a “ link” or “ torch,” made of strips of wood fastened together, and λαμπάς is an ordinary torch-light, the word being used in later Greek for a lantern. Both were carried by Roman soldiers on duty; cf. Dion. Hal. xi. 5, ἐξέτρεχονἅπαντεςἐκτῶνσκηνῶνἀθρόοι , φανοὺςἔχοντεςκαὶλαμπάδας .1 Lights also were carried, when necessary, by the Temple guard; thus Lightfoot (on Luke 22:4) quotes: “ The ruler of the mountain of the Temple takes his walks through every watch with torches lighted before him” (Middoth i. 2). καὶὅπλων . The Temple guard was not always armed (Joseph. B.J., iv. 4. 6), but on this occasion they probably carried weapons as well as the soldiers. Mark 14:43 speaks of a crowd with swords and staves who had been sent by the Sanhedrim. 4. Ἰησοῦςοὖν . א DLW have δέ for οὖν . εἰδώς . Cf. 13:1. Jn. is at every point careful to insist that Jesus foreknew the issues of His ministry, πάντατὰἐρχόμεναἐπ ʼ αὐτόν , “ everything that was coming upon Him.” ἐξῆλθεν , “ went out,” sc. of the garden into which He had entered, εἰσῆλθεν (v. 1). The rec. text with א AC3LNΘ has ἐξελθὼνεἶπεν , but ἐξῆλθενκαὶλέγει (BC*D) is more in the style of Jn. (see on 1:50). καὶλέγειαὐτοῖς . He does not address Himself directly to Judas, but to those who had come, armed, to arrest Him, and He asks Τίναζητεῖτε ; Cf. 1:38, 20:15. In the Synoptic narratives (Mark 14:45, Matthew 26:49, Luke 22:47) Judas comes forward and identifies Jesus by a kiss, that is, by kissing His hand, the recognised salutation from a disciple to His Master (not by kissing His cheek, as Western painters have been accustomed to depict the act). Jn. does not mention this treacherous sign, and his omission to do so is a difficulty in the way of critics who think that Jn. displays special animus against Judas (see on 12:6). His reason for the omission is probably that he is laying stress throughout on the voluntariness of Jesus’ acceptance of arrest. Jesus does not wait to be identified by any one, for He at once announces who He is. Jn.’ s narrative seems to suggest that He had not been recognised in the uncertain light, even after He came out of the garden and asked, “ Whom seek ye?” Tatian places the kiss of Judas immediately before v. 4, i.e. before Jesus came out of the garden; and if it is sought to bring the evangelical narratives into exact correspondence, Tatian’ s solution may be the right one.1 Jn. says (v. 5) that “ Judas, who was in the act of delivering Him up” (ὁπαραδιδοὺςαὐτόν , cf. 13:2), was standing with those who were making the arrest. Judas had done his part when he had guided the emissaries of the Sanhedrim to the place where Jesus was. The scene is described very vividly. 5. ἀπεκρ . αὐτῷἸησοῦντὸνΝαζωραῖον . “ Jesus the Nazarene,” or “ Jesus of Nazareth,” was the name by which He had been popularly known. The blind man was told that it was “ Jesus of Nazareth” who was passing by (Mark 10:47, Luke 18:37). The man with the unclean devil addressed Him as “ Thou Jesus of Nazareth” (Luke 4:34). The two disciples on the way to Emmaus spoke of Him thus (Luke 24:19). So did Peter in his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:22). In Mk.’ s account of the Resurrection, the young man at the sepulchre says to the women, “ Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth” (Mark 16:6). After His arrest, He was familiarly described in this way by the maid in the court of the high priest (Mark 14:67, Matthew 26:71). It is clear that the instructions given to those sent to apprehend Him were that they should take “ Jesus of Nazareth.” They inquired for Him by the designation by which He was best known. See 19:19. Jn.’ s narrative indicates, as has been said above, that Jesus identified Himself voluntarily, by saying, “ I am He,” in answer to the request for “ Jesus of Nazareth.” And ἐγώεἰμι in v. 5 may mean simply, “ I am He of whom you are in search” (cf. 4:26, 9:9). The reading of B ἐγώεἰμιἸησοῦς must carry this meaning. 6. The words which follow, “ they retired and fell to the ground,” then, imply no more than that the men who came to make the arrest (some of whom at least did not previously know Jesus even by sight) were so overcome by His moral ascendancy that they recoiled in fear. (For the Johannine ὡςοὖν , see on 4:40.) On a previous occasion (7:44), when some wished to arrest Him, they had faltered and failed to do so. It may have been a similar shrinking which caused some now to recoil from their distasteful task, and in the confusion they, or some of the crowd, stumbled and fell. Indeed, ἔπεσανχαμαί might be taken figuratively, as expressing discomfiture only. Thus in Psalms 27:2, Isaiah 8:15, Jeremiah 46:6, “ stumbled and fell” means no more than that enemies were “ overthrown” ; and ἔπεσανχαμαί might be rendered in colloquial English “ were floored.” There is no hint in the Synoptists of any hesitancy on the part of those sent to make the arrest. The phrases ἀπῆλθανεἰςτὰὀπίσω (cf. 6:66) and ἔπεσανχαμαί (χαμαί is only found again in the N.T. at 9:6) are peculiar to Jn. And it has been suggested (e.g. by W. Bauer) that Jn. means us to understand that ἐγώεἰμι , as used by Jesus on this occasion, is the equivalent of the mysterious א ֲ נ ִ י ־ ה ו ּ א , I (am) He, which is the self- designation of Yahweh in the prophetical books (cf. 8:58, 13:19 above, and Introd., pp. cxxvii ff.); and that so awful a claim overwhelmed with terror those who heard it made (cf. Daniel 10:9, Revelation 1:17). But this is too subtle a rendering of the Johannine narrative of the arrest. Cf. Revelation 1:17. In the Gospel of Peter, § 5, where the darkness at the Crucifixion is described, we have περιήρχοντοδὲπολλοὶμετὰλύχνων , νομίζοντεςὅτινῦξἐστιν . [τινὲςδὲ ] ἐπέσαντο . This seems to be a reminiscence of Joh 18:3, John 18:6; cf. also Acta Thomœ , § 157. 7. The question and answer are repeated: “ Whom seek ye? … Jesus the Nazarene.” This time, those who had come to arrest Him knew to whom they were speaking, but they were so much overawed that they could only repeat what they had said before. The rec. has αὐτοὺςἐπηρώτησεν , with א DNΘ ; but AB2;CL give the more usual order ἐπηρώτησεναὐτούς . 8. The reply is stern and authoritative. He repeats ἐγώεἰμι (see on v. 5). εἰοὖνἐμὲζητ . κτλ . “ If, then, it is I (emphatic) whom you seek, let these (sc. the Eleven) go their way,” or “ go home,” for ὑπάγειν has a suggestion of this meaning (see on 7:33). His solicitude for His faithful disciples is characteristic of the Good Shepherd (cf. 10:12, and see on v. 19). 9. ἵναπληρωθῇὁλόγοςκτλ . For the phrase ἵναπληρ ., introducing a saying of Jesus, see Introd., p. cxliii f. Another example is in v. 32. For Jn., the words of Jesus were possessed of authority, and inspired, like the language of the O.T., by foreknowledge of future events. The λόγος , or “ saying” (see on 2:22), to which reference is here made is that of 17:12 loosely quoted. ὅτι is recitantis, but it does not introduce the exact words previously ascribed to Jesus. The comment of Jn. (ἵναπλ . ὁλόγοςκτλ .) would seem to limit the application of “ I lost none of those whom thou gavest me” to the fact that the disciples were let go free when Jesus was arrested. Some at least of Jn.’ s explanations of the words of Jesus are of doubtful accuracy (see on 2:19, 21); but it is hard to believe that he could have missed here the larger and more spiritual meaning of 17:12, which is already indicated at 6:39, 10:28. οὓςδέδωκάςμοι , οὐκἀπώλεσαἐξαὐτῶνοὐδένα . The close verbal parallel in 2 Ezr 2:26 is interesting: “ servos quos tibi dedi, nemo ex eis interiet, ego enim eos requiram de numero tuo,” words which are addressed by God to the personified nation. Chapters 1. and 2. of 2 Esdras are Christian, and probably belong to the second century. The passage quoted above may be a reminiscence of Joh 18:3 or John 17:12 or John 6:37. See on 3:31 above for other parallels between 2 Esdras and Jn. 10. The incident of one of the Twelve attacking the high priest’ s slave is in all the Gospels (Mark 14:47, Matthew 26:51, Luke 22:50), although the names, Peter and Malchus, are given by Jn. only. It appears from Luke 22:38, that the apostles had two swords or knives in their possession; and Lk. also tells that, when they understood that the salutation of Judas was the signal for the arrest of Jesus, they exclaimed, “ Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” It would seem that Peter, always hasty and impulsive, struck a blow without waiting for permission from Jesus. He had been forward in declaring that he would give his life for his Master, if there was need (13:37). He did not generally carry a sword; ἔχωνμάχαιραν implies that he happened to have one with him at the time, presumably because he and others had learnt from what Jesus had said previously that their Master was in danger. It was unlawful to carry arms on a feast-day, and— although at such a crisis, an eager disciple like Peter would probably have had no scruple in breaking the law if the safety of his Master was at stake— the fact that two of the company had knives with them earlier in the evening tends to show that the Last Supper was not the Passover, and that the Johannine rather than the Synoptic tradition of the day of the Crucifixion is to be followed (see Introd., p. cvi f.). Peter drew the sword, καὶἔπαισεντὸντοῦἀρχιερέωςδοῦλον , “ and struck the high priest’ s slave.” This man was one of the crowd which had gathered; he was not one of the Temple guard (ὑπηρέτας , v. 3). There was something of a scuffle, and Peter hit out. καὶἀπέκοψεναὐτοῦτὸὠτάριοντὸδεξιόν , “ and cut off his right ear,” the blow missing the slave’ s head, as he swerved to his left to avoid it. That it was the right ear is a detail only found in Lk. and Jn. ὠτάριον , the true reading here (א BC*LW), is the word used by Mk. (14:47); ὠτίον , of the rec. text , is the word in Matthew 26:51 and in Luke 22:51. We have here, without doubt, a tradition of an historical incident. If it be asked why Peter was not immediately arrested by the Temple guard or the soldiers who were standing by, the answer may be that it was not observed in the scuffle who had dealt the blow. The earlier Gospels do not disclose Peter’ s name, although by the time that Jn. wrote, there would be no risk in giving it. Again, an injury to a slave would not excite much interest; had Peter struck one of the officials, it would have been a different matter. Lk. tells, indeed, that Jesus healed the wound (Luke 22:51), apparently suggesting that the ear had not been wholly severed from the man’ s head. ἦνδὲὄνοματῷδούλῳΜάλχος . Here, again, is a detail that comes from first-hand knowledge. No evangelist has it except Jn. The name Malchus is found five times in Josephus, and probably goes back to the root מ ל ך or “ king.” Cf. Nehemiah 10:4. 11. Jesus forbids the use of arms in resisting His arrest. The Synoptists represent Him as expostulating against it, and especially against the violent way in which it was effected (Mark 14:48, Matthew 26:55, Luke 22:52); but in Jn.’ s narrative there is none of this. He moves voluntarily towards the predestined end. Βάλετὴνμάχαιρανεἰςτὴνθήκην , “ put back the sword into the sheath.” Mt., alone of the Synoptists, tells of this saying, which he gives in a more diffuse form: ἀπόστρεψόνσουτὴνμάχαιρανεἰςτὸντόποναὐτῆς · πάντεςγὰροἱλαβόντεςμάχαιρανἐνμαχαίρᾳἀπολοῦνται (Matthew 26:52), the latter clause suggesting the hand of an editor. According to Jn., Jesus gave no reason for the quiet command, “ Put up your sword.” See on v. 36 below. After μάχαιραν the rec. adds σου (from Matthew 26:52), but om. א ABCDLNWΘ . θήκη does not occur again in the N.T. τὸποτήριονὃδέδωκένμοιὁπατήρ , οὐμὴπίωαὐτό ; This recalls the prayer of Jesus at Gethsemane, as recorded by the Synoptists (Mark 14:36, Matthew 26:39, Luke 22:42). See on v. 1 above and on 12:27. οὐμὴπίωαὐτό is probably to be taken as an interrogative. Abbott, however (Diat. 934 f, 2232), prefers to take it as an exclamation, “ I am, of course, not to drink it!” [sc. according to your desire], comparing οὐμὴπίω of Mark 14:25, Matthew 26:29, Luke 22:18. See on 6:37. Jesus is Bound and Brought to the House of Annas (vv. 12-14) 12. Jn. does not record explicitly that His disciples fled in fear after Jesus had been arrested (Mark 14:50, Matthew 26:56), although he has told that Jesus earlier in the night had predicted that they would abandon Him (16:32). Jn. implies, however (see on v. 15), that Jesus was abandoned at this point by His friends. The arrest was effected by the Roman soldiers , with their commanding officer , acting in co-operation with the Temple police . συνλαμβάνειν does not occur again in Jn., but it is the verb used by the Synoptists in this context. καὶἔδησαναὐτόν . That was a matter of course; probably His hands were fastened behind His back. The Synoptists do not mention this detail until a later point in the narrative (Mark 15:1, Matthew 27:1; cf. v. 24). It was a patristic fancy that the binding of Jesus was foreshadowed in the binding of Isaac at the altar (Genesis 22:9); see on 19:17 below. 13. ἤγαγον . So א BDW (and Luke 22:54); the rec. has ἀπήγαγον (with AC3LNΓΘ , as at Mark 14:53, Matthew 26:57). πρὸςἌννανπρῶτον . Annas was not, at this time, the high priest, but he had held the office before and was a personage of such influence that he was often called “ high priest” in a loose way (cf. Luke 3:2, Acts 4:6, and see on 7:32), although that great office was now held by his son-in-law Caiaphas (see on 11:49 above).1 It was to his house that Jesus was brought after His arrest, and there an informal and extra-judicial questioning of Him went on during the night hours (Mark 14:53f., Matthew 26:57). Mk. does not give any name: he only says, “ they led Jesus away to the high priest” ; but Mt. inserts the name Caiaphas at this point, in which he seems to have been mistaken. Caiaphas presided at the formal meeting of the Sanhedrim (Mark 15:1, Matthew 27:1, Luke 22:66, John 18:24), held the next morning as early as possible, when the sentence of death, already agreed on (Mark 14:64), was ratified, and submitted to Pilate, who alone had authority to order it to be carried out. It was during the night, at the house of Annas (not the house of Caiaphas, or the formal place of meeting for the Sanhedrim, which could legally meet only by day), that the evidence, such as it was, was prepared, and that the Prisoner was treated with insult and contumely. Such irregular proceedings would not have been countenanced at a formal meeting of the Sanhedrim, but they were winked at in the courtyard of Annas’ private house, which was the scene of Peter’ s denial and the reproachful look which Jesus bestowed on him (Luke 22:61). Probably some of the evidence as to blasphemy was repeated in due form at the official sitting of the Sanhedrim, at which Luke (who says nothing of the preliminary hearing before Annas) states that Jesus admitted His claim to be Messiah (Luke 22:70), in similar words to those which Mark 14:62, Matthew 26:64 ascribe to Him at the earlier cross-examination. Such seems to have been the course of events on the night of the arrest and the next morning; but it is not possible to reconcile precisely all the evangelical accounts.1 The narrative of Jn. seems at certain points (vv. 13, 19-23, 26) to be based on first-hand knowledge, to which the other evangelists had not access. ἦνγὰρπενθερὸςτοῦΚαϊάφα . This piece of information is not given in the other Gospels, nor does the word πενθερός occur again in the N.T. ὃςἦνἀρχιερεὺςτοῦἐνιαυτοῦἐκείνου . This is repeated from 11:49, 51. Caiaphas was the official high priest, and that a man of his principles should have held the position in that fateful year had grave and awful consequences. See on 11:49. The Sinai Syriac places v. 24 at this point after v. 13. The marginal texts of the Jerusalem and Philoxenian Syriac also have here “ Annas sent Jesus (bound) to Caiaphas,” although v. 24 is retained in its traditional place. Similarly the cursive 225 and Cyril Alex. add after πρῶτον , ἀπέστειλενοὖναὐτὸνὁἌνναςδεδεμένονπρὸςΚαϊάφαντὸνἀρχιερέα . These additions or transpositions are due probably to a desire to bring Jn.’ s narrative of the examinations of Jesus by the Jewish authorities into line with the narrative of the Synoptists, who say nothing of the part played by Annas. If v. 24 is moved to a point between v. 13 and v. 14, then all that happens takes place in the house of Caiaphas (as is explicitly said by Mt.), and Annas really does nothing, although Jesus in the Johannine narrative is brought to his house in the first instance. But, if this were the original position of the words “ Annas sent Him bound unto the high priest,” it is difficult to find a reason for their being moved by a scribe to their traditional place, after v. 23. See, further, Introd., p. xxvii. 14. The reference is to 11:50, the unconscious prophecy (as Jn. deems it) made by Caiaphas, which expressed his deliberate conviction that Jesus must be brought to His death. For ἀποθανεῖν , the rec. here has ἀπολέσθαι (with AC2N), which may be the original reading, corrected by scribes to bring the words into verbal correspondence with 11:50. At 11:50 we had συμφέρει … ἵναεἷςἄνθρωποςἀποθάνῃ , but here συμφέρειἕναἄνθρωπονἀποθανεῖν , a more correct constr. Peter’ s First Denial of Jesus (vv. 15-18) 15. ἠκολούθει , a descriptive impf. The Synoptists say that Peter was following at a safe distance (Mark 14:54, Matthew 26:58, Luke 22:54), but they do not mention a companion. ΣίμωνΠέτρος . Jn. likes to use the double name (see on 1:42) when Peter has been absent from the picture for some little time, but he generally relapses into the simple “ Peter” as the story proceeds; see, e.g., 13:24, 36, 18:10, 11, 20:2, 3, 4 21:3, 7, 15, 17, 20, 21. Jn. never gives the short title “ Peter” to this apostle at the beginning of an incident in which he is concerned. In the present passage we have Simon Peter (v. 15), followed by Peter (vv. 16, 17, 18); then there is an interval, and so when the courtyard scene is resumed, we have Simon Peter again (v. 25), followed by Peter (vv. 26, 27). καὶἄλλοςμαθητής . So א *ABDsuppW. The rec. has ὁἄλλος (from v. 16) with א cbCLNOΓΔΘ , thus identifying Peter’ s companion here with “ the Beloved Disciple.” This “ other disciple” was “ known to the high priest,” and so was admitted into the courtyard or αὐλή of the house where Jesus had been brought. He was sufficiently well known to the portress, at any rate, to persuade her to admit his companion. It does not follow that he was a personal friend of Annas or of Caiaphas, or of the same social class, although this is possible. As Sanday put it: “ The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants’ hall.” 1 The word γνωστός as applied to persons is uncommon, as Abbott points out (Diat. x. ii. p. 351 f.), but it is to press it too far to interpret it here as meaning “ a familiar friend,” with an allusion to Psalms 55:13. Abbott adopts the curious view that the “ other disciple” was Judas Iscariot, whose face would have been familiar to the portress, because of his previous visit or visits to the high priest in pursuance of his scheme of betrayal. But that Judas should wish to introduce Peter, or that Peter would have tolerated any advances from him or accepted his good offices, is difficult to believe. The view most generally taken2 as to the personality of this ἄλλοςμαθητής is that he was John the Beloved Disciple, whose reminiscences are behind the Gospel, and whose identity is veiled in some degree (see on 13:23; and cf. 1:27, 21:24). This agrees with the close association elsewhere of Peter and John (see Introd., p. xxxvi). Indeed, John the son of Zebedee had priestly connexions. His mother was Salome, the sister of the Virgin Mary (see pp. 73, 84 f., and note on 19:35); and Mary was a kinswoman (συγγενίς , Luke 1:36) of Elisabeth, who was “ of the daughters of Aaron” (Luke 1:5). Hence John was connected with a priestly family on his mother’ s side, and there is no improbability in his being “ known to the high priest.” 3 But the available evidence does not permit us securely to identify the ἄλλοςμαθητής , as Augustine saw (Tract. cxiii. 2), saying that it is not plain who he was. This unnamed disciple was probably some one of influence and social importance; if we were to guess, the names of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæ a suggest themselves at once. There were disciples outside the circle of the Twelve, some of them men of rank, members of the Sanhedrim itself (see 12:42); and it is quite likely that Peter was known, by sight at least, to one of these who had attended at the house of Annas.1 It is probable that it is to this unnamed disciple (whether John or another) that the details given in vv. 19-23 about the private examination of Jesus at night by the high priest, and also perhaps about the private examination before Pilate (vv. 33 f.), are ultimately due. There are also traces of first-hand information in the statements that “ it was cold” (v. 18), and that a kinsman of the slave Malchus identified Peter (v. 26). εἰςτὴναὐλὴνκτλ ., “ into the courtyard.” All the evangelists represent this courtyard as the scene of Peter’ s denial. He was not admitted even so far, until his unnamed friend intervened, but was standing outside at the door. See on 10:1 for αὐλή and θύρα . The examination of Jesus was not conducted in the outer court where all the servants were, but in a chamber of the house of Annas. Mk. implies that this chamber was not on the ground floor, as he says that Peter was κάτωἐντῇαὐλῇ , “ below, in the court” (Mark 14:66). Additional Note on 18:15 Delff identified the ἄλλοςμαθητής of v. 15 with the Beloved Disciple, whom he distinguished from John the son of Zebedee. In connexion with the remark that he was “ known to the high priest,” Delff cited the statement of Polycrates (see Introd., p. l) that the Beloved Disciple wore the priestly frontlet; and inferred that he belonged to an aristocratic priestly family in Jerusalem, it being thus easy for him to obtain access to the high priest’ s house.2 We have already treated the problem of the ἄλλοςμαθητής . But a larger question is raised by the words of Polycrates, to which some reference may be made at this point. Polycrates says of the Beloved Disciple ἐγενήθηἱερεὺςτὸπέταλονπεφορεκώς , an observation difficult to explain. This πέταλον was a golden plate attached in front to the turban or mitre of Aaron (Exodus 28:36f., Exodus 29:6, Exodus 39:30f., Leviticus 8:9), and in later times was part of the official dress of the high priest (cf. Josephus, Antt. III. vii. 6).1 Similar statements are made about James the Just, and about Mar_2 Of James the Just, Epiphanius says: τὸπέταλονἐπὶτῆςκεφαλῆςἐξῆναὐτῷφορεῖν (Hæ r. xxix. 4). He adds that his authority was the ὑπομνηματισμοί of former writers of repute; and Lawlor3 has shown that he is alluding to the ὑπομνήματα of Hegesippus. Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius (H.E. ii. 23), said that to James alone was it allowed to enter εἰςτὰἅγια of the Temple, which he used to frequent in prayer for the people, and that his custom was to wear not woollen but linen garments.4 Epiphanius may be reproducing other words of Hegesippus when he tells (Hæ r. xxix. 4) that James exercised the priestly office according to the old priesthood ; but he is probably in error when he says that James alone was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, as the high priest did, διὰτὸΝαζωραῖοναὐτὸνεἶναικαὶμεμίχθαιτῇἱερωσύνῃ (Hæ r. lxxviii. 13). He adds explicitly, ὁἸάκωβοςδιέφερετῇἱερωσύνῃ , and πέταλονἐπὶτῆςκεφαλῆςἐφόρεσε . Of Mark, Valois quoted a legend as a note on Eus. H.E. v. 24, as follows: “ beatum Marcum iuxta ritum carnalis sacrificii pontificalis apicis petalum in populo gestasse Iudaeorum … ex quo manifeste datur intelligi de stirpe eum Leuitica, imo pontificis Aaron sacrae successionis originem habuisse.” 5 Mark was probably of Levite race (compare Acts 4:36 with Colossians 4:10), and the Vulgate Preface to his Gospel speaks of him as “ sacerdotium in Israhel agens,” 6 so that it is quite possible that he was one of the Jewish priests who accepted Christ (Acts 6:7; cf. Acts 21:20). The language of Polycrates, then, about John ἐγενήθηἱερεὺςτὸπέταλονπεφορεκώς is almost identical with what is told about James and Mark. If the πέταλον were worn by the high priest only on great occasions, it is impossible to suppose that John, James, or Mark ever wore it. But if it was (even occasionally) worn by the ordinary Jewish priest in N.T. times, Mark may have worn it. And if John and James were eligible for the priesthood, they too might have had the privilege. But while James and John were certainly akin to the priestly race on their mother’ s side, the argument of Epiphanius to prove that James also was “ mingled with the priesthood” by blood is not convincing. Yet we know so little of the insistence upon hereditary qualifications for the Jewish priesthood in the first century, that it is not easy to reject the explicit statements made about John and James as well as about Mar_1 Jerome, when discussing the statement of Polycrates about John, understands ἱερεύς to mean a Christian priest, and translates: “ qui supra pectus domini recubuit, et pontifex eius fuit, auream laminam in fronte portans” (de script. eccl. 45). This explanation will not apply to the parallel traditions about James and Mark, upon the Jewish character of whose priesthood stress is laid. It is conceivable (although improbable) that the Beloved Disciple might have been allowed by his Christian brethren to wear the insignia of a Jewish priest at Ephesus, where he was so greatly venerated. But neither James nor Mark would ever have been allowed such a distinction as Christian priests at Jerusalem while the Temple was yet standing. Further, it would be strange that Polycrates should call John a Christian ἱερεύς , while studiously avoiding in his case the title ἐπίσκοπος , which he gives to others of repute.2 And, finally, that the mitre or πέταλον should have been used as an ornament of Christian bishops in the first century, but never heard of again until three centuries later at least, is highly improbable. Others interpret the wearing of the πέταλον by John and the others as metaphorical only.3 The dress of the high priest is used in Revelation 2:17 as the symbol of the investment of the true Christian with the sacerdotal character; cf. Exodus 28:31, Exodus 28:36 with the “ white stone” and the “ new name” of Revelation 2:17. This idea is worked out in detail by Origen (in Lev. Hom. vi.), who treats the πέταλον as symbolic of the knowledge of divine things by all baptized persons; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 6. If we pursue this line of thought, we recall that engraved on the πέταλον were the words “ Holy to Yahweh,” ἁγίασμακυρίου (Exodus 28:36), and the command to Moses was ἁγιάσειςαὐτούς , ἵναἱερατεύωσίνμοι (Exodus 28:41). The πέταλον , in short, was the symbol of consecration, which was the topic of Christ’ s intercession for His apostles (John 17:2). John, James,1 and Mark were all ἡγιασμένοι (John 17:19); and the tradition of wearing the πέταλον in their case might have grown out of a metaphorical statement as to their personal holiness. But this view does not explain why the πέταλον symbol should have been used only of John, James, and Mark among the saints of the apostolic age. We are inclined to accept the tradition that James, John, and Mark literally wore the πέταλον , at least occasionally, in virtue of their service as Jewish priests. It is to be remembered that James, John, and Peter were the “ pillars” of the Jerusalem Church (Galatians 2:9); they were the heads of the conservative or Judaising party as contrasted with Paul. Of these, Peter was suspect by the more rigid Jews (Acts 11:3). But his disciple Mark was under no such suspicion, for he had actually separated himself from Paul because of the latter’ s liberal policy (Acts 13:13, Acts 15:37). John had, indeed, incurred the hostility of the Temple authorities in early days (Acts 4:3, Acts 4:13); but there is no later indication of opposition to him by them, or any trace of distrust of him by his fellow-disciples. James was thoroughly respected by all. James, John, and Mark were, then, the three Christian leaders who were most fully trusted by the conservatives at Jerusalem.2 While whole-hearted disciples of Jesus, they were Jews who were understood to have pride in their Jewish heritage. Provided that they were qualified for the priesthood, there would be nothing surprising in their occasional discharge of priestly offices; for by the first disciples the Christian faith was not regarded as inconsistent with Judaism. Thus the tradition that they had been privileged to wear the priestly πέταλον is less improbable in their case than it would be in that of any other early leader of the Church of whom we have information. 16. For ἄλλος , fam. 13 have ἐκεῖνος , ille occurs in some O.L. codices. καὶεἶπεντῇθυρωρῷ , καὶεἰσήγαγεντὸνΠέτρον , i.e., apparently, the friend spoke to the portress and brought Peter in; but the rendering “ and she brought Peter in” is defensible. The θυρωρός was a maid-servant , as at Acts 12:13 and 2 Samuel 4:6 (LXX), a custom which Moulton-Milligan illustrate from papyri. 17. μὴκαὶσὺἐκτῶνμαθητῶνκτλ . The form of the question μὴκαὶ … shows that the portress expected a negative answer: “ You are not another of His disciples, are you?” See on 6:67; and cf. v. 25. That is, she knew that the person who had already been admitted as γνωστὸςτῷἀρχιερεῖ was a disciple of Jesus, although not necessarily of the inner circle. τοῦἀνθρώπουτούτου , “ of this person,” a contemptuous way of speaking. According to the Johannine account, the first challenge to Peter and his first denial of his Master occurred as he was being admitted to the courtyard. The Synoptists put it later, after he had been admitted and was warming himself at the fire, when he was recognised by a slave girl who saw his face lit up by the flames (Luke 22:56). Mk. says that after Peter repudiated any knowledge of Jesus he went outside into the vestibule or porch (προαύλιον , Mark 14:68; cf. εἰςτὸνπυλῶνα , Matthew 26:71), and that the second interrogation of him (this time apparently by the maid who was portress) took place there. 18. The soldiers had now gone back to barracks, the Temple police being sufficient guard. The policemen and the slaves lit a fire in the courtyard, as it was a cold night. ὅτιψῦχοςἦν is a touch peculiar to Jn., and suggests that the story has come from one who was present, and who shivers as he recalls how cold it was in the open court. Jerusalem Isaiah 2400 feet above sea-level, and it is chilly at midnight in spring-time.1 ἀνθρακιά occurs again in the N.T. only at 21:9 (cf. Ecclus. 11:32, 4 Macc. 9:20): it means “ a heap of charcoal,” probably burnt in a brazier. True coal was not known in Palestine until the nineteenth century. Lk. mentions the lighting of a fire, using the words ἁψάντωνπῦρἐνμέσῳτῆςαὐλῆς , and says that they were all sitting round it. Mk. says that Peter was warming himself in the light (θερμαινόμενοςπρὸςτὸφῶς , Mark 14:54), i.e. leaning towards the dim flame of the fire. Mt. does not say anything about a fire in the courtyard. For ἀνθρακιὰνπεποιηκότες the Vulgate has only ad prunas, several O.L. codices giving ad carbones. This is a rendering which, as Wordsworth-White point out, seems to represent a reading πρὸςτὴνἀνθρακιάν , for which there is no Greek authority extant. ὁΠέτροςμετ ʼ αὐτῶν . So א BCLW, the rec. giving the order of words as μετ ʼ αὐτῶνὁΠέτρ . Θ omits Πέτρος . It was necessary for Peter to mingle with the slaves and the police in the courtyard; to have kept to himself would have made him an object of suspicion. The Synoptists represent him as sitting near the fire, with the others; Jn. alone says that he was standing, ἑστώς . Jn. follows Mk. (14:54, 67) in telling that Peter was warming himself ; and, like Mk., he tells it twice (see v. 25). Jn.’ s narrative of Peter’ s denials is interrupted by an account of the examination of Jesus which was taking place in the house of Annas (vv. 19-23). After the examination has been described, the story of Peter is resumed. Evidently it was while he was waiting in the outer court that he denied his Master for the second and third times (vv. 25-27).1 This is consistent with Mk.’ s order of events. Examination of Jesus Before Annas (vv. 19-23); He is Sent on to Caiaphas (V. 24) 19. ὁ … ἀρχιερεύς . The “ high priest” who conducted the informal examination at the house of Annas was most probably Annas himself (see v. 24). Caiaphas, however, may have been present, and it is possible that he was the ἀρχιερεύς of v. 19 and v. 22. But the real leader was Annas (see on 11:49), and it was probably by his orders that Jesus was brought to his house in the first instance (see on v. 13). Jn. does not tell, as the Synoptists do, of the cross-examination by which the hostile priests and scribes tried to make Jesus incriminate Himself, when they found it difficult to get legal evidence as to His alleged blasphemy about the destruction of the Temple (Mark 14:55f., Matthew 26:59f.). The episode of the Cleansing of the Temple, and the words “ Destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in three days,” have been given by Jn. in another context (2:13-19, where see note). Jn. merely says here that the high priest questioned Jesus about His disciples, probably as to who they were and as to their reasons for attaching themselves to Him, and about His doctrine (διδαχή , cf. 7:16). This latter inquiry would cover everything. But the details given here of the reply of Jesus to the high priest are found only in Jn. (See also on v. 32.) 20. ἀπεκρίθηαὐτῳἸησοῦς . See on 1:29 for the omission of ὁ before Ἰησοῦς . Jesus, in His reply, ignores the question as to His disciples and does not mention them. As to His teaching, He declares that it was always available for, and open to, every one, and that there was nothing secret about it. The reply of Socrates to his judges has often been quoted as a parallel: “ If any one says that he has ever learnt or heard anything from me in private, which all others could not have heard, know ye that he does not speak the truth” (Plato, Apol. 33 B). ἐγὼπαρρησίᾳλελάληκα (not ἐλάλησα , as the rec. text has it) τῷκόσμῳ , “ I have spoken openly to the world,” i.e. to all and sundry. ἐγώ is emphatic: it was His teaching that was challenged. For παρρησίᾳ see on 7:4, and for κόσμος see on 1:9; cf. ταῦταλαλῶεἰςτὸνκόσμον (8:26), where, however, the meaning is slightly different. The Jews had said of Him παρρησίᾳλαλεῖ (7:26); and when they had challenged Him on another occasion to speak plainly (εἰπὲἡμῖνπαρρησίᾳ , 10:24) He had done so, with such openness that they had sought to arrest Him (10:39). When His own disciples had found difficulty in understanding His mysterious teaching about His approaching departure, He proceeded to make it quite plain (16:25, 29). ἐγὼπάντοτεἐδίδαξαἐνσυναγωγῇκαὶἐντῷἱερῷ , “ I always taught in synagogue and in the temple” ; i.e. it was His custom to teach in these public places, not that He never gave any private teaching to an inquirer like Nicodemus (3:2). The discourse about the Bread of Life was given in the synagogue at Capernaum, according to the Johannine narrative (6:59), and the Synoptists frequently speak of His practice of teaching in the synagogues of Galilee. Jn. tells of His teaching in the Temple several times (2:19, 7:14, 28, 8:20, 10:23). Cf. Mark 14:49, καθ ʼ ἡμέρανἤμηνπρὸςὑμᾶςἐντῷἱερῷδιδάσκων . The fact of His public teaching was notorious. It had been given ἐντῷἱερῷ , ὅπουπάντες (not πάντοτε with the rec. text) οἱἸουδαῖοισυνέρχονται , “ where all the Jews come together.” καὶἐνκρυπτῷἐλάλησαοὐδέν . This is like the utterance of Messiah at Isaiah 48:16, οὐκἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςἐνκρυφῇλελάληκα (cf. Isaiah 45:19). But we have had the contrast between ἐνκρυπτῷ and ἐνπαρρησίᾳ before (see 7:4); and it is not necessary to suppose that there is here a veiled allusion to the Isaiah passage, although it is possible. See on 3:11 for Jn.’ s use of λαλεῖν as signifying frank and unreserved speech. It is noteworthy that the strongest repudiation in the Gospels of cryptic or esoteric teaching in the words of Jesus is found in Jn. 21. For ἐρωτᾷς , ἐρώτησον , the rec., with some lesser uncials, has the stronger ἐπερωτᾷς , ἐπερώτησον (cf. v. 7). τίμεἐρωτᾷς ; It was a recognised principle of law that a man’ s evidence about himself was suspect. See on 5:31. τίἐλάλησααὐτοῖς … ἃεἶπονἐγώ . The two verbs have the same meaning (see on 3:11). 22. εἷςπαρεστηκὼςτῶνὑπηρετῶν . So א *BW a ff, but AC2DsuppNΓΔΘ syrr. have the order εἷςτῶνὑπηρ . παρεστ . For the constr. εἷςτῶν … cf. 12:4, 19:34. This ὑπηρέτης was one of the Temple policemen, who have been mentioned vv. 3, 12 as having taken part in the arrest of Jesus; he was standing by to guard the prisoner. ῥάπισμα is also used by Mk. (14:65) in the same context, and is applied again, 19:3, to the insults offered to Jesus by the Roman soldiers. As Field has shown (in loc.), it means a slap on the cheek, given with the open hand by way of insulting rebuke rather than with the intention of inflicting bodily injury. Cf. Isaiah 50:6, τὸννῶτόνμουἔδωκαεἰςμάστιγας , τὰςδὲσιαγόναςμουεἰςῥαπίσματα . ῥαπίζειν was used by the older Greek writers for ῥαβδίζειν , “ to strike with a stick,” but it came to be reserved for “ to slap.” Cf. Hosea 11:4, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:67. Abbott (Diat. 493) cites 1 Esd. 4:30, where one of the king’ s favourite women slaps him playfully. Οὕτωςἀποκρίνῃτῷἀρχιερεῖ ; “ Answerest Thou the high priest,” i.e. probably Annas, “ so unbecomingly?” It is obvious that conduct of this kind on the part of an underling would not have been permitted at a formal judicial sitting of the Sanhedrim. 23. ἀπεκρ . αὐτῷἸησοῦς . See on 1:29 for the omission of ὁ before Ἰης . μαρτύρησον , i.e. give your testimony in legal fashion. εἰδὲκαλῶς , τίμεδέρεις ; δέρειν , “ to beat,” is the word used in the same context at Luke 22:63. It is used of an insulting blow in the face, as here, at 2 Corinthians 11:20. This dignified reply shows that the precept of Mat 5:39 is not always to be obeyed in the letter. 24. ἀπέστειλεν cannot be treated as a pluperfect, as the A. V. treats it: “ had sent,” in order to escape the difficulties that arise if Caiaphas is supposed to have been the high priest of vv. 19, 23 (see on v. 13). ἀπέστειλενοὖνκτλ ., means, “ So Annas sent Him to Caiaphas,” sc. when his preliminary inquiry was over. οὖν is read by BC*LNWΘ and must be retained; א has δέ , and the rec. text omits any conjunctive particle, an omission which obscures the sense. See p. 37 f. δεδεμένον . He had been unbound, no doubt, during the inquiry (cf. v. 12); but He was bound again, on being sent off to the official place of meeting of the Sanhedrim, where Caiaphas would preside, in order to ratify the sentence that had already been informally arranged. This official hall was not the palace of the high priest, but was situated on the western side of the Temple mount.1 Peter’ s Second and Third Denials of Jesus (vv. 25-27) 25. The courtyard scene is now taken up again from v. 18, where see note. We had there ὁΠέτροςἑστὼςκαὶθερμαινόμενος , and the phrase is repeated to bring us back to what has been said before, but with the characteristic substitution of ΣίμωνΠέτρος for ὁΠέτρος of v. 18, as the apostle has been out of the narrative for some paragraphs (see on v. 15 above). That there was some interval between the first denial of Peter and the third is apparent from the Synoptists, although they do not agree in small details. Mk. and Mt. suggest that the second interrogation of Peter followed hard upon the first, but this is told explicitly only by Lk. (μετὰβραχύ , Luke 22:58). Then Mark 14:70 and Matthew 26:73 say that the third interrogation was μετὰμικρόν after the second, but Lk. allows an hour to elapse (διαστάσηςὡσεὶὥραςμιᾶς , Luke 22:59). Jn. brings the second denial nearer to the third than Lk. does; but that there was more than an hour’ s interval between the first denial and the third, as Lk. records, is quite in agreement with the Johannine account. εἶπονοὖναὐτῷ . The speakers are not defined: on lui dit. Μὴκαὶσύἐκτῶνμαθ . αὐτ . κτλ . The question and answer are almost the same as those of v. 17; and the question is again expressed as if a negative answer were expected (see on v. 17). This is a point peculiar to Jn.’ s narrative; he describes the first two interrogatories as put in a form which almost suggested that Peter should say “ No!” In this (see also on v. 27), Jn. gives a less severe account of Peter’ s lapse from courage and faithfulness than the Synoptists do. 26. The slaves of the high priest have been mentioned as present in the courtyard (v 18). One of them is here described as a kinsman of Malchus (v. 10), a remark which has been thought to imply some acquaintance with the high priest’ s household (see on v. 16). The reason for the slave’ s insistent identification, viz. that he had seen Peter with Jesus at Gethsemane, is not found elsewhere; the Synoptists telling that Peter was suspected because of his Galilæ an accent. “ Did not I see thee in the garden with Him?” ἐγώ is emphatic, “ I, with my own eyes.” But the slave apparently was not able to satisfy the bystanders that he was right, for Peter’ s denial was accepted. The temptation to say “ No” was even greater this time than before, for the mention of the blow struck at Malchus suggests that Malchus’ kinsman suspected Peter of having been the assailant. Had Peter been arrested on this count, he would have been dealt with very severely. To be a “ disciple” of Jesus was not a legal offence, although the confession of it might lead to trouble; but to have drawn a weapon and assaulted one of the high priest’ s household was another matter. 27. πάλινοὖνἠρνήσατο . No words are given; only the fact of the denial is recorded. This is in strong contrast to the denial with curses and oaths which is described by Mark 14:71 (followed by Matthew 26:74, but not by Lk.). According to the Lucan narrative, at this point, “ the Lord turned and looked upon Peter” (Luke 22:61). Accordingly, we must suppose Jesus to have come down from the chamber where He had been informally examined, and to have been passing through the courtyard on His way to Caiaphas for formal trial and sentence, when Peter again denied his discipleship, and was overheard by his Master. Jn. hurries over this scene of painful memories. εὐθέωςἀλέκτωρἐφώνησεν , “ immediately a cock crew.” Luke 22:60 has παραχρῆμα , but Matthew 26:74 has εὐθέως as here. In Jn. εὐθέως always connotes immediate consecutiveness (see on 5:9). All the evangelists speak of the actual crowing of a cock (Mk. speaks of two crowings, 14:68, 72) within the precincts of the palace, and find in it the literal fulfilment of the prediction made by Jesus (13:38). Salmon1 held that this prediction “ meant no more than that Peter should deny Him thrice before the hour of cockcrow, viz. that hour of early morning which was technically known as ἡἀλεκτοροφωνία ” (cf. Mark 13:35). C. H. Mayo made a further suggestion; viz. that the signal heard by Peter was “ the gallicinium, the signal given on the buccina at the close of the third night watch, and the change of guard.” 2 This is probably what happened. “ Before a cock shall crow” (13:38) would be a vague note of time, for cocks are apt to crow at uncertain hours during the night. But “ before the ἀλεκτοροφωνία ” is precise; and the hour of ἀλεκτοροφωνία was made public by a military signal. On this interpretation, the word πρωΐ in v. 28 is peculiarly appropriate, for, according to Roman reckoning, the four watches of the night were ὀψέ , μεσονύκτιον , ἀλεκτοροφωνία , and πρωΐ . As soon as the signal had sounded at the close of ἀλεκτοροφωνία , it would be πρωΐ . Jn. says nothing about Peter’ s bitter tears of repentance for his failure. Every one knew, when the Fourth Gospel was written, that Peter had repented, and his return to his Master’ s favour is specially recorded in the Appendix (21:15). It is quite in the manner of Jn. to omit something which no Christian needed to be told. Jesus is Brought Before Pilate and Accused by the Jews (vv. 28-32) 28. ἄγουσινοὖντὸνἸησοῦνἀπὸτοῦΚαϊάφακτλ . We have in v. 24 the statement that Jesus was “ sent to Caiaphas,” i.e. to the formal meeting of the Sanhedrim, not necessarily or probably held in the house of Caiaphas, over which Caiaphas would preside. Nothing is told here of the proceedings (see on v. 13, and cf. Mark 15:1, Matthew 27:1), which were only formal, as the decision had been already reached at the irregular meeting in the house of Annas. But as the Sanhedrim could not execute the sentence of death (see v. 31) without the sanction of the Roman authorities, they had now to bring Jesus before Pilate, that he might give the necessary orders. ἀπὸτοῦΚαϊάφα need not mean “ from the house of Caiaphas” (cf. Mark 5:35, Acts 16:40), but more naturally means “ from Caiaphas,” i.e. from the ecclesiastical court over which he presided. Some O.L. codices, e.g. e ff2 g, etc., have ad Caiphan, a reading due to a misunderstanding of the sequence of events. See Introd., pp. xxvi-xxviii. εἰςτὸπραιτώριον . πραιτώριον signified a præ tor’ s or general’ s quarters in a camp, and the word came to be used of the official residence of a governor (cf. τὸπραιτώριον of Herod at Cæ sarea, Acts 23:35). It is not certain where the prœ torium at Jerusalem, that is, Pilate’ s house, was situated; but it is probably to be identified with Herod’ s palace on the Hill of Zion in the western part of the upper city. Pilate was certainly lodged there on one occasion, for Philo (ad Caium, 38) reports that he hung up golden shields ἐντοῖςκατὰτὴνἱερόπολινἩρώδουβασιλείοις . Further, Gessius Florus, who was procurator of Judæ a about thirty-five years after Pilate, had at one time Herod’ s palace as a residence, for Josephus says so in a passage so illustrative of the Passion narratives that it must be quoted: Φλῶροςδὲτότεμὲνἐντοῖςβασιλείοιςαὐλίζεται , τῇδ ʼ ὑστεραίᾳβῆμαπρὸαὐτῶνθέμενοςκαθέζεται , καὶπροσελθόντεςοἵτεἀρχιερεῖς … παρέστησαντῷβήματι (Bell. Jud., ii. 14, 8). And in ii. 15, 5, Josephus explicitly calls the Procurator’ s residence ἡβασιλικὴαὐλή ; cf. Mark 15:16, ἔσωτῆςαὐλῆς , ὅἐστιπραιτώριον . The mention of the βῆμα placed in full view of the high priests and the notables who came before Florus for judgment is noteworthy (cf. 19:13 below). The other site suggested for the Præ torium is the Castle of Antonia, to the north of the Temple area, a fourth-century tradition placing Pilate’ s house in this neighbourhood. That a large part of the garrison lived here is admitted, but that does not favour the idea that it was the Procurator’ s residence. The course of the Via Dolorosa, as now shown, favours Antonia as the place of condemnation of Jesus; but there is no real authority behind this tradition.1 πρωΐ , i.e. early in the morning of Friday, 14 Nisan (see on v. 27). Pilate must have known already that Roman soldiers had been sent to arrest Jesus the night before (v. 3), and he may have been warned to be ready at an early hour. The Jewish ecclesiastics who accompanied Jesus to the Præ torium did not enter ἵναμὴμιανθῶσινἀλλὰφάγωσιντὸπάσχα . See on 11:55. By going into a house from which the leaven had not been removed (Exodus 12:15), they would have been incapacitated from eating the Passover that evening. Ceremonial uncleanness in many cases lasted until sunset only (Leviticus 11:24, Leviticus 14:25, Numbers 19:7, Deuteronomy 23:11, etc.); but in the case of the Passover one who was unclean had to postpone its observance for a whole month (Numbers 9:6, Numbers 9:11; cf. 2 Chronicles 30:2, 2 Chronicles 30:3). This would have been inconvenient for the priests, and so they remained outside the house, Pilate having to come out to ask for the charge against Jesus, and to go back again into the Præ torium to question Him as to His defence. For ἀλλὰφάγωσιν , the rec. has ἀλλ ʼ ἵναφάγωσι . For φαγεῖντὸπάσχα , which must mean the eating of the Passover meal itself, cf. Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17. The scruple of the priests about entering the Præ torium is recorded by Jn. only. It is an instance of his “ irony” (see on 1:45) that he does not comment upon it. These men were about to pollute their souls by unscrupulous testimony which was to bring Jesus to a horrible death, yet were unwilling to incur technical or ceremonial uncleanness while giving that testimony. There is no perversion so sinister as that of the human conscience. 29. The narrative of Pilate’ s action in regard to Jesus is told with more fulness in Jn. than in the Synoptists (cf. Mark 15:2f., Matthew 27:11f., Luke 23:2f.). ἐξῆλθενοὖνὁΠειλᾶτοςἔξω . As the Jews would not enter the Præ torium, Pilate came outside. This is the force of οὖν , “ therefore” … The redundant ἐξῆλθεν … ἔξω is for the sake of explicitness “ he came out, outside” ; cf. 19:4, 5 and see on 4:30. The rec. text, with AC3Dsupp om. ἔξω , but ins. א BC*LNW. Abbott points out (Diat. 1969) that Jn.’ s habit is to introduce a personal name without the article; but here we have ὁΠειλᾶτος , as at Luke 23:1. For φησίν (א BC*L), the rec. has εἶπε . Τίνακατηγορίανφέρετεκτλ . Pilate (see on v. 28) knew something of the case already; but it was necessary for him to be notified formally of the nature of the accusation brought against the prisoner. The rec. has κατὰτοῦἀνθρώπουτούτου , with א aACDsuppLNWΘ , but א * Be om. κατά . Cf. Luke 6:7, ἵναεὕρωσινκατηγορίαναὐτοῦ . 30. The Jews are not sure of their case, and so they hesitate to specify the charge in explicit terms. They say, in effect, “ That is our business; we would not have brought the prisoner for sentence, if we were not satisfied with His guilt.” Εἰμὴἦνοὗτοςκακὸνποιῶνκτλ . “ If this person were not doing wrong, we should not have delivered Him up to thee.” For κακὸνποιῶν (א cBLW e), the rec., with AC3DsuppNΓΔΘ , has κακοποιός , a word found in N.T. only in 1 Peter 2:12, 1 Peter 2:14, 1 Peter 2:3:16, 1 Peter 2:4:15. Perhaps ἦν followed by the pres. part. suggests a habitual evil-doer (cf. Abbott, Diat. 2277). οὐκἄνσοιπαρεδώκαμεναὐτόν . σοι may be emphatic, “ we should not have delivered Him up to thee” (cf. Abbott, Diat. 2566b). In any case, the reply of the Jews is an insolent one. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ Jesus is Scourged and Mocked by the Soldiers (19:1-5). Pilate Makes Another Unavailing Attempt to Save Him (vv. 6, 7) 19:1. Pilate went back into the palace, where Jesus was, and ordered Him to be scourged, in the hope (apparently) that this sufficiently terrible punishment would satisfy the chief priests (cf. Luke 23:16). Mark 15:15, Matthew 27:26 connect the scourging and the mock coronation with the death sentence (see on v. 16 below), but Jn.’ s narrative is very explicit and is to be followed here. The “ Pillar of the Scourging” is now shown in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but in the fourth century it was shown to the Bordeaux Pilgrim in the traditional house of Caiaphas. The original pillar to which the Lord was bound was, no doubt, inside the Præ torium. Cf. Matthew 20:19, Luke 18:33. 2. In the account of the mockery of Jesus by the soldiers of Pilate, Jn. follows Mark 15:17, or, at any rate, uses phrases which recall Mk. There is no probability that he uses Mt. Luke 23:11 ascribes this cruel indignity to the soldiers of Herod. The soldiers were amused by the idea that the poor prisoner claimed to be a king, and their rough jests were directed rather against the Jews than against Jesus personally. “ This, then, is the King of the Jews!” πλέξαντεςστέφανονἐξἀκανθῶν . Verbally identical with Matthew 27:28; Mark 15:17 has πλέξαντεςἀκάνθινονστέφανον . Lk. does not mention the mock coronation. Pseudo-Peter (§ 3) attributes the jest to an individual; τιςαὐτῶνἐνεγκὼνστέφανονἀκάνθινονἔθηκενἐπὶτῆςκεφαλῆςτοῦκυρίου . The soldiers plaited the twigs of some thorny plant into a crown or wreath (cf. ὁστέφανος … ὁπλεκείς , Isaiah 28:5). ἐπέθηκαναὐτοῦτῇκεφαλῇ . This phrase, too, might be thought to come from Matthew 27:29 ἐπέθηκανἐπὶτὴνκεφαλὴναὐτοῦ , for Mark 15:17 has only περιτιθέασιναὐτῷ . But Jn. says nothing of the mock sceptre which Mt. mentions, a detail which is not in Mk. It would be precarious to infer that Jn. is using Mt.’ s narrative. καὶἱμάτιονπορφυροῦνπεριέβαλοναὐτόν . This is reminiscent of Mar 15:17, ἐνδύουσιναὐτὸνπορφύραν , rather than of Mat 27:28 or Luke 23:11 .1 The substitute for the regal purple (cf. 1 Macc. 8:14, etc.) may have been the scarlet cloak of one of the legionaries (χλαμύδακοκκίνην , Matthew 27:28). Jesus had first been stripped of His own outer clothing (ἐκδύσαντεςαὐτόν , Matthew 27:28). For ἱμάτιον , see on v. 23. 3. καὶἤρχοντοπρὸςαὐτόν . This clause is omitted in the rec. text, following ADsuppΓΔ , but is retained in א BLNWΘ . It is descriptive of the soldiers approaching Jesus with mock reverence. Philo has a story of the mock coronation of a halfwitted man called Carabas by the mob at Alexandria, which illustrates this. “ They approached, some as if to salute him, others as if pleading a cause, others as though making petition about public matters” (in Flacc. 6). καὶἔλεγονχαῖρε , ὁβασιλεὺςτῶνἸουδαίων . This is verbally identical with the pretended salutation as given in Matthew 27:29. The soldiers cried Ave! as they would to Cæ sar. The art. ὁ before βασιλεὺςτ . Ἰ . suggests their derision. καὶἐδίδοσαναὐτῷῥαπίσματα . “ They slapped Him” with the palms of their hands. See on 18:22 for ῥάπισμα . ἐδίδοσαν (א BLNW) is to be preferred to the rec. ἐδίδουν . They gave Him some slaps in the face, during their cruel horse-play, but this was not a continuous form of insult, like the shouting of Ave. 4. Pilate had gone into the Præ torium to order the scourging, and he now comes out again to make another appeal to the pity of the Jews The exact reading is not certain. ABL give καὶἐξῆλθεν , א DsuppΓ omit καί ; and NWΘ have ἐξῆλθενοὖν (as at 18:29: see 18:38 and cf. v. 5). Pilate says to the Jews that He is bringing Jesus out to them, that they may understand that, as he said before (18:38), he can find no fault in Him. Up to this Jesus had been inside the Præ torium, and the scourging and mockery were probably not visible to the waiting Jews. Ἴδε , a favourite word in Jn.; see on 1:29. ὅτιοὐδεμίαναἰτίανεὑρίσκωἐναὐτῷ . א * has the shorter form ὅτιαἰτίανοὐκεὑρίσκω . The phrase has occurred 18:38, and appears again 19:6, in slightly different forms. 5. Jesus was brought out, no doubt weak and faint after the scourging, still wearing the mocking insignia of royalty. These He probably continued to wear until He was brought out for the last time for formal sentence (v. 15; cf. Matthew 27:31). φορῶν . This is the regular word for “ wearing” clothes; cf. Matthew 11:8, James 2:3. καὶλέγειαὐτοῖς (sc. Pilate) Ἰδοὺὁἄνθρωπος . For ἰδού (א BL), the rec. has Jn.’ s favourite ἴδε (cf. vv. 4, 14). In this verse B omits ὁ before Ἰησοῦς (see on 1:29), and also before ἄνθρωπος (cf. Zechariah 6:12 ἰδοὺἀνήρ , referring to “ the Man whose name is the Branch,” the future Builder of the Temple). For Ἰησοῦς N has Πειλᾶτος by mistake. Ἰδοὺὁἄνθρωπος , Ecce homo! This, on Pilate’ s lips, meant, “ See the poor fellow!” ὁἄνθρωπος , expressing pity. This is a classical use (cf. Dem. de falsa leg. 402, § 198, and Meid. 543, § 91); see also Matthew 26:74. Pilate thought to move the priests to compassion by exhibiting Jesus to them, who had been scourged by his orders, and whom the soldiers had treated as an object of mockery and rude jesting. Jn. may mean to represent Pilate, like Caiaphas (11:51), as an unconscious prophet, his words, “ Behold the Man!” pointing to the Ideal Man of all succeeding Christian generations. Abbott (Diat. 1960c) recalls some passages from Epictetus, in which ὁἄνθρωπος is thus used of the ideal of humanity. But such an interpretation of Pilate’ s famous words is probably a Christian afterthought. The whole clause λέγει … ἄνθρωπος is omitted in the O.L. texts a e ff2 r, and also by the Coptic Q, an interesting combination. 6. ὅτεοὖνἴδοναὐτὸνοἱἀρχιερεῖςκτλ . The common people are not mentioned; the chief priests were the important persons whom Pilate wished to move from their purpose. But the sight of Jesus only angered them; and they, with their satellites , raised the shout of “ Crucify!” It has been implied throughout that this was the death which they had designed for Jesus, but the word σταύρωσον is used now for the first time. Cf. Matthew 27:22. For ἴδον (א ADsuppLNW) the rec. with BΘ has εἶδον . After ἐκραύγασαν (cf. 18:40), the rec. adds λέγοντες with ABDsuppNWΘ (cf. 7:37); but om. א . Again, after σταύρωσον bis א ABDsuppNΘ add αὐτόν (as at v. 15); but om. BL. Λάβετεαὐτὸνὑμεῖςκαίκτλ . “ Take Him yourselves, etc.” Pilate repeats this suggestion, which had disconcerted the priests when he made it before (18:31, where see note). He now adds “ and crucify Him,” although he and they both knew that the Sanhedrim could not legally do this. He also says for the third time that he can find no just cause for a death sentence (cf. 18:38 and v. 4). Jn., like Lk. (23:4, 14, 22), is careful to record that Pilate three times affirmed his conviction of Jesus’ innocence. 7. The chief priests, however, make an unexpected rejoinder. They tell Pilate that, according to Jewish law, Jesus ought to be put to death as a blasphemer, and they warn him by implication that he must not set aside their law in such a matter. It was the Roman practice to respect the laws and customs of Judæ a, as of other distant provinces of the empire; and of this the accusers of Jesus remind Pilate. Ἡμεῖςνόμονἔχομεν , viz. Leviticus 24:16, which enacted that a blasphemer should be stoned to death. The chief priests knew that this could not be put into operation (see on 18:31). In any case, the witnesses had to cast the first stone (Deuteronomy 17:7), and those who bore witness as to the blasphemy of Jesus were not in agreement with each other (Mark 14:56). The Sanhedrim, therefore, were content, in this particular case, that the responsibility lay with Pilate. κατὰτὸννόμονὀφείλειἀποθανεῖν . For the verb ὀφείλειν , see on 13:14. ὅτιυἱὸνθεοῦἑαυτὸνἐποίησεν . This charge was better founded than the charge of treason, alleged to be inherent in Jesus’ claim to be a king. “ Son of God” was a recognised title of Messiah (see on 1:34); and in his examination before the chief priests Jesus had admitted that He was the Messiah (Mark 14:62, Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:70, in the last passage the phrase ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ . being explicitly used). But He had been suspected of, and charged with, blasphemy on several occasions before this, according to Jn. See 5:18, 10:33, 36. To the question τίνασεαυτὸνσὺποιεῖς ; (8:53), the Jews had good ground for believing that υἱὸςθεοῦ would be His answer. The omission of the def. articles in υἱὸςθεοῦ is probably due to the tendency to drop the article before familiar titles rather than to the phrase being used in any sense less exalted than the highest, as may be the case at Matthew 14:33. But in this, the Messianic sense, Pilate could not have understood it, any more than the centurion at the Cross (Matthew 27:54). It must have suggested to Pilate a vague, mysterious claim on the part of Jesus to be more than human; and hearing of it awakened in his mind a superstitious fear. υἱὸςθεοῦ is frequently used in inscriptions as a title of the Emperor.1 The Second Examination of Jesus by Pilate (vv. 8-11) 8. ὅτεοὖνἤκουσενὁΠειλᾶτοςτοῦτοντὸνλόγονκτλ . Observe that ἀκούειν followed by the acc. does not connote an intelligent hearing (see on 3:8); as Abbott says (Diat. 2586), “ the hearing does not produce (upon Pilate) any result beyond emotion.” μᾶλλονἐφοβήθη , “ he was more alarmed than he had been before” (see on 18:39). 9. The first questioning of Jesus by Pilate has been described, 18:33-38. καὶεἰσῆλθενεἰςτὸπραιτώριονπάλιν : cf. 18:33. Pilate’ s question, Πόθενεἶσύ ; is no formal interrogatory as to the birthplace or domicile of Jesus. He had learnt already that He was of Galilee (Luke 23:6, Luke 23:7). But Pilate has been moved by the dignified bearing of the prisoner, and is uneasy because of the strange claim which He was said to have made for Himself, that He was υἱὸςθεοῦ (v. 7). The question recalls the similar question Σὺτίςεἶ ; which was put by the Jews who were impressed, despite their incredulity, by His words (8:25). ὁδὲἸη . ἀπόκρισιν (cf. 1:22, Luke 2:47, Luke 20:26) οὐκἔδωκεναὐτῷ . The silence of Jesus under cross-examination is mentioned in all the Gospels. Mark 14:61, Matthew 26:63 note His silence before the high priest; Luke 23:9 says that He did not answer Herod at all; Mark 15:5, Matthew 27:14 state that He would not reply to the accusations which the Sanhedrim put before Pilate; and in the present passage His silence is irritating to the dignity of Pilate, who in this repeated inquiry was trying to elicit something that would save Him. Salmon suggested1 that the silence of Jesus is sufficiently explained by bodily fatigue and exhaustion; and so far as this last examination by Pilate is concerned, it may well be that His exhaustion after being scourged was such that speech was difficult for Him. After the scourging Jn. ascribes only one sentence to Jesus (v. 11) before He was crucified. But bodily fatigue would not, by itself, explain His silence when cross-examined by the high priest (Mark 14:61) or before Herod (Luke 23:9); and His refusal to answer questions which were not asked in sincerity, but out of mere curiosity or with intent to betray Him into some dangerous admission, is explicable on moral grounds. Indeed, the dignity of His silence before His accusers does not need exposition. He was moving to a predestined end, and He knew it. Many commentators, following Chrysostom and Augustine, find in the silence of Jesus before His judges a fulfilment of Isa 53:7. 10. Pilate’ s dignity is offended by receiving no answer to his question. The silence of Jesus amounts to contempt of court. Ἐμοὶοὐλαλεῖς ; “ Do you not speak to me?” ἐμοί being placed first for emphasis. “ I have power to release you, and I have power to crucify you” (the rec. text interchanges the order of these clauses). ἐξουσία (see on 1:12) is “ authority,” rather than “ power.” Pilate had both, but he is reminded by Jesus that his authority, like all human authority, is delegated; its source is Divine, and therefore it is not arbitrary power which can be exercised capriciously without moral blame. 11. ἀπεκρ . αὐτῷἸησοῦς . ANΓΔΘ om. αὐτῷ , which is retained by א BDsuppW; and א ALNWΘ ins. ὁ before Ἰης ., but om. BDsupp. Cf. for similar variants, 18:34. Οὐκεἶχεςἐξουσίανκτλ . So BWΓΔΘ , but א ADsuppL have ἔχεις . εἰμὴἦνδεδομένονσοιἄνωθεν . This doctrine of authority is expressed by Paul in other words (Romans 13:1, Romans 13:2). For ἄνωθεν , see on 3:3. It must mean “ from God” ; the suggestion that it means “ from the ecclesiastical authority” is untenable. Pilate’ s ἐξουσία was not, in fact, delegated to him by the Sanhedrim. ὁπαραδούςμέσοικτλ . So א BΔΘ ; the rec., with ADsuppLNW, has παραδιδούς . Judas is repeatedly described in Jn. as the person who was to deliver Jesus up (cf. 6:64, 71, 12:4, 13:2, 21, 18:2, 5), but he is not indicated in this passage. He did not deliver Jesus up to Pilate; and he disappears from the Johannine narrative after the scene of the betrayal in the garden (18:5). In Matthew 27:3f. he is represented as repenting, after the priests brought Jesus before Pilate; but the other evangelists say nothing as to this. It is remarkable that it is not told anywhere that Judas bore “ witness” to what Jesus had said or done. His part was finished when he identified Jesus at Gethsemane. Those who delivered Jesus to Pilate were the members of the Sanhedrim (18:30, 35; cf. Matthew 27:2, Acts 3:13), with Caiaphas as their official chief. ὁπαραδούςμέσοι is Caiaphas, as representing those who were ultimately responsible for the guilt of putting Jesus to death. μείζοναἁμαρτίανἔχει . These words are commonly taken to mean “ has greater sin” than you; i.e. that Caiaphas was more guilty than Pilate; and this was, no doubt, true. But such an interpretation will not suit the context, or explain διὰτοῦτο at the beginning of the sentence. “ Your power and authority are delegated to you from God, therefore Caiaphas, who brought me before you for sentence, is more guilty than you.” That is not easy to understand; for the ἐξουσία of Caiaphas was a trust from God, equally with that of Pilate. Wetstein suggested a better explanation: “ Your power and authority are delegated to you from God, therefore Caiaphas is more guilty than he would be if you were only an irresponsible executioner, for he has used this God-given authority of yours to further his own wicked projects.” μείζοναἁμαρτίανἔχει , “ he has greater sin,” not than you (which is not in question), but than he would have had if Pilate had not been a power ordained of God. “ Therefore his sin is the greater” is the meaning. For the Johannine phrase ἔχεινἁμαρτίαν , cf. 9:41. Pilate Again Fails to Obtain the Consent of the Jews to Acquit Jesus; And Pronounces the Formal Sentence of Death by Crucifixion (vv. 12-16) 12. ἐκτούτου , “ thenceforth.” See on 6:66. οἱδὲἸουδαῖοιἐκραύγασανλέγοντεςκτλ . ἐκραύγασαν (BDsupp) represents the yell of fury with which the Jews received Pilate’ s last attempt to set Jesus free. The rec., with א c, has ἔκραζον , and ALNΘ have ἐκραύγαζον , but the impf. does not represent the meaning so well as the aor. does. Matthew 27:24f. relates that after Pilate’ s failure to persuade the Jews he ostentatiously washed his hands, thereby endeavouring to shift his responsibility. The last argument which the chief priests used, and which was effective, although their former overtures to Pilate (18:30, 19:7) had failed, was an appeal to his fears. “ If you release Him, you are no friend of Cæ sar.” There is no need to limit the term φίλοςτοῦΚαίσαρος , as if it were an official title (cf. 15:15); the expression is used generally. The official title is probably not found before Vespasian. πᾶςὁβασιλέαἑαυτὸνποιῶνκτλ ., “ every one who makes himself a king,” which was the charge brought in the first instance against Jesus (see on 18:33), ἀντιλέγει (only here in Jn.), “ opposes Cæ sar.” Here was a veiled threat. If Pilate were reported at Rome to have set free a man making pretension to the title “ King of the Jews,” it might go badly with him. Treason to the emperor was the cardinal offence for a viceroy or procurator. 13. We must read τῶνλόγωντούτων , with א ABW, rather than τοῦτοντὸνλόγον of the rec. text, which has come in from v. 8. Pilate not only heard what the Jews said, but he appreciated its force (see on 3:8 for ἀκούειν followed by the gen.). The reference is to the threat of v. 12. Pilate could not afford to have it reported to the emperor that he had acquitted a prisoner who was accused of setting himself up as a king. His position would be safe only if the Jews asked for an acquittal; for then he could always say that the charge had broken down. ἤγαγενἔξωτὸνἸη ., “ he led Jesus out,” sc. from the Praetorium, where He had been under examination (v. 9). ἐκάθισενἐπὶβήματος must be rendered “ he sat down on the judgment seat,” i.e. Pilate sat down, the examination being over, intending now to give judgment with full dignity. Before he finally passed sentence, he gave the priests another opportunity of claiming, or acquiescing in, the release of Jesus. This (intransitive) rendering of ἐκάθισεν agrees with Mt.’ s report καθημένουδὲαὐτοῦἐπὶτοῦβήματος (Matthew 27:19), as well as with the only other place where ἐκάθισεν occurs in Jn. (12:14). We have καθίσαςἐπὶτοῦβήματος used of Herod and of Festus in Acts 12:21, Acts 12:25:6, Acts 12:17. καθίζειν , however, is used transitively in 1 Corinthians 6:4, Ephesians 1:20 (cf. Hermas, Vis. III. ii. 4), and Archbishop Whately maintained1 that ἐκάθισεν should be rendered transitively here, the meaning being that Pilate did not sit on the Βήμα himself, but set Jesus on it in derision. It is worthy of note that there was a tradition current in the second century that Jesus had thus been placed by the Jews on the judgment seat. It appears in the Gospel of Peter (§ 3): ἐκάθισαναὐτὸνἐπὶκαθέδρανκρίσεως , λέγοντες , Δικαίωςκρῖνε , βασιλεῦτοῦἸσραήλ Justin (whencesoever he obtained the tradition) has it also: διασύροντεςαὐτὸν (referring to Isaiah 58:2) ἐκάθισανἐπὶβήματος , καὶεἶπονΚρῖνονἡμῖν (Apol. i. 35). Perhaps it came from a misunderstanding of Joh 19:13, attributing this derisive action to Pilate, not to the Jews. But a misunderstanding it must be, for, apart from the intransitive use of καθίζειν being always found elsewhere in the Gospels, it is inconceivable that a Roman procurator should be so regardless of his dignity, when about to pronounce sentence of death, as to make a jest of the matter.2 ἐπὶβήματος , “ upon a judgment seat,” sc. perhaps upon one improvised for the occasion, as the Jews would not enter the Præ torium, and judgment had to be given in public. The rec. text has ἐπὶτοῦβήματος , but τοῦ is omitted by א ABDsuppLN, and it probably came in from such passages as Acts 12:21, Acts 12:25:6, Acts 12:17. Josephus (Bell. Jud. II. ix. 3), when telling of another sentence pronounced by Pilate, has ὁΠιλᾶτοςκαθίσαςἐπὶβήματοςἐντῷμεγάλῳσταδίῳ , judgment in this case also being delivered in the open air. Here we have ἐπὶβήματοςεἰςτόπονκτλ ., instead of ἐντόπῳ . Perhaps εἰς is used because of the verb at the beginning of the sentence (see on 9:7); but it is possible that it is used for ἐν here, as it often is in Mar_3 and in Lk. and Acts. See on 1:18, 9:7 εἰςτόπονλεγόμενονΛιθόστρωτον , Ἑβραϊστὶ (see on 5:2) δὲΓαββαθά . Λιθόστρωτον is not the interpretation of the name Gabbatha (see on 4:25); Jn. gives the two names, Greek and Aramaic, of distinct derivation, by which the place was known. The word Λιθόστρωτον does not occur again in the N.T., and in the LXX it is found only at Esther 1:6, Son 3:10, 2 Chronicles 7:3; in the last-mentioned passage being applied to the pavement of Solomon’ s temple. (cf. Josephus, Antt. VIII. iii. 2). The situation of the Præ torium has been already discussed (see on 18:28), and we have identified it with Herod’ s Palace, which was to the south of the Temple area. But the name Gabbatha is not known elsewhere. Its derivation is probably from the root ג ב ה “ to be high,” so that נ ּ ַ ב ּ ְ ת ָ א would mean “ an elevated place.” 1 G. A. Smith (Jerusalem, ii. 575) suggests that it is derived from ג ב ב , “ to pack closely,” so that Gabbatha would be equivalent to “ a mosaic.” It was customary to place the βῆμα or judgment seat on a dais of tesselated or mosaic pavement, in order that the judge might be seen and heard conveniently; and Julius Cæ sar is said to have carried about with him tessellata et sectilia pavimenta, to be laid down wherever he encamped (Suet. Jul. 46). A portable dais of this kind could not, however, have given its name to a locality; Λιθόστρωτον was probably one of the names by which the elevated place of judgment came to be known, because of the mosaic pavement which was laid down for the sake of dignity 14. ἦνδὲΠαρασκευὴτοῦπάσχα , i.e. “ Friday of the Passover week.” Elsewhere (Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, Matthew 27:62, and John 19:31) παρασκευή means the day of preparation for the Sabbath, as here (see on 19:42 for a possible exception). Thus Josephus has ἐνσάββασινἤτῇπρὸαὐτῆςπαρασκευῇ (Antt. xvi. 6. 2); and in the Didache (§ 8) παρασκευή again means Friday (cf. Clem. Alex. Strom., § 75). In the year of the Passion, the Passover, i.e. Nisan 14, fell on a Friday (v. 31). Had the meaning of παρασκευὴτοῦπάσχα here meant “ It was the Preparation day of the Passover, ” i.e. the day before the Passover, we should have had ἡπαρασκευή with the def. article. See on v. 42. ὥραἦνὡςἓκτη . So א ABNW and vss. For ἓκτη , א cDsuppLΔ read τρίτη , thus harmonising the text with Mark 15:25. Eusebius (as quoted by Severus) explains the variant by ascribing it to the confusion between Γ (3) and F (6).1 But the textual evidence for ἕκτη is overwhelming. In Mark 15:25 Jesus is said to have been crucified at “ the third hour,” the darkness beginning at “ the sixth hour” and continuing until “ the ninth hour,” when He died. This is corrected by Jn.,2 who tells that the Crucifixion did not begin until after “ the sixth hour,” i.e. after noon. The hypothesis that Jn.’ s method of reckoning time was different from that of the Synoptists is inadmissible (see on 1:39). That a discrepancy should exist as to the actual hour will not surprise any one who reflects on the loose way in which time intervals are often reported by quite honest witnesses.3 Jn. is specially careful to fix the time at which things happened, and he is here followed by the Acts of John (§ 97), in which it is distinctly said “ at the sixth hour.” Indeed it is difficult to believe that all that happened on the day of the Passion before Jesus was actually crucified was over by 9 a.m., as Mk.’ s report indicates. For ἴδε “ behold,” a favourite word with Jn., see on 1:29; and cf. v. 14 above for the derisive Ἴδε , ὁβασιλεὺςὑμῶν . The sarcasm of Pilate is directed against the Jews, not against Jesus. 15. ἐκραύγασανοὖνἐκεῖνοι . So א cBL, ἐκεῖνοι being emphatic: the rec. text has οἱδὲἐκραύγασαν . W has ἔλεγον . For κραυγάζειν , see on 11:43 (cf. v. 6). Ἆρονἆρον . Cf. Luke 23:18 αἶρετούτον , and Acts 21:36. Moulton-Milligan illustrate this usage of αἴρω from a second-century papyrus letter in which a mother says of her son: “ He upsets me; away with him!” . Τὸνβασιλέαὑμῶνσταυρώσω ; Pilate’ s ironical question is made specially incisive by the prominence in the sentence of τ . βασιλέαὑμ . οἱἀρχιερεῖς , who have been the prime movers throughout (cf. vv. 6, 21, and 12:10), in their eagerness to answer Pilate, not only deny that Jesus was their King, but repudiate the idea that they have any king but Cæ sar, thus formally denying the first principle of the Jewish theocracy that “ Yahweh was their King” (1 Samuel 12:12). Implicitly, they denied the ideal of the Messianic King, in order to conciliate a heathen power; and thus, by saying “ We have no king but Cæ sar,” they abandoned that which was most distinctive of the religion of Judaism. In words, they not only rejected Jesus; they repudiated the claims of the Christ, to whose Advent they professed to look forward. So, at least, the Johannine narrative implies. To be sure, they did not mean as much as this; they were so anxious to gain their point that they did not measure their words. By the time the Fourth Gospel was written, the Jewish state had been overthrown by Titus; and some of those who avowed before Pilate their unreserved loyalty to Cæ sar had doubtless fallen, fighting against Cæ sar’ s legions. 16. τότεοὖνπαρέδωκενκτλ . Pilate’ s efforts to save Jesus had failed. The people had taken up the cry, “ Crucify Him!” The priests had just announced their loyalty to Cæ sar in extravagant terms, and Pilate was afraid of their innuendo (v. 12) that he was not overzealous in Cæ sar’ s cause. Therefore, afraid of the popular clamour, and not specially interested in the fate of an unpopular fanatic (as he deemed Jesus to be), “ he delivered Him to them,” i.e. to the Jews , “ that He might be crucified.” The usual form of sentence in such cases was “ ibis ad crucem,” but the Gospels do not record that it was formally pronounced. This may have been done, but in any case Pilate’ s attitude was rather that he acquiesced in the capital penalty being inflicted than that he approved it. According to Roman custom, after the death sentence was pronounced, the criminal was first scourged, and then led off to execution without delay. So Josephus says of crucifixions under the procurator Florus: μαστιγῶσαίτεπρὸτοῦβήματοςκαὶσταυρῷπροσηλῶσαι (Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 9). Mk. (followed by Mt.) represents the scourging of Jesus as taking place at this point, that is, after His sentence. According to Jn. (19:1), He had already been scourged by Pilate’ s order, in the hope that the Jews would be satisfied with this sufficiently terrible punishment (cf. Luke 23:22). It is probable that Jn.’ s report is the more accurate here; and it is not likely that Pilate would have permitted a second scourging. The Crucifixion and the Title on the Cross (vv. 17-22) 17. παρέλαβονοὖντὸνἸη ., “ So they received Jesus,” sc. at the hands of Pilate . AW add καὶἀπήγαγον after Ἰησοῦν , and DsuppΓΔΘ read καὶἤγαγον ; but BL 33 a b c e ff add nothing (cf. Mark 15:20 Luke 23:26, Matthew 27:31, from a reminiscence of which passages ἀπήγαγον has crept into the Johannine text). βαστάζωνἑαυτῷτὸνσταυρόν . So א ; the rec. has βαστάζωντὸνστ . αὐτοῦ . B has αὐτῳ . For βαστάζειν , see on 12:6. A criminal condemned to be crucified was required to carry his own cross; cf. Plutarch (de sera numinis vindicta, 9), ἕκαστοςκακούργωνἐκφέρειτὸναὑτοῦσταυρόν , and Artemidorus (Oneir. ii. 56), ὁμέλλωνσταυρῷπροσηλοῦσθαιπρότεροναὐτὸνβαστάζει , a custom which gives special point to the exhortation, Mark 8:34. The Synoptists speak of the Cross being borne by Simon of Cyrene, and do not mention that Jesus carried it Himself; however, the ancient explanation is sufficient, viz. that Jesus carried it as they were leaving the Præ torium, but that when He was found to be overborne by its weight, Simon was compelled to carry it for Him. The patristic idea that Jesus bearing His Cross was typified by Isaac, upon whom τὰξύλα (Genesis 22:6) were laid, as he went to the place of sacrifice, goes back to Melito1 and Tertullian.2 See on 18:12. ἐξῆλθεν , “ He went out,” for executions were not allowed within the city walls. See on v. 20. εἰςτὸνλεγ . κρανίουτόπονκτλ . Γολγοθά is the transliteration of the Aramaic ג ּ ו ּ ל ְ ג ּ ַ ֹ ל ְ ת ּ ָ א , Hebrew ג ּ ֻ ל ְ ג ּ ו ֹ ל ֶ ת which is transl. by κρανίον in Judges 9:53, 2 Kings 9:35. For Ἑβραϊστί , see on 5:2; and for Jn.’ s habit of giving Aramaic names with their Greek equivalents, see on 1:38. Mark 15:22 and Matthew 27:33 give the Greek name as Κρανίου , Luke 23:33 giving Κρανίον , while Mt. and Mk. as well as Jn. supply also the Aramaic designation. We do not know why this place was called “ the Place of a Skull” (Calvaria). Origen is the first to mention a tradition, afterwards widely prevalent, that Adam was believed to be buried on this site (Comm. in Matthew 27:33); but no evidence has been found to show that this was a pre-Christian tradition, and the idea may have grown out of a passage like 1 Corinthians 15:22. It has been suggested in modern times that this place-name was given because of the shape of the knoll or little hill where the Crucifixion was carried out. But there is no tradition whatever in favour of this, nor is there any evidence in the Gospel narratives to support the popular idea that Calvary was on a hill or rising ground. Yet another explanation of the name “ Golgotha” is that it means “ the place of skulls,” i.e. a public place of execution, where the bodies of the victims were left. This would require κρανίων not κρανίου , not to speak of the facts that bodies were never left unburied in this way near a town, and that Joseph of Arimathea’ s “ new tomb” (19:41) would certainly not have been built near a place so abhorrent to a Jew The tradition reproduced by Origen may be pre-Christian; and if so it gives an explanation of the name Golgotha, but no other explanation is, in any case, forthcoming. See on v. 20. 18. ὅπουαὐτὸνἐσταύρωσαν , “ where they crucified Him,” i.e. the soldiers1 (see v. 23), who were told off for the purpose. μετ ʼ αὐτοῦἄλλουςδύο . Mt. and Mk. call them λῃσταί (such as Barabbas was, 18:40); Lk. says κακοῦργοι ; Jn. does not apply any epithet to them. All the evangelists note that the Cross of Jesus was placed between the other two. Mediæ val fancy gave names to the robbers, Dismas or Titus or πιστός to the penitent (who is generally represented as on the right side of the Cross of Jesus), Gestas or Dumachus or θεομάχος being the impenitent one. ἐντεῦθενκαὶἐντεῦθεν . Cf. Daniel 12:5 (Theodotion); the LXX has the more usual ἔνθενκαὶἔνθεν : cf. 1 Macc. 6:38, 9:45. 19. τίτλον . The title or titulus, the technical name for the board bearing the name of the condemned or his crime or both, is only so called by Jn. In Mk. it is called ἡἐπιγραφή . Also it is only Jn. who tells that Pilate wrote it. As it appears in Jn. it included both the Name (ἸησοῦςὁΝαζωραῖος ; see 18:5) and an indication of the crime, conveyed in words of mockery (ὁβασιλεὺςτῶνἸουδαίων . In Mk. and Lk. only the αἰτία is given, the name being absent, while Mt. has οὗτόςἐστινἸησοῦςὁβασιλεὺςτῶνΙ ʼ ουδαίων .2 It is not possible to determine which form is verbally correct, but probably it was considered sufficient to give the αἰτία only. In Suetonius (Domit. 10) the terms of a similar titulus are preserved: “ impie locutus parmularius,” i.e. “ a parmularian (the name by which the adherents of a gladiatorial party were known) who has spoken impiously.” ἔθηκενἐπὶτοῦσταυροῦ : in Matthew 27:37 we have ἐπέθηκανἐπάνωτῆςκεφαλῆςαὐτοῦ , which suggests that the cross was of the shape called crux immissa, with a cross-bar for the arms, as painters have generally represented it to be. 20. το͂τονὀ͂ντὸντίτλονκτλ . “ This title, then (οὖν being a favourite conjunction with Jn.; see on 1:22), many of the Jews read,” as they would have opportunity of doing, the place being near the city, and as they would be able to do, because it was written in Aramaic as well as in Latin (the official language) and Greek (a detail peculiar to Jn.). That “ many of the Jews” read the title placed in mockery above the cross, “ the King of the Jews,” is not explicitly stated by any other evangelist, and Jn. makes no comment on it. But the irony of the statement is plain enough, and it is probably intentional. See on 1:45. ἐγγὺςἦνκτλ . We may translate this either by “ the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city,” or “ the place of the city where Jesus was crucified was near” ; but the former rendering is to be preferred. He suffered, not within the city walls, but “ without the gate” (Hebrews 13:12); cf. Matthew 27:32, Numbers 15:35, Acts 7:58. The traditional site of Golgotha may not be the true one, but it has better claims to recognition than any other.1 Although within the present walls of Jerusalem, it may have been outside the walls as they existed in the first century, 21. οἱἀρχιερεῖςτῶνἸουδαίων . That the “ chief priests” were “ of the Jews” seems superfluous to mention, but Jn. writes for Greek readers. See on 2:6, and cf. 6:4. They were uneasy about the title, lest any should fail to understand that it was written in mockery, and so they appealed to Pilate to change it. None of this is told by the Synoptists. ἐκεῖνος , ipse, is used for clearness. See on 1:8. 22. ὃγέγραφαγέγραφα . Pilate was a true Roman in his respect for an official document. He was himself responsible for the phrasing of the titulus; and, once written and affixed to the cross, it was the expression of a legal decision. From the legal point of view he was right in refusing to alter its terms. Litera scripta manet. To the form of expression, “ What I have written, I have written,” Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. iii. 432) gives some Rabbinic parallels (cf. also Genesis 43:14, Esther 4:16); but they are hardly apposite, as Pilate was not a Jew. Cf., however, ὅσαἐστήσαμενπρὸςὑμᾶςἕστηκεν (1 Macc. 13:38). The perf. tense γέγραφα marks the permanence and abiding character of his act. Jn. uses the perfect as distinct from the aorist, with strict linguistic propriety. The Distribution Among the Soldiers of Jesus’ Garments (vv. 23, 24) 23. ἔλαβοντὰἱμάτιααὐτοῦ . Nothing is said of the clothes of the crucified robbers. It was customary to remove the clothes before a condemned person was nailed to the cross, and by Roman law they were the perquisites of the soldiers who acted as executioners.1 But, presumably, the clothes of the malefactors were not worth anything, and so are not mentioned. Of the soldiers there was the usual quaternion (τετράδιον , Acts 12:4); and according to the Synoptists (Mark 15:39, Matthew 27:54, Luke 23:47) a centurion was also present. The Synoptists do not give any detailed account of the doings of the soldiers; they merely say, paraphrasing the words of Psa 22:18 (which was no doubt in their minds), that the soldiers divided the clothes, casting lots. But throughout the Johannine account of the Crucifixion (vv. 23-37), the fuller testimony of an eye-witness (see v. 35) reveals itself. This account is due to one who was near the Cross all the time. And so Jn. tells that it was for the χίτων or long cassock-shaped coat (as distinguished from the ἱμάτιον or outer cloak: cf. v. 2 and Matthew 5:40, Luke 6:29), which was woven in one piece, that lots were cast; and he adds that this was ἵναἡγραφὴπληρωθῇ , quoting Psalms 22:18 from the LXX: διεμερίσαντοτὰἱμάτιάμουἑαυτοῖς καὶἐπὶτὸνἱματισμόνμουἔβαλονκλῆρον .2 In this verse ἱμάτια and ἱματισμός represent distinct Hebrew words, ב ּ ֶ נ ֶ ד and ל ְ ב ו ּ ֹ ש ׁ , but it is not always possible to distinguish the meanings of these. In the original context, we have the ordinary parallelism of Hebrew poetry; but Jn. finds in the words an inspired forecast of that which was witnessed at the Crucifixion, viz. the division of some garments, and the drawing of lots for one in particular. “ These things, therefore, the soldiers did.” Jn. sees in all the incidents of the Passion the fulfilment of the Divine purpose disclosed in the O.T., and so he says that these things happened ἵναἡγραφὴπληρωθῇ .1 The χίτων was ἄρραφος (this word does not occur elsewhere in the Greek Bible), “ without seam,” as was the robe of the high priest’ s ephod (a long garment, ὑποδύτηςποδήρης , Exodus 28:32). Josephus (Ant. III. vii. 4) calls this robe of the high priest a χίτων , and (following the directions given in Exodus) he explains elaborately that it was woven in one piece.2 But this is only a verbal coincidence; the idea of a high-priestly robe does not enter here.3 χίτων is the ordinary word for the long coat worn in the East under the cloak. It was of some value, and Jn. records that the soldiers said (the witness was near enough to hear the words) Μὴσχίσωμεναὐτόν . ἀλλὰλάχωμενπερὶαὐτοῦτίνοςἔσται . Field (in loc.) urges that λαγχάνειν is unprecedented in the sense of “ to cast lots,” its usual meaning being “ to obtain by lot.” But Symmachus translated י ַ פ ּ ִ י ל ו ּ ג ו ֹ ר ָ ל in Psalms 22:18 by ἐλάγχανον . The account of this incident in the second-century Gospel of Peter is as follows: τεθεικότεςτὰἐνδύματαἔμπροσθεναὐτοῦδιεμερίσαντο , καὶλαχμὸνἔβαλονἐπ ʼ αὐτοῖς , “ having set His garments before Him, they parted them among them and cast a lot for them.” It is not stated by Pseudo-Peter that this was the act of the soldiers, who appear a little later as a body of eight men, with a centurion, guarding the tomb, while Jn. is explicit that there were only four: τέσσεραμέρη , ἑκάστῳστρατιώτῃμέρος . The unusual word λαχμός , for κλῆρος , in Pseudo-Peter may have been suggested by Jn.’ s λάχωμεν . It is reproduced by Justin (Tryph. 97), who quotes Psalms 22:15-18 from the LXX, and adds: ὅτεγὰρἐσταύρωσαναὐτόν , ἐμπήσσοντεςτοὺςἥλουςτὰςχεῖραςκαὶτοὺςπόδαςαὐτοῦὤρυξαν , καὶοἱσταυρώσαντεςαὐτὸνἐμέρισαντὰἱμάτιααὐτοῦἑαυτοῖς , λαχμὸνβάλλοντεςἕκαστοςκατὰτὴντοῦκλήρουἐπιβολὴνὃἐκλέξεσθαιἐβεβούλητο . οἱμὲνοὖνστρατ . κτλ . μέν , recalling what the soldiers did, corresponds to δέ in v. 25 introducing the fact that the women were present. μὲνοὖν occurs again in Jn. only at 20:30, where also it is followed by a corresponding δέ . Three Sayings of Jesus from the Cross, Before His Death (vv. 25-30) 25. εἱστήκεισανδὲπαρὰτῷσταυρῷκτλ . From the Synoptic parallels (Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:56; cf. Luke 24:10) we gather that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and Salome the wife of Zebedee and mother of the apostles James and John, were present at the Cross. Jn. enumerates Mary the mother of Jesus (whose presence the Synoptists do not mention), her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, i.e. four persons and not three as one reading of the text might suggest. Not only does the Peshitta make this clear by putting “ and” before “ Mary the wife of Clopas” ; but the balance of the sentence, if four persons are indicated, is thoroughly Johannine. If we compare this with the Synoptic parallels we reach two important conclusions: (1) Salome was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, and therefore John the son of Zebedee and Salome was a maternal cousin of Jesus. (2) Mary the wife of Clopas is the same person as Mary the mother of James and Joseph (cf. Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, Mark 15:47, Mark 15:16:1, Luke 24:10). It would be impossible to equate the Synoptic “ Mary, the mother of James and Joseph” with the Lord’ s mother, for no one can suppose that the Synoptists, when telling the names of the women at the Cross, would have described the mother of Jesus in so circuitous a manner. This James is called by Mk. ὁἸακώβοςὁμικρός or “ James the Little,” the adjective not relating to his dignity, but to his stature. Of him we know nothing more. Attempts have been made to identify Clopas with Alphæ us, who was father of one of the Twelve (James the son of Alphæ us, Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:3, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13); but philological considerations will not permit us to reduce Clopas and Alphœ us to the same Hebrew original.1 The N.T. tells us no more of Clopas (Cleopas of Luk 24:18 is a different name); but Hegesippus2 (fl. circa 150 a.d.), states that he was the brother of Joseph, the Lord’ s foster-father, and so “ the Lord’ s uncle.” Hegesippus also says that he had a son, Symeon or Simon, who became second bishop of Jerusalem, “ being a cousin of the Lord,” succeeding James the Just, “ the Lord’ s brother,” who was the first bishop. See, further, Additional Note on 2:12. The MSS. vary as to the spelling of Mary Magdalene’ s name , but Mary of Clopas seems to be always Μαρία . As we have seen (on 11:2, 20), B 33 always describe Mary of Bethany as Μαριάμ , while א always has Μαρία . But when Mary Magdalene (whom we take to be the same person) is mentioned the usage is different. In 19:25, 20:1, 11 B gives Μαρία , and א 33 give Μαριάμ . At 20:16, 18 א B 33 agree in reading Μαριάμ . Probably the Hebrew form Μαριάμ should be adopted throughout (this is the spelling in Pseudo-Peter).3 26. Ἰησοῦςκτλ . For the omission the article before Ἰησοῦς when followed by οὖν , see on 6:15. τῇμητρί . So א BL. ADsuppNLΓΔΘ , some O.L. texts, and the Coptic Q add αὐτοῦ , as in the rec. text. The true reading, both here and in v. 27, seems to be ἴδε (a favourite word with Jn.; see on 1:29), and not ἰδού which occurs only 16:32, 19:5. In v 26 א AΘ give ἰδού , but BDsuppN have ἴδε . In v. 27 ἰδού is read by ADsupp, ἴδε being read by א BLNΘ . The Coptic Q and the O.L. e omit the introductory γύναι , perhaps feeling it to be harsh. The reasons for identifying “ the disciple whom Jesus loved” with John the son of Zebedee and Salome, the maternal cousin of Jesus, have been given in the Introduction, p. xxxvif. We now find John at the Cross, with the women, including the Virgin Mother and his own mother Salome. It was natural that the Virgin should be commended to his care, rather than to the care of “ the brethren,” James and Simon and Joseph and Jude, with whom she had been so intimately associated in the past, and whose home she had probably shared (see on 2:12), because they were not yet disciples; they had not accepted the claims of Jesus or believed in His mission. As we have seen, John was nephew to Mary, and in sympathy he was nearer to her than these stepsons. And so Jesus bade His mother look to John, His beloved friend and cousin, to be her “ son.” He is going from her, but John will take His place in such measure as is possible The words “ Woman, behold thy son … behold thy mother” are more than a mere commendation1 or suggestion from a dying friend. They convey a command from Him who was, to Mary, as well as to John, Master and Lord. He did not address her as “ Mother,” even while He shows tender solicitude for her future. “ Mother,” as a title of address by Jesus, was abandoned long since, and for it “ Woman,” a usual title of respect, has been substituted. See on 2:4. When Jesus said to John “ Behold thy mother,” John’ s own mother, Salome, was present and may have overheard the words. But the Virgin was her sister, broken-hearted and desolate, with whom she was in complete sympathy, for she too had accepted Jesus as Master. She was not necessarily set aside or superseded by the charge to her son to regard her sister Mary as a second mother, and treat her with filial care. The place which this farewell charge occupies among the Words from the Cross is noteworthy, as will be seen if they are read in their probable sequence. Additional Note on the Words From the Cross The evangelical narratives of the Passion reflect at least three distinct lines of tradition. The Marcan tradition (which according to Papias goes back to Peter, whose disciple Mark was) is followed with amplifications of a later date by Matthew. It is also followed by Luke, who seems, however, to have had some additional source of information. His account of the trial before Herod (23:8-12), e.g., has no parallel in the other Gospels; and it has been often observed that Luke alone mentions Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’ s steward, as one of the women who accompanied Jesus in His public ministry (Luke 8:3) and were present at the Crucifixion (Luke 23:49) and heralds of the Resurrection (Luke 23:55, Luke 24:10). To this Joanna, Luke’ s special information as to the Passion may possibly be due. The third distinct tradition of the Passion is that of Jn., which goes back for details to the personal witness of the Beloved Disciple (19:35). The Marcan tradition reports one Word from the Cross, the Lucan tradition three, and the Johannine tradition yet another three. There is nothing surprising in this variation. Independent witnesses may honestly and truthfully give different, although not inconsistent, reports of the same events. They report only what they have personally observed, and only such part of that as has specially impressed them or is suitable for the purposes of their narrative, if they are writing one. It may not be possible to harmonise precisely the various accounts of the Passion, or to place the Words from the Cross in exact chronological sequence. But there is no critical objection to the order which has generally commended itself to students of the Gospels, as being suggested by the sacred text. It may be set out as follows: 1. Πάτερ , ἄφεςαὐτοῖς · οὐγὰροἴδασιντίποιοῦσιν (Luke 23:34). This comes in the Lucan narrative, according to the received text, immediately after the statement that Jesus had been crucified between the two thieves. But that it is part of the original text of Lk. is uncertain; it is omitted by א aBD* and other authorities, and Westcott-Hort “ cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source.” 1 Wherever it comes from, whether the knowledge of it came to Lk. from some eye-witness, such as Joanna, or whether it found its way into the text of Lk., after his narrative was completed, it has an unmistakable note of genuineness. 2. Ἀμὴνλέγωσοι , σήμερονμετ ʼ ἐμοῦἔσῃἐντῷπαραδείσῳ (Luke 23:43). This was addressed to the penitent thief, and, like the First Word, must have been said at the beginning of the awful scene. “ It was now about the sixth hour,” is Lk.’ s comment (Luke 23:44); i.e. it was about noon. See on John 19:14. The report of this saying must have come from some one who stood near the Cross, and so was able to hear what was said. 3. Γύναι , ἴδεὁυἱόςσου … Ἴδεἡμήτηρσου (John 19:26, John 19:27). There is no difficulty in understanding why this saying should have been specially treasured in memory by the Beloved Disciple, and thus recorded at last in the Fourth Gospel. It was specially addressed to him, and to her whom he was to cherish henceforth as a mother; there is no reason to suppose that other bystanders were unable to hear the words. If we examine the sequence of these first three Words from the Cross, in the order seemingly suggested in the Gospel texts, we cannot fail to notice the narrowing of the circle of interest, as death draws near. That always happens. When death is at a distance, men are still concerned with the wider interests of life; then it draws closer, and it is only the nearer and more intimate interests that appeal; and the time comes when the energies of thought are taxed to the full by the messages of farewell to those who have been best beloved. So it was with the Son of Man. In the hour of death, the first movement of the heart of Jesus is towards those who had brought Him to the Cross. “ Father, forgive them.” His mission of Redemption is still in His thoughts. Then, as strength ebbs away, the cry of the penitent thief by His side reaches Him, and the response to the individual pleading does not fail. “ This day shalt thou be with me.” But the circle is narrowing fast. His dying eyes are fixed upon those who have been dearest. The forgiveness of enemies; the consolation of the fellow-sufferer; these give place to the thought of mother and of friend. “ Behold thy son … behold thy mother.” These are the stages of the approach of death, for the Perfect Man. 4. Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? θεέμου , θεέμου , ἱνατίμεἐγκατέλιπες ; (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34). This is the only Word from the Cross which rests upon the Marcan tradition, and may be taken as due to Peter. It was uttered “ with a loud voice,” and so could be heard even by those standing at a distance, as Peter probably was. (Cf. Matthew 27:55, ἦσανδὲἐκεῖγυναῖκεςπολλαὶἀπὸμακρόθενθεωροῦσαι .) There is no hint in any Gospel that he was one of the little circle who stood near the cross. This cry was misunderstood by the crowd, who thought that Jesus was calling for succour upon Elijah the prophet, an observation (Mark 15:35) which shows that we have here to do with words actually used, and not with words afterwards placed in the mouth of Jesus, being thought appropriate as the opening phrase of a Messianic Psalm (Psalms 22:1). Indeed, the difficulty that interpreters have always felt in explaining these words of seeming despair as spoken by One who was Himself Divine, proves that they are not likely to have been the invention of pious fancy dwelling afterwards on the Agony of Calvary. They were reproduced later in a Docetic form in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter: Ἡδύναμίςμου , ἡδύναμις , κατέλειψάςμε . Why they are not recorded by Lk. or Jn. it is idle to conjecture. 5. Διψῶ (John 19:28). This was spoken near the end. Although the actual word διψῶ is recorded only by Jn., yet the incident of the Lord’ s thirst being assuaged is given in Mark 15:36 (Matthew 27:48). “ I thirst” would naturally have been said in a low voice, so that it could be heard only by those near the Cross. That Jn. should have specially recorded this word is in keeping with the emphasis laid, throughout the Fourth Gospel, on the humanity of Jesus. As He asked the Samaritan woman for water when He was thirsty (4:7), so now. Jn. is anxious to expel Docetic doctrine (1 John 4:2), and both here and at 19:34 he brings out recollections of the Beloved Disciple which forbid any theory of Christ’ s Person that does not recognise His manhood. Jesus was thirsty at the Cross. 6. Τετέλεσται (John 19:30). That after He had assuaged His thirst, Jesus uttered a loud cry, just before the end, is recorded Mark 15:37, Matthew 27:50; cf. also Luke 23:46. But the spectator upon whose testimony Jn. is dependent not only heard the cry, but identified the word spoken. This, for Jn., who sees all through the Passion the predestined march of events to the fulfilment of God’ s purposes,1 is the Great Word. Everything had happened as it did happen, in order that the Divine purpose, as foreshadowed in the O.T., might be accomplished (τελειωθῇ 19:28). And τετέλεσται marks this Consummation. 7. Πάτερ , εἰςχεῖράςσουπαρατίθεμαιτὸπνεῦμάμου (Luke 23:46). Lk. specially notes that this was after the Great Cry , and that this was the last word spoken. To the utterance of faithful confidence from the ancient Psalm (31:5), the one word “ Father” was prefixed, which charged it for future generations with a deeper meaning. In the Psalm, it is the trustful prayer of life; on the lips of Jesus (and thereafter; cf. Acts 7:59), it became a prayer of the dying. It is noteworthy that the two personal cries of Jesus from the Cross (Nos. 4 and 7) are old and familiar verses from the Psalter. Jn. does not record this, but we cannot know his reason. If it was indeed the last word spoken, the Beloved Disciple must have heard it, as well as the witness, Joanna or another, from whom it was transmitted to Lk. It is just possible that the words of Joh 19:30, παρέδωκεντὸπνεῦμα , contain a reminiscence of Lk.’ s παρατίθεμαιτὸπνεῦμάμου . But in any case Jn. never attempts to tell all that had happened, or all that he knew; his method is to select and arrange the sayings and acts of Jesus which best bring out the main thesis of his Gospel (20:31). And τετέλεσται is, in his scheme, the final word of the Cross. Of other arrangements of the Seven Words, that of Tatian, our earliest harmonist, is the most noteworthy. It differs in one particular only from that which has been set out here. Tatian in his Diatessaron puts “ Father, forgive them … ” immediately before “ Father, into thy hands … ” ; thus contradicting the order in which Lk. (who alone records them both) places the two sayings, “ Father, forgive them” and “ This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Bishop Andrewes in his Litania places our No. 3 before our No. 2, an arrangement adopted also in some German hymns. Certainty cannot be reached, but a clearer insight into the significance of these Words is gained by any honest attempt to reach the order in which they were spoken. 27. ἀπ ʼ ἐκείνηςτῆςὥρας , “ from that hour.” It has been thought that this implies that Mary did not wait for the end, but that John led her away at once. It may have been so, but in that case John returned soon, for he is present at the Cross later (vv. 28-35). Cf. 11:53. That Jn. does not mention the cry Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? which is reported by Mk. (15:34) followed by Mt. (27:46) as having been uttered “ with a loud voice,” may perhaps be explained as due to the absence of the eye-witness at this point. The aged disciple recalls only his own personal experiences. Another possible explanation is that Jn. has omitted this saying, because he wishes to emphasise the voluntary character of Christ’ s death. See on v. 30. εἰςτὰἴδια , “ to his own home.” The phrase is used thus Esther 5:10, Esther 5:3 Macc. 6:27, 37, 7:8, Acts 21:6, and it is the most natural meaning. It occurs twice elsewhere in Jn. (1:11, 16:32), where the sense is probably the same, but is not quite so clear as it is here (see note on 1:11). John brought the Virgin Mother to his own lodging1 (see on 20:10), and she lived with him thereafter; but we cannot build on the phrase εἰςτὰἴδια a theory which would give him a house of residence at Jerusalem (see on 18:15). 28. μετὰτοῦτο . The phrase does not convey that the incident of vv. 28-30 immediately followed on that of vv. 25-27. In fact, there was interposed the long interval of darkness and of silence, of which all the Synoptists speak as lasting for some three hours (Mark 15:33, Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44). But it means, as it does elsewhere in Joh_2 that the second incident was later than the first; whereas the phrase μετὰταῦτα does not carry the sense of strict chronological sequence so explicitly. εἰδὼςὁἸησοῦςκτλ . The same phrase occurs in 13:1, where in like manner it leads up to the statement that the appointed hour had come. He knew that “ all things had now been finished,” ἤδηπάντατετέλεσται . Jn. never allows his readers to forget that events which he records were eternally fore-ordained, and that Jesus was conscious of this. Primarily ἤδηπάντατετέλεσται may have reference to the details of the Passion, and the Lord’ s word τετέλεσται may be taken to mean that the Passion with its anguish and its sordid accompaniments was now over. And so “ that the Scripture might be accomplished, Jesus said, I thirst.” 28, 29, 30. ἵνατελειωθῇἡγραφή . So ABLNWΓ . א DsuppΘ and fam. 13 have the more usual πληρωθῇ . Some have found a more complete consummation expressed by τελειωθῇ than πληρωθῇ would convey, but this is over subtle. If a reason is sought for the choice of the word τελειωθῇ , it may be found in the preceding τετέλεσται ; τελεῖν suggesting τελειοῦν . ἵνατελ . ἡγρ . probably refers to what follows, not to what precedes.1 Jn. held that every incident of the Crucifixion took place as foreshadowed in the O.T. Scriptures, and that the Divine purpose as expressed therein might be accomplished. For him, the thirst of Jesus and its relief were foretold and fore-ordained in Psalms 69:21: εἰςτὴνδίψανμουἐπότισάνμεὄξος . That this is the passage in Jn.’ s mind appears from the mention of ὄξος after the word διψῶ . The phrasing of the parallel narrative (Mark 15:36), σπόγγονὄξουςπεριθεὶςκαλάμῳἐπότιζεναὐτόν , shows that Mk. (followed by Matthew 27:48) had the same passage from the Psalter in his thought. The ὄξος , or posca, was the sour wine which was the usual drink of the legionaries, some of which, according to Lk. (23:36), had already been offered by the soldiers to Jesus in mockery, as if it were a coronation cup. It is not doubtful, however, that Jn. intends τετέλεσται to have a deeper significance than that the various incidents of the Passion were now finished. τετέλεσται is not a cry of relief that all is over; it is a shout of Victory. The mission of Redemption has now been perfected. See on 4:34. According to the Synoptists (see Additional Note on v. 26) τετέλεσται was cried “ with a loud voice.” This may have some bearing on the request suggested in the preceding word διψῶ . Jesus may have desired that those who were present, the idle spectators and the soldiers as well as the faithful disciples, should understand that He counted His Death as a Victory. He may have wished to announce this publicly, so that all could hear. But if He was to speak now, after the long torture of the Cross, “ with a loud voice,” His parched throat must be cooled. It was necessary that He should ask for drink. And so, ὅτεοὖνἔλαβεντὸὄξος , “ when He had therefore taken the wine,” He cried Τετέλεσται , that all might know that great fact of which He was Himself assured, ἤδηπάντατετέλεσται . It was this majestic word which seems specially to have impressed the centurion who was there. “ When the centurion, which stood by over against Him, saw that He so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was a Son of God” (Mark 15:39), “ Certainly this was a righteous man” (Luke 23:47). At any rate, Jn. regards it as the Final Word, and will add nothing to it. But whether this connexion between the two words διψῶ and τετέλεσται be suggested by Jn. or no (and it may be thought over subtle), διψῶ must be taken in its plain meaning of physical thirst. This Jesus felt, and a merciful bystander relieved Him. We are not to confuse this incident with the refusal by Jesus, before He was crucified, of the drugged wine which it was customary to offer criminals who were condemned to the Cross (Mark 15:23, Matthew 27:34). The Talmudists say of this kindly custom “ they gave them to drink a little frankincense in a cup of wine … that their understanding might be disordered.” 1 This Jesus refused because He willed to endure the Cross with full and unimpaired consciousness. But now all is finished. The work of redemption has been completed. It is no part of Christ’ s revelation that the enduring of purposeless pain is meritorious. The pains of thirst were terrible to one exposed to the scorching heat of midday, while hanging naked on the Cross. And so Jesus said, “ I thirst,” in His death-agony. It would seem that some provision had been made for relieving the thirst of the dying men. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ The Sepulchre Found Empty by Mary Magdalene, and by Peter and John (20:1-10) 1. τῇδὲμιᾷτῶνσαββάτων … πρωΐ , σκοτίαςἔτιοὔσης . Mark 16:2 says in like manner, λίανπρωῒτῆςμιᾶςσαββάτων . For πρωΐ , see on 18:28. Luke 24:1 and Matthew 28:1 agree in mentioning “ the first day of the week, “ and in describing the visit to the tomb as being made in the half-light just before dawn. Jn. names Mary Magdalene only as visiting the tomb, but the plur. οἴδαμεν of v. 2 suggests that she was not alone, and that her perplexity as to how the Lord’ s body had been disposed of was shared by others. It is unlikely that a woman would have ventured by herself outside the city walls before daylight, and the Synoptists agree in telling that she was accompanied by others. Mark 16:1 names as her companions Mary the mother of James (i.e. the wife of Clopas; see on 2:12) and Salome, the Virgin’ s sister, who were also present at the Crucifixion with her (19:25). Matthew 28:1 only names “ Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.” Luke 24:10 mentions “ Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women.” Pseudo-Peter (§ 11) also notes that Mary Magdalene was accompanied by other women. Jn. does not say what the purpose of this visit to the tomb was; and in this he is in agreement with Matthew 28:1, where it is merely told that they went “ to see the sepulchre.” But Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56, Luke 24:1 explain that the purpose of the women was to anoint the body of Jesus. In Jn.’ s narrative (see 19:39) the body was hastily laid in spices on the Day of Crucifixion by Joseph and Nicodemus, but there was no time for any anointing then, or final disposition of the body. Nothing further could be done on the Sabbath, and the women came as early as possible the next morning, with the spices and unguents that they had provided for themselves (Mark 16:1, Luke 23:56).1 We hold that Mary Magdalene is the same person as Mary of Bethany (see Additional Note on 12:1-8); and her desire to anoint the body of her Master is thus significant in connexion with His words to her when she anointed His feet at Bethany (12:7). She had kept the ointment “ against the day of His burying.” Jn., however, does not introduce this point expressly. He narrates Mary’ s visit to the tomb briefly, because what he is anxious to describe is the subsequent visit of Peter and the Beloved Disciple, which was suggested by her report. Both Mk. and Lk. agree with Jn. in the statement that Mary (and the other women) found the stone taken away from the tomb. For τὸνλίθονἠρμένονἐκτοῦμνημείου , see on 11:38, 39. According to the Johannine narrative, Mary does not suspect as yet that anything out of the ordinary course of nature has happened. She sees that the stone which sealed the sepulchre has been removed, and (seemingly) she looks in to assure herself that the tomb is empty2 (v. 2); but her inference is only that the body has been removed to some other resting-place. 2. τρέχειοὖνκτλ . The haste with which the women ran back from the tomb is mentioned also Mark 16:8, Matthew 28:8. ἔρχεταιπρὸςΣίμωναΠέτρον . Peter was still, despite his denial of Jesus, reckoned as the leader, or at any rate as one of the leaders, of the disciples; and so it is naturally to him that the surprising news of the tomb being empty is carried first. He has not been mentioned since 18:27; and so on his reappearance in the narrative, Jn., according to his habit (see on 18:15), gives his full name Simon Peter. The names of the disciples to whom the women brought the news are not specified in Matthew 28:8; but cf. Luke 24:12. καὶπρὸςτὸνἄλλονμαθητήνκτλ . As Bengel observes, the repetition of πρός indicates that Peter and “ the other disciple” were not lodging in the same house. The women had to visit them separately. Cf. πρὸςαὑτούς of v. 10, and see 19:27. ὃνἐφίλειὁἸησοῦς . See 13:23, and cf. 21:17. This association of Peter and the “ Beloved Disciple” is significant, in view of the identification of the Beloved Disciple with John, the son of Zebedee. See Introd., pp. xxxiv ff. ῏Ηραντὸνκύριονκτλ ., “ they have taken away the Lord from the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” The subject of ἦραν is indefinite; Mary and her companions did not know who they were. For the designation of Jesus as “ the Lord,” see the note on 4:1. The plur. οἴδαμεν , as has been noted on v. 1, suggests that Mary was speaking for her companions as well as for herself. 3. Peter takes the lead, more suo. ἐξῆλθενοὗνὁΠέτροςκαὶὁἄλλοςμαθητής . For the singular verb ἐξῆλθεν , see Matthew 28:1. καὶἤρχοντοκτλ ., “ and they set out for the tomb.” In the Musé e du Luxembourg at Paris there is a remarkable picture by E. Burnand of Peter and his young companion hastening to the sepulchre, which will repay examination. 4. ἔτρεχονδέκτλ ., “ So they began to run, the two together, and the other disciple ran on in front more quickly than Peter.” προτρέχειν occurs again in N.T. only at Luke 19:4. Cf. 1 Macc. 16:21. καὶἦλθενπρῶτοςκτλ . The Beloved Disciple was probably the younger man of the two. 5. καὶπαρακύψαςβλέπεικείμενατὰὀθόνια . This sentence invites comparison with the parallel passage Luke 24:12 in the rec. text, viz.: ὁδέΠέτροςἀναστὰςἔδραμενἐπὶτὸμνημεῖονκαὶπαρακύψαςβλέπειτὰὀθόνιακείμεναμόνα · καὶἀπῆλθεπρὸςαὑτὸν , θαυμάζωντὸγεγονός . With ἀπῆλθεπρὸςαὑτόν cf. John 20:10, ἀπῆλθονοὖνπάλινπρὸςαὑτοὺςοἱμαθηταί . The verse Luke 24:12 is found in א ABLΓΔΘ , the old and the Pesh. Syriac, and in c f ff2, a strong combination. It is omitted in D a b e l r ful etc., and on that account Westcott-Hort place it in double brackets, treating it as a “ Western non-interpolation.” They regard it as “ condensed and simplified” from John 20:5-9, θαυμάζωντὸγεγονός being added to the Johannine account. Yet Hort’ s view of what he calls “ Western non-interpolations” is not universally accepted;1 and, in this instance, it is hard to believe that a scribe would be bold enough to alter so materially a statement made in the Fourth Gospel after it had received general acceptance,2 and thus to omit all mention of the Beloved Disciple as Peter’ s companion. On the contrary, the evidence for Luke 24:12 being part of the original text of Lk. is too strong to be set aside by the authority of D, an admittedly eccentric manuscript; and the true inference from the verbal similarities between Luke 24:12 and John 20:5 seems to be that Jn., here as often elsewhere (see Introd., p. xcix), is using Lk.’ s words for the purpose of correcting him. It was not Peter, he says, who peeped into the tomb and saw the linen wrappings lying on the ground, but it was the Beloved Disciple, who had arrived at the tomb before Peter did. He retains the words of Lk. so as to make it clear that he is dealing with the same incident, but he corrects the narrative of Lk. in so far as Peter is represented as being alone. Thus “ he went home” in Luke 24:12 becomes “ the disciples went home” in John 20:10. The difference between Lk. and Jn. is that between a man who is reproducing a generally accepted tradition, and that of an author relying on and reproducing what he has been told by an eye-witness of, and a participator in, the events narrated. Lk., indeed, implies at 24:24 that he had heard that more than one disciple had gone to the tomb to verify the women’ s report that it was empty; but there is no reason to think that he alludes there to the visit of Peter and John. Pseudo-Peter says there were many visitors to the sepulchre. παρακύψαςβλέπει . παρακύπτειν , in its primary and etymological meaning, would suggest “ to stoop down for the purpose of looking.” 3 But in this sense the verb is seldom used, and in the LXX it always means “ to peep” through a door or a window (cf. Genesis 26:8, Judges 5:28, 1 Kings 6:4, 1 Chronicles 15:29, Proverbs 7:6, Son 2:9, Ecclus. 14:23, 21:23), without any stooping being implied4 Cf. also James 1:25, 1 Peter 1:12. Nor does the word imply an earnest or searching gaze.5 The Beloved Disciple “ peeped in and saw” is the rendering which best gives the sense. κείμενατὰὀθόνια . The participle κείμενα is put first for emphasis. What startled the disciple was that he saw the grave-cloths lying on the ground. If the body had been removed to some other resting-place, as Mary had suggested, it would presumably have been removed as it had been originally prepared for burial. The cloths would also have disappeared.1 οὐμέντοι (for μέντοι , see on 12:42) εἰσῆλθεν . That the first disciple to note the presence of the grave-cloths in the tomb did not actually go into it first is not a matter that would seem worth noting, to any one except the man who himself refrained from entering. This strongly suggests that we are dealing with the narrative of an eye-witness. As to why John (for we believe the disciple to have been John) waited for Peter to go in first, we do not know. He may have been afraid, or overcome with emotion. Peter was a man of coarser fibre, more hasty, and more ready to put himself forward. That may be the whole explanation. 6. Peter’ s part in what happened is now resumed, and so he is given his full name ΣίμωνΠέτρος (cf. v. 2, and see on 18:15). He did not hesitate, but entered the tomb at once. καὶθεωρεῖτὰὀθόνιακείμενα , “ and notices the linen cloths lying.” In the parallel passage, Luke 24:12, we have βλέπειτὰὀθόνιακείμεναμόνα . Jn. leaves out μόνα , but explains carefully in v. 7 what it means in this context. 7. τὸσουδάριον . See on 11:44. The napkin for the head was not lying with the grave-cloths for the body. ἀλλὰχωρὶςἐντετυλιγμένονεἰςἕνατόπον . ἐντυλίσσειν is a rare verb, not found in the LXX; and in the parallels Matthew 27:59, Luke 23:53 (not again in N.T.) it is used of wrapping the body of Jesus in a cloth, ἐνετύλιξεναὐτὸσινδόνι . Here it is the head-covering itself or “ napkin” that is “ rolled up.” Latham believes that the language in vv. 6, 7 implies that the body had withdrawn from the grave-cloths, the swathes, and the turban-like napkin; the body-cloths being thus not scattered about, but lying flat, and the napkin, retaining the shape into which it had been wound (so as to cover the head), lying where the head had been. This is reverently and suggestively worked out in The Risen Master (pp. 39, 89); but it cannot be regarded as certain. Milligan cites a remarkable verbal parallel from a third-century magical papyrus, ἐντύλισσετὰφύλλαἐνσουδαρίῳκαινῷ . 8. τότεοὖνεἰσῆλθενκτλ . Peter may have told John what he saw; at any rate, John no longer refrained from entering the tomb, “ and he saw and believed” . He had no vision of the Risen Christ, but the sight of the abandoned grave-cloths was sufficient to assure him that Jesus had risen from the dead. Jn. (16:16) and the Synoptists (Mark 8:31, Mark 8:9:9, Mark 8:31, Mark 8:10:34 with parallels) agree in telling that Jesus had, on one occasion or another, assured the disciples that He would rise from the grave, and that they would see Him again. They had not understood or appreciated what He meant. But when John, the Beloved Disciple, saw the grave-cloths and the napkin in the tomb, the meaning of the strange predictions to which he had listened came to him with a flash of insight. “ He saw and believed.” This was a moment in his inner life, which was so charged with consequence, that he could never forget it, and the incident is recorded here as explaining how and when it was that he reached the fulness of Christian faith. That he “ believed” without “ seeing” his Risen Lord was in marked contrast to the attitude of Thomas, to whom it was said, “ Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed” (v. 29). ἐπίστευσεν . Syr. sin. has “ they believed,” and 69, 124 give ἐπίστευσαν , a mistaken correction due to a desire to include Peter as also “ believing.” For, although Peter “ believed,” it seems to have been after the Risen Christ had appeared to him (Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:5), and not after his first glance at the tomb. He went away, according to Luke 24:12, “ wondering at that which was come to pass.” Dsupp has the eccentric reading οὐκἐπίστευσεν , the scribe being misled by the words which follow. For πιστεύειν used absolutely, without the object of belief being specified, see on 1:7. 9. οὐδέπω (cf. 19:41) γὰρᾔδεισαντὴνγραφήν . γάρ is often used by Jn. to introduce a comment on incidents or words which have been recorded (cf. e.g. 3:16 and 5:21). Here γάρ does not introduce the reason for, or explanation of, the faith of John. Its meaning is, “ You must remember that,” etc. Jn. is thinking of his readers, who may be surprised that Peter and the Beloved Disciple were not more quick to recognise what had happened. “ You must remember that they did not yet know (i.e. understand) the scripture which had foretold the Resurrection of Christ.” ᾔδεισαν is used as in Mark 12:24 μὴεἰδότεςτὰςγραφάς , “ not appreciating the meaning of the scriptures.” The γραφή , or particular passage of Scripture in the evangelist’ s mind, was probably Psalms 16:10 (see on 2:22). ὅτιδεῖαὐτὸνἐκνεκρῶνἀναστῆναι . The Divine necessity which determined the course of Christ’ s Ministry, Passion, and Resurrection has been often indicated by Jn.; see on 3:14 for Jn.’ s use of δεῖ in this connexion, and cf. 2:4. That the Scriptures must be “ fulfilled” is fundamental in Jn.’ s thought; see Introd., pp. cxlix-clvi. 10. ἀπῆλθονοὖνπάλινκτλ . “ Dans un trouble extrê me” is Renan’ s description of their state of mind. But for this there is no evidence. Luke 24:12 describes Peter as bewildered rather than troubled, while John 20:8 records that the Beloved Disciple’ s faith in the Risen Christ was already assured. προςαὑτούς , i.e. chez eux, “ to their lodgings.” John had brought the Virgin Mother εἰςτὰἴδια (19:27), and nothing could be more probable than that he should bring the wonderful news to her without any delay, as it is here recorded that he did. πρὸςαὑτούς is used in a similar way by Josephus (Antt. viii. iv. 6), πρὸςαὑτοὺς … ἀπῄεσαν , “ they returned home.” οἱμαθηταί , sc. the disciples Peter and John. See on 2:2. The Appearance of Christ to Mary and Her Report to the Disciples (vv. 11-18) 11. Μαριάμδὲεἱστήκεικτλ . For the spelling Μαριάμ (here supported by א O 1, 33), see on 19:25; and for εἱστήκει , see on 1:35. Mary, according to Jn., had returned to the tomb, after she had told Peter and John that it had been found empty. She “ was standing by the tomb outside, weeping.” πρὸςτῷμνημείῳἔξωκλαίουσα is read by ABDsuppLNW, as against πρὸςτὸμνημεῖονκλαῖουσαἔξω of the rec. text. א has ἐντῷμνημείῳ , which is inconsistent with ἔξω . Mary is not represented by Jn. as having entered the tomb at all. For the introductory ὡςοὖν … see on 4:40. For κλαίειν , see above on 11:31, where it is the verb used of Mary’ s weeping at the tomb of Lazarus; an interesting correspondence in connexion with the identity of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany (see Introductory Note on 12:1-8). As she wept, she “ peeped” into the tomb. For παρακύπτω see on v. 5. 12. καὶθεωρεῖδύοἀγγέλουςκτλ ., “ and she notices (see on 2:23 and esp. v. 14 below) two angels in white” (ἐνλευκοῖςἱματίοις being understood, the Greek idiom being the same as the English) “ sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.” All four Gospels agree in telling of an angelic appearance to the women at the tomb, but there are discrepancies in the various accounts. In Mark 16:5 the women “ entering into the tomb, saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe” ; in Matthew 28:2f. the women (apparently) see an angel descending from heaven who rolls away the stone from the tomb and sits upon it As in Mk., he tells the women that Jesus is risen, and has gone into Galilee. In Luke 24:4, after the women have entered the tomb and found it empty, “ two men stood by them in dazzling apparel,” who remind them that when Jesus “ was yet in Galilee” He had predicted that He would rise on the third day. The Marcan saying about the risen Lord having gone to Galilee is thus altered by Lk., who mentions no Galilæ an appearance, and follows a Jerusalem tradition. It is noteworthy that “ two men in white apparel” are mentioned again by Lk. in Acts 1:10, as appearing to the apostles at the Ascension. In Jn. we have “ two angels in white,” who only ask Mary why she is weeping. They do not give any message or counsel, for Jesus Himself is immediately seen by Mary. It was a common belief that angels or celestial visitants were clad in white. Cf. Daniel 10:5 εἶςἐνδεδυμένοςβύσσινα , and Ezekiel 9:2; Revelation 15:6 ἄγγελοι … ἐνδεδυμένοιλίνονκαθαρὸνκαὶλαμπρόν . In Enoch lxxxvii. 2 mention is made of beings coming forth from heaven “ who were like white men.” Mk. and Mt. only mention one angel, but Lk. and Jn. mention two. The appearance of a pair of angels seems to be a not unusual feature of what were believed to be heavenly visitations; e.g. in 2 Macc. 3:26 two young men appeared to Heliodorus, “ splendid in their apparel” . So, too, in the Apocalypse of Peter (§ 3) two men suddenly appeared, καὶφωτεινὸνἦναὐτῶνὅλοντὸἔνδυμα . The development of legend is well illustrated by the fanciful narrative which is found in the Gospel of Peter of the appearances at the sepulchre. First (§ 9) the soldiers saw “ three men coming out of the tomb, two of them supporting the other,” i.e. two angels supporting Christ. Then (§ 10) the heavens are opened and “ a man descended and entered the sepulchre” ; and (§ 11) when Mary and her companions look into the tomb “ they see there a young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, fair and clothed with an exceeding bright robe,” who speaks to them as in Mk. That Mary reported having seen and addressed two persons at the tomb, whom the evangelist calls “ angels,” is all that is involved in the Johannine narrative. Lk. also tells of two men, but Mk. of one man only. What really happened is not possible now to determine. That the women saw some person or persons at the tomb can hardly be doubted; and that they were heavenly or angelic visitants was evidently the belief of Mt. and, probably also, of Lk. and Jn. Latham supposes them to have been members of the Essene sect who were accustomed to wear white clothing, or “ young men of the priestly school.” 1 But there is no sufficient evidence of this. ἕναπρὸςτῇκεφαλῇκαὶἕναπρὸςτοῖςποσίν . Wetstein observes that as the body of Jesus had hung between two thieves on the Cross, so the place where His body had lain was guarded between two angels; and he recalls the cherubim on the mercy-seat (Exodus 25:22, 1 Samuel 4:4, Psalms 80:1, etc.). But there is no evidence of such thoughts being those of the evangelist 13. καὶλέγουσινκτλ . All they say is “ Woman, why are you weeping?” There is nothing in the Johannine narrative of any counsel given by the watchers at the tomb, or any hint that they were not ordinary men. In the other Gospels, the women are represented as being terrified when addressed by the angels at the tomb; but in Jn. Mary shows no fear, nor does she indicate by her demeanour that she has seen anything unusual. She answers her questioners quite simply, by telling them why she is in grief. The story, so far, has nothing of the miraculous about it; and it probably represents a tradition more primitive than that of the other Gospels, in that it may go back to Mary herself For γύναι as a mode of address, see on 2:4. ῏Ηραντὸνκύριονκτλ ., repeated from v. 2 with the significant addition of μοῦ after κύριον . οὐκοἶδα , not οἴδαμεν as in v. 2, for the other women were not with Mary on this, her second, visit to the tomb. 14. ταῦταεἰποῦσακτλ . So א ABDNWΘ , but the rec. prefixes καί . The absence of connecting particles in vv. 14-18 is noteworthy. For εἰςτὰὀπίσω cf. 6:66, 18:6. Mary turned round, perhaps being half-conscious (as often happens) that some one was behind her. καὶθεωρεῖτὸνἸησοῦνἑστῶτα , “ and notices Jesus standing.” The two watchers in the tomb had been seated. θεωρεῖν (cf. v. 12, and see on 2:23) is the verb used in the promise to the disciples ὑμεῖςθεωρεῖτέμε (14:19). Such “ seeing” would be impossible for unbelievers; it was a vision possible only for faith. καὶοὐκᾔδειὅτιἸησοῦςἐστίν . She did not recognise Him. A similar thing in like words is told of the disciples on the lake (21:4); and of the two on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:16). The Marcan Appendix says of this latter incident that He was “ manifested in another form” (ἐνἑτέρᾳμορφῇ , Mark 16:12). Cf. Matthew 28:17, where “ some doubted.” See further on 21:4. This appearance of the Risen Lord to Mary is not mentioned by Lk., but the Marcan Appendix (Mark 16:9) agrees with the Fourth Gospel in mentioning it as the first manifestation of Jesus after His Resurrection. Cf. Matthew 28:9, Matthew 28:10. An essential difference between the Gospel stories of visions of the Risen Lord, and the stories widespread in all countries and in all times of visions of departed friends after death, is that all the Gospels lay stress on the empty tomb.1 It was the actual body that had been buried which was revivified, although (as it seems) transfigured, and, so to speak, spiritualised. This must be borne in mind when the evangelical narratives of the Risen Jesus speaking, and eating (Luke 24:43; cf. John 21:13, John 21:15), and being touched (Luke 24:39, and perhaps John 20:27) as well as seen, are examined critically. Such statements are difficult of credence, for no parallel cases are reported in ordinary human experience; but they must be taken in connexion with the repeated affirmations of the Gospels that the tomb of Jesus was empty, and that it was His Body and not only His Spirit which was manifested to the disciples. See also on v. 20. The question has been asked, how did the evangelists believe the Risen Lord to have been clothed, not only when Mary saw Him in the garden, but when He manifested Himself to the assembled disciples (vv. 19, 26)? It is difficult to suppose (with Tholuck and others) that He appeared only in the loin-cloth in which He had been crucified and buried. His appearances after death were more intense, indeed, than the appearances of dead men to their friends (for which there is some evidence); but just as in the latter case the eye of love clothes the vision in familiar garments, so it may have been in the more objective and more significant manifestations of the risen body of Jesus. 15. λέγειαὐτῇἸησοῦς . א BLW om. the rec. ὁ before Ἰησοῦς (see on 1:29, 50). Γύναι , τίκλαίεισ ; This is a repetition of the question put to Mary (v. 13) by the watchers at the tomb. In like manner, in Matthew 28:7, Matthew 28:10 the message given by the angel to the women is repeated by the risen Jesus, when they see Him. But, whether this be only a coincidence or no, in the Johannine story Jesus adds τίναξητεῖσ ; He knew whom she was seeking, and what was the cause of her grief, whereas there is nothing in vv. 11-13 to show that the watchers at the tomb understood her tears, or knew that she was a disciple of Jesus. Mary does not recognise Jesus at once, nor do His first words tell her who He was. She thinks He may be the gardener, probably because at so early an hour the gardener was the most likely person to be met in the garden (see 19:41). It is plain, however, that she does not find anything abnormal in the appearance or dress or voice of Him who speaks to her. ὁκηπουρός . The word does not occur again in the Greek Bible, but is common in the papyri (see Milligan s.v.).1 Κύριε (an ordinary title of respect), εἰσὺἐβάστασαςαὐτόν . “ Sir, if you have stolen Him away.” Her mind is so full of her quest, that she does not answer the question “ For whom are you looking?” She assumes that every one must know who it is For βαστάζειν in the sense of “ to steal,” see on 12:6. εἰπέμοιποῦἔθηκαςαὐτόνκτλ ., “ tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” She does not stay to consider if she would have strength by herself to remove the body to a fitting resting-place. 16. λέγειαὐτῂ͂Ἰησοῦς . Here (see on v. 15) BD om ὁ before Ἰησοῦς , but ins. א ANWΓΔ . Μαριάμ So א BNW 1 33; but the rec., with ADΓΔΘ , has Μαρία . See on 19:25 for the spelling of the name. Apparently Mary had turned her face away from Jesus towards the tomb, taking no interest in the gardener who gave her no help in her quest; for when she hears her name, she turns round again in amazement. Who is this that calls her “ Mary” ? The personal name, addressed to her directly, in well remembered tones, reveals to her in a flash who the speaker is. λέγειαὐτῷἙβραϊστί . So א BDNWΘ , although the rec., with AΓ , om. Ἑβραϊστί . Mary addresses Jesus in the Aramaic dialect which they were accustomed to use. See on 5:2 for Ἑβραϊστί . Ρ̓αββουνεί . The form Rabboni, “ my Teacher,” is found in N.T. here only and at Mark 10:51, but it is hardly distinguishable in meaning from Rabbi, the pronominal affix having no special force.1 Jn. interprets it here for his Greek readers, as he interprets “ Rabbi” (see on 1:38). It will be remembered that Martha and Mary were accustomed to speak of Jesus as the Rabbi ὁδιδάσκαλος (see 11:28), when talking to each other An interpretative gloss is added here by א caΘ and fam. 13, viz. καὶπροσέδραμενἅψασθαιαὐτοῦ , which appears also in Syr. sin. in the form “ and she ran forward unto Him that she might draw near to (or to touch) Him.” So also the Jerusalem Syriac. The gloss “ et occurrit ut tangeret eum” is found in several Latin texts with Irish affinities; e.g. in the Book of Armagh, the Egerton MS. (mm), Cant., Stowe, and Rawl. G. 167. The idea behind the gloss is probably that Mary approached to clasp the Lord’ s feet in respect and homage; cf. Matthew 28:9 where it is said of the women that “ they took hold of His feet, and worshipped Him.” 17. This verse must be compared with Matthew 28:9, Matthew 28:10 where, again, the Risen Lord is seen by Mary Magdalene and speaks to her and her companion. In that passage the women, returning from the tomb to tell the disciples of the angel’ s message, are at once in fear and joy. Jesus greets them by saying Χαίρετε . They clasp His feet in worship. He then tells them not to fear, Μήφοβεῖσθε , and adds ὐπάγετεἀπαγγείλατετοῖςἀδελφοῖςμουἵναἀπέλθωσινεἰςτὴνΓαλιλαίαν , κἀκεῖμεὄψονται . This almost reproduces the words of the angel in v. 7, with the significant change of μαθηταῖς into ἀδελφοῖς . Only here in the Gospels (John 20:17, Matthew 28:10) is Jesus represented as speaking of His disciples as “ my brethren” . Cf. Hebrews 2:11, Hebrews 2:12 (quoting Psalms 22:22). It is likely that the account in Matthew 28:9, Matthew 28:10 of the appearance of Jesus to the Maries was based on the lost conclusion of Mk.; for Matthew 28:1-8 is plainly an amplified version of the simpler Mark 16:1-8. The phrase “ tell to my brethren” was probably in Mk.’ s story, and we have already seen that Jn. knew Mk.,1 whose narrative he corrects, when he thinks it necessary. In this instance, the message sent to the disciples is not, as in Mk. and Mt., that they should go to Galilee, where they would see their Risen Master. Jn. represents the message quite differently. It is: “ Say to them, I go up to my Father.” This expression ἀναβαίνωπρὸςτὸνπατέραμου is only another form of the words spoken so often by Jesus, ὑπάγωπρόςτὸνπάτερα (16:10; cf. 7:33, 16:5), or πορεύομαιπρὸςτὸνπατέρα (14:12, 28, 16:28). He had warned the disciples repeatedly that He would return to the Father who had sent Him. The time for this had not been reached on the day of the Resurrection, οὔπωγὰρἀναβέβηκαπρὸςτὸνπατέρα , but it was near. ἀναβαίνωπρὸςτὸνπατέρα . It is said for the last time. The term “ Ascension” for us indicates the climax of the earthly life of Christ, but ἀναβαίειν , ἀνάβασις , are common Greek words, which at first were not always used of the Ascension of Christ, still less appropriated to it. They are not used of the Ascension in the Synoptists . ἀναβαίνειν is thus used in Ephesians 4:8, which is a quotation from Psalms 68:18, but Paul does not use the verb again of the ascending Christ. In Acts 2:34 we have οὐγὰρΔαβὶδἀνέβηεἰςτοὺςοὐράούς , which contains an allusion to the fact that Christ did thus “ go up.” But, apart from these, the only other places in N.T. where ἀναβαίνειν is thus used, are John 6:62 (see note, in loc.) and the present passage. Barnabas (§ 15) employs the verb thus, and so does Justin (Tryph. 38); but Justin also uses ἀνέλευσις (Apol. i. 26) and ἄνοδος (Tryph. 82) of the Ascension of Christ. It was not until the days of Creed-making that the Church settled down to ἀναβαίνειν , ἀνάβασις , as the technical terms for Christ’ s ascending. We miss the point of the employment of ἀναβαίνειν in the present verse if we do not treat it as an ordinary verb for “ going up,” which would be recognised by the disciples as practically equivalent to ὑπάγειν or πορεύεσθαι often used by Jesus when predicting His departure.1 Thus the message which Mary was bidden to give to the disciples would recall to them words such as those of 14:2, 3. Jesus was going to the Father’ s house, where He would prepare a place for them. It is remarkable that the form of the message is like that of Mat 28:10 (probably based on the lost conclusion of Mk.), although there the place where He is to see His disciples again is not heaven but Galilee (cf. Mark 14:28). Luke 24:6, as has been already said, alters the Marcan and Matthæ an tradition here, by substituting for the promise of a meeting in Galilee, the words μνήσθητεὡςἐλάλησενὑμῖνἔτιὢνἐντῇΓαλιλαία , λέγων , that the Son of Man must die and rise again, etc. Abbott’ s inference from this comparison is that “ an expression misunderstood by Mk. and Mt. as meaning Galilee, and omitted by Lk. because he could not understand it at all, was understood by Jn. to mean My Father’ s place, i.e. Paradise.” 2 This is precarious reasoning, but at any rate it is certain that Jn. (a) was aware of the Matthæ an (? Marcan) tradition and (b) that he corrected it, bringing the message into correspondence with a saying of Jesus which he has previously recorded more than once. Attention must now be directed to the words Μήμουἅπτου , which (according to all extant texts) Jesus addressed to Mary, His reason being “ for I have not yet ascended to My Father.” It is not said explicitly in this chapter that Jesus was ever touched by His disciples after He was risen, although it is suggested both in v. 22 and in v. 27. In the latter passage, Thomas is actually invited to touch the Lord’ s wounded side (although it is not said that he did so), just as in Luke 24:39, Jesus says ψηλαφήσατέμε to the assembled disciples. The only explicit statement in the Gospels of the Risen Christ being touched is Matthew 28:9. Nevertheless Luke 24:39 and John 20:27 sufficiently indicate that, in the judgment of the evangelists, it was possible to touch Him, and that He invited such experiment to be made. (See further on v. 20.) Hence “ Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended,” is difficult of interpretation, inasmuch as within a week at any rate, and before His final manifestation at His departure, Jesus had challenged the test of touch. We can hardly suppose that Jn. means us to believe that in the interval between v. 17 and v. 27 the conditions of the Risen Life of Jesus had so changed that what was unsuitable on the first occasion became suitable on the second. And there is the further difficulty, that as the words μήμουἅπτουοὔπωγὰρκτλ . stand, it is implied that to “ touch” Jesus would be easier after His Ascension than before. The gloss et occurrit ut tangeret eum, which is inserted before noli me tangere in some texts (see on v. 16), shows that the primitive interpretation of the words implied a physical touching, and not merely a spiritual drawing near. The parallel Matthew 28:10 confirms this. Accordingly, to give to the repulse, “ Touch me not,” a spiritual meaning, as if it meant that freedom of access between the disciple and the Master would not be complete until the Resurrection had been consummated in the Ascension and the Holy Spirit had been sent, seems over-subtle. Yet this is what the words must mean if μήμουἅπτου is part of the genuine text of Jn. Meyer cited a conjectural emendation of these words (by Gersdorf and Schulthess) which he dismissed without discussion, but for which nevertheless there is a good deal to be said. We have drawn attention already to the parallel passage, Matthew 28:10, but there is yet another point to be noted. By all the Synoptists the fear of the women at the tomb is emphasised. ἐφοβοῦντογάρ (Mark 16:8), although the νεάνισκος had said μὴἐκθαμβεῖσθε (Mark 16:6). They were ἔμφοβοι (Luke 24:5). And in Matthew 28:5, Matthew 28:10 not only the angel, but Jesus Himself prefaced His message to the disciples by saying to the women (after they had clasped His feet) μὴφοβεῖσθε . Now in our texts of Jn. there is no hint that Mary Magdalene (who is the only woman mentioned here by this evangelist) was frightened at all. She is without fear, apparently, when she recognises the Lord. The parallel passage, Matthew 28:9, would suggest (as the gloss here does) that she cast herself at His feet in awestruck homage. We should expect here (as in Mk., Mt.) that Jesus would encourage her by forbidding her to be afraid. Instead of this, we find the enigmatic words μήμουἅπτου . But if these words are a corruption of μὴπτόου , as might very well be the case, “ be not affrighted,” all is clear This is the verb used of the fright of the disciples in Luke 24:37 , caused as Lk. says by their idea that they saw a spirit. And μὴπτόου would come exactly where μὴφοβεῖσθε comes in Matthew 28:10, viz. after the Lord’ s feet have been clasped in homage and fear. The sequence, then, is easy. “ Be not affrighted, for I have not get gone up to my Father” : I am still with you, as you knew me on earth; I have not yet resumed the awful majesty of heaven. Do not fear: carry my message to the disciples, as in the old days. The best supported reading is μήμουἅπτου , but B has μὴἅπτουμου , and two cursives (47ev and dscr) omit μου altogether. If the text were originally μὴπρόου , an easy corruption would be μὴἅπτου , and then μου would naturally be added either before or after ἅπτου to make the sense clear. οὔπωγὰρἀναβέβηκα , “ for I have not yet gone up … ” i.e. taken my final departure. For Jn., a week at the least (v. 27, and see on 21:1) elapsed between the Resurrection and that last of the manifestations of the Risen Christ which we call the Ascension. He says nothing of the interval of forty days for which our only authority is Acts 1:3. But Jn., nevertheless, uses language (6:62) which implies not only that the final departure of Christ was a startling and wonderful incident, but that it was visible, in this agreeing with Luke 24:50-52, Acts 1:9; cf. Appx. to Mk. (16:19). Ἀναβαίνωπρὸςτὸνπατέραμου . That was what He had said often before (in effect); but now He adds καὶπατέραὑμῶν . His Father was their Father too, although there was a difference in the relation (see on 2:16); and of this He would remind them now. Observe He does not say “ Our Father.” καὶθεόνμου . So He said “ My God” on the Cross (Mark 15:34); cf. Revelation 3:2. He is still Man, and so Paul repeatedly has the expression “ the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:6, etc.). And His God is the God also of His disciples — the only God. 18. ἔρχεταιΜαριὰμἡΜαγδ . ἀγγέλλουσακτλ . א AB have ἀγγέλλουσα , as against the rec. ἀπαγγελλουσα . W has ἀναγγέλλουσα . Luke 24:11 and [Mk.] 16:11 say that the disciples did not believe the report of the women. Mt. does not tell whether the message to the disciples was delivered or no. ὅτι (recitantis) Ἑώρακατὸνκύριον . This was the first thing Mary said before she gave her message (cf. v. 25). א BN a g support ἑώρακα , as against the rec. ἐώρακε . For ὁκύριος as a title used by Mary, see on 4:1. The appearance to Mary is not mentioned by Paul in his summary of the visions of the Risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:5-7). It is the appearances to the leaders of the future Church (Peter and James), and to the assembled disciples, that were regarded as the basis for the Church’ s faith in the Resurrection. First Appearance of the Risen Christ to the Disciples: Their Commission and Their Authority (vv. 19-23) 19. οὔσηςοὖνὀψίας . This appearance is described also in Luke 24:36f. Lk. places it after the return of the two from Emmaus, who reported to the apostles their meeting with the Risen Jesus; this would necessarily be late in the evening (cf. Luke 24:29), probably about 8 p.m. (see for ὀψία on 6:16). The Appendix to Mark (16:14) states that He appeared to the Eleven “ while they sat at meat.” It is not improbable that they were assembled in the room where the Last Supper was eaten (cf. also Acts 1:13), and where Jesus had spoken the discourses of farewell (Jn. 14-16). It would appear from Luke 24:36 that the two Emmaus disciples were present, as well as the apostles, and probably some others also (Luke 24:33). This is not necessarily inconsistent with Jn., although He speaks only of “ the disciples,” for μαθηταί often includes others besides the inner circle of apostles (see on 2:2). But in the later chapters of Jn. οἱμαθηταί generally stands for the Eleven, and the Lord’ s manifestation of Himself to them in particular, as had been promised (16:16), is mentioned as fundamentally important in 1 Corinthians 15:5. Whether others were present or not, it is His appearance to the apostles on this occasion that is treated as of special significance; and the words of His commission in v. 21 are most naturally limited to those who were commissioned by Him as “ apostles” at the beginning of His ministry.1 τῇἡμέρᾳἐκείνῃ , a favourite phrase in John 1:39; John 5:9; John 11:53; John 14:20; John 16:23; John 16:26, and see on 1:29 for Jn.’ s precision in noting dates. He adds here, accordingly, τῇμιᾷσαββάτων . The rec. text has τῶν before σαββάτων as in v. 1, but א ABIL om. τῶν here. τῶνθυρῶνκεκλεισμένων … διὰτὸνφόβοντῶνἸουδαίων . The rumour that the tomb was empty had spread (as is indicated in Matthew 28:11), and the Jewish leaders were doubtless suspicious of any gathering of the disciples of Jesus For the phrase τὸνφόβοντῶνἸουδ ., cf. 7:13. It is repeated at v. 26 that the doors of the room were shut at the time of the meeting a week later. ο῞πουἦσανοἱμαθηταί . Only ten of the original Twelve were present (v. 24); Luke 24:33 has οἱε῞νδεκα . See on 2:2 for οἱμαθηταί used absolutely. The rec. adds συνηγμένοι , but א ABDW om. Perhaps it was inserted by scribes because of its occurrence in the words of the promise, Matthew 18:20. ἦλθενὁἸησοῦς . No attempt is made to explain how He came. καὶἔστηεἰςτὸμέσον (repeated v. 26). Luke 24:36 has the more usual ἐνμέσῳαὐτῶν ; but εἰςτὸμέσον after a verb of motion is quite correct (cf. Mark 3:3, Luke 6:8), and has classical authority . Justin (Tryph. 106) finds in Jesus standing in the midst of His brethren (cf. v. 17) a fulfilment of Psa 22:22 (quoted Hebrews 2:12), διηγήσομαιτὸὄνομασουτοῖςἀδελφοῖςμου , ἐνμέσῳἐκκλησίαςὑμνήσωσε . καὶλέγειαὐτοῖςΕἰρήνηὑμῖν . These words are found also in most texts of Luk 24:36, but being omitted there by D a b e ff2 l r are described by Hort as a “ Western non-interpolation” in that place. If that judgment is correct, scribes have brought the words into Lk’ s text from Jn., where there is no doubt of their genuineness. It is, however, possible that the words are part of the original text of Lk.; and in that case they furnish an additional illustration of the use of Lk.’ s tradition by Jn. at this point (see v. 20). Throughout their accounts of the appearance of the Risen Jesus to the apostles, it is clear that Jn. and Lk. are following the same tradition, while Jn. does not hesitate to correct and amplify or reduce the current version of it (as found in Lk.) at several points. Εἰρήνηὑμῖν is the ordinary Eastern salutation on entering a room, and is so used (Luke 24:36, John 20:19, John 20:26). But in v. 21 εἰρήνηὐμῖν is solemnly repeated before the apostles receive their commission, and may carry an allusion to the parting gift of peace in 14:27. 20. Here, again, we must compare Luke 24:40 καὶτοῦτοεἰπὼνἔδειξεναὐτοῖςτὰςχεῖραςκαὶτοὺςπόδας , which also Hort regards as a. “ Western non-interpolation,” for these words in Lk. are omitted by D a b e ff l r Syr. cur. They are identical with the words in John 20:20, except that in Jn. we have τὴνπλευράν , while in Lk. we have τοὺςπόδας . Jn. being the only evangelist who mentions the piercing of the Lord’ s side (19:34), it is natural that τὴνπλευράν should not appear in Lk.; but if (as Hort supposes) the scribes of Lk. took over the words in question from Jn., they must have deliberately substituted τοὺςπόδας for τὴνπλευράν . The words τοὺςπόδας in Luke 24:39, Luke 24:40 provide the only Biblical evidence for the belief that the Lord’ s feet as well as His hands were nailed to the Cross. In the narratives of the Crucifixion all that is said is “ they crucified Him” ; but it is not specified whether His hands and feet were tied or nailed to the Cross (both methods being common). Both Lk. and Jn. agree that His hands were marked, and Jn. speaks of “ the print of the nails” in them (v. 25); but Jn. says nothing of the feet having been nailed. Pseudo-Peter, in like manner, speaks of drawing out the nails from the hands of Jesus, after He had died (§ 6), but does not mention the feet. So also Cyril of Jerusalem says nothing of the nailing of the feet, while he finds a symbolic meaning in the nailing of the hands (Cat. xiii. 38). The earliest reference (excepting Luke 24:39, Luke 24:40) to the piercing of the feet is in Justin’ s Trypho (§ 97), who claims Psalms 22:16-18 as a literal prophecy of the Crucifixion. Having regard to the language of Joh 20:20, John 20:25, as well as to the second-century tradition of Pseudo-Peter, it would seem as if the tradition of Luk 24:39 [40] rests on the early application of “ they pierced my hands and my feet” (Psalms 22:16) to the Crucifixion of Jesus rather than on the testimony of an eye-witness. Such testimony we believe to lie behind the narrative of the Fourth Gospel (cf. 19:35); and hence it is probable that the Lord’ s feet were not marked by the print of nails. Jn. in 20:20 is (in our view) deliberately correcting the account given in Luke 24:39, Luke 24:40 (for we take Luke 24:40 to be as original as Luke 24:39), so as to bring it into correspondence with the facts. τὰςχεῖραςκαὶτὴνπλευρὰναὐτοῖς is the best attested reading (א ABD) as against the rec. αὐτοῖςτὰςχεῖραςκαὶτὴνπλευρὰναὐτοῦ . Jn. says only that Jesus showed them His hands and His side; Lk. goes further and says that He invited them to dispel their doubts by handling and touching Him (ψηλαφήσατέμε , Luke 24:39); representing the disciples as disturbed and terrified by His sudden appearance. Jn. does not say that they touched Him, or that they were asked to do so; this omission being probably designed, so as to correct an over-statement in Lk. A later tradition as to this incident, preserved in Ignatius (Smyrn. 3) must now be cited. Ignatius writes: “ I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the Resurrection, and when He came to Peter and his company , He said to them, Take, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon . And straightway they touched Him , and they believed, being mixed with His flesh and blood.… And after His Resurrection, He ate and drank with them as one in the flesh, although spiritually He was united with the Father.” Jerome states that this version of the story of the appearance of Jesus comes from the apocryphal Gospel to the Hebrews (see Catal. Script. Eccl. § 16), and it may be so (see Lightfoot on Ignat. Smyrn. 3). In any case, it is dependent on Luke 24:39-43, and amplifies Lk.’ s account in particular by stating explicitly that Jesus was touched (see on v. 17 above), and by adding that He drank as well as ate with the disciples. The simplicity and restraint of Jn.’ s account of this incident are not only in marked contrast with the story as Ignatius has it, but are also a feature of Jn.’ s narrative as compared with Lk.’ s. Jn. does not speak in the Gospel itself of the Risen Lord eating (but cf. the Appendix 21:13 and the note there), or explicitly of His being touched (see above on vv. 14, 17). ἐχάρησανοὖνοἱμαθηταὶἰδόντεςτὸνκύριον . This was the fulfilment of the promise to the apostles, πάλινδὲὄψομαιὑμᾶςκαιχαρήσεταιὑμῶνἡκαρδία (16:22). Luke 24:41 says that the disciples “ disbelieved for joy,” but he states at v. 37 that they were terrified when they saw Jesus standing in their midst. Of their fear, there is no hint in Jn. This is the first occurrence in Jn. of ὁκύριος being used of Jesus in the direct narrative (see on 4:1, where the apparent exceptions are mentioned). The evangelist is thinking of his Master, not as He moved about in the days of His earthly ministry, but as risen and about to ascend to His glory, i.e. as “ the Lord.” 21. εἶπενοὖναὐτοῖς . The rec. adds ὁἸησοῦς with ABNΓΔΘ , but om. א DW. For πάλιν , see on 1:35. For the repeated εἰρήνηὑμῖν , see on v. 19. καθὼς … κἀγώ . For this constr., see on 6:57 (cf. 10:15). Here there can be no doubt that the sentence means “ As the Father hath sent me, so I send you.” When He commissioned His disciples for their ministry before His final departure, He reproduced the words of the great Prayer which had been said in their hearing: καθὼςἐμὲἀπέστειλαςεἰςτὸνκόσμον , κἀγὼἀπέστειλααὐτοὺςεἰςτὸνκόσμον (17:18). These words primarily had reference to the original choice of the twelve “ apostles” (see note on 17:18), viz. ἐποίησενδώδεκα … ἳναἀποστέλλῃαὐτοὺςκηρύσσεινκτλ . (Mark 3:14), but they had a forward reference also to their final commission. The constr. καθὼς … κἀγώ at 15:9 and 17:18 (which are parallel in form to the present passage) has to do in both cases with a comparison of the Father’ s relation to Christ and Christ’ s relation to the apostles, not to the general body of disciples. It is natural to interpret the καθὼς … κἀγώ here as involving the same comparison, and therefore to take the commission here as entrusted to the apostles. Others may have been present (see on v. 19), but the final commission was not specifically given to any but the inner circle, who had been long since selected as those who were to be “ sent forth.” καθὼςἀπέσταλκένμεὁπατήρ . This is the constant theme of the Johannine Christ when speaking of His authority. He is, pre-eminently, ὁἀπόστολος (Hebrews 3:1); for God the Father has sent Him (cf. 3:17). κἀγὼπέμπωὑμᾶς . So א cbABD2NΓΔΘ against א caDL 33 ἀποστέλλω , but no distinction can be drawn between πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω (see on 3:17 above). The sending of the apostles by Christ was (in a deep sense, although not with exact correspondence; see on 6:57) like the sending of Christ by the Father. He had told them at the Last Supper that whoever received those whom He sent received Him, while those who received Him received the Father that sent Him (13:20). Language of this kind is addressed in the Fourth Gospel to the apostles alone; and it is difficult, in the face of the parallel passages that have been cited, to suppose that in this verse, and here only, the evangelist means us to understand that the great commission was given to all the disciples who were present, alike and in the same degree. It is quite just to describe this verse as “ the Charter of the Christian Church” (Westcott), but the Charter was addressed in the first instance to the leaders of the Church, and not to all its members, present and future, without discrimination. The question as to who were the first recipients of the gift and the authority conferred by Jesus in vv. 22, 23, has been much debated in connexion with modern controversies as to Confession and Absolution;1 but the exegete must ask one question only, viz., “ What did the evangelist intend his readers to believe?” We must not assume, because Luke 24:33 tells that others were with the Eleven on the evening of the Resurrection just before the Lord manifested Himself, that therefore Jn. in his report of the same incident implies either (a) that others beside the apostles were present when Jesus began to speak, or (b) that His commission was not addressed exclusively to the apostles even if others were there. On the contrary, the language used by Jn. seems, as has been said, distinctly to imply that the commission was given to apostles alone. This was the interpretation put upon John 20:20-23 by the earliest Christian writers who allude to these verses. Justin (Tryph. 106) ignores the presence of any but apostles. Origen (de princip. I. iii. 2 and Comm. in Jn. 388) and Cyprian (de unit. 4, Epist. lxxiii. 6) say explicitly that Accipe spiritum sanctum, etc., was addressed to the apostles. The Liturgy of St. Mark (which may be as early as the second century) is equally explicit.1 I do not know, indeed, of any early writer who takes a different view. The words of Cyprian (Epist. lxxv. 16) in solos apostolos insufflauit Christus, etc., express the accepted view as to the persons to whom the Lord said “ Take the Holy Spirit.” It would be going much further to claim that Cyprian’ s subsequent inference was justified, for he proceeds to say: “ potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum apostolis data est, et ecclesiis quas illi a Christo missi constiterunt, et episcopis qui eis ordinatione uicaria successerunt.” The words which are italicised need not necessarily be accepted by those who recognise that Jn.’ s narrative is a narrative of a commission given in the first instance to the apostles alone. 22. καὶτοῦτοεἰπὼνἐνεφύσησενκτλ . “ He breathed upon them.” ἐμφυσᾶν does not occur again in N.T., but it is the verb used Genesis 2:7 (cf. Wisd. 15:11) of God “ breathing” into Adam’ s nostrils the breath of life. So in Ezekiel 37:9 “ breathe on these slain that they may live” is addressed to the life-giving Spirit. Milligan quotes a parallel from a second or third-century papyrus, ὁἑνφυσήσαςπνεῦμαἀνθρώποιςεἰςζωήν . The language of this verse goes back to Genesis 2:7, it being implied that as the life of Adam was due to the “ breath” of God, so the gift of spiritual life to the apostles was imparted by the “ breath” of Christ. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:45.) The Johannine doctrine is that this quickening power of His spirit could not be released until the “ glorification,” i.e. the death, of Jesus (see on 7:37-39); and in strict accordance with this, Jn. represents the Spirit as given and received on the day of His Resurrection. It is not that we have here a foretaste, as it were, of a fuller outpouring of the Spirit which was manifested at Pentecost (arrha Pentecostes, as Bengel calls it); but that, for Jn., the action and the words of Jesus here are a complete fulfilment of the promise of the Paraclete. As has been said on 16:23 (where see note), there is nothing in the Fourth Gospel inconsistent with the story of the Pentecostal effusion (Acts 2:1f.); but for Jn. the critical day, when the Spirit was not only promised, but given, is not Pentecost (as with Lk.) but the day of the Resurrection. We cannot distinguish here, any more than at 7:39, between πνεῦμα and τὸπνεῦμα . Λάβετεπνεῦμαἃγιον . The gift is freely offered, but that it may be “ received” demands a responsive effort on the part of him to whom it is offered. Cf. τὸπνεῦμα … ὃὁκόσμοςοὐδύναταιλαβεῖν (14:17). An unspiritual man could not assimilate the gift. Λάβετε , τοῦτόἐστιντὸσῶμάμου (Mark 14:22) does not mean that the sacramental gift can operate automatically, but that it is offered freely. So in the Acts (8:15, 17, 19, 10:47) λαμβάνεινπνεῦμαἃγιον occurs several times, but always the “ taking” implies a certain disposition on the part of him who takes. For πνεῦμαἃγιον , see on 14:26. 23. ἄντινωνἀφῆτετὰςἁμαρτίαςἀφέωνταιαὐτοῖς . ἄν is used, as often, for ἐάν . ἀφέωνται is the reading of א cADL, as against the rec. ἀφίενται . B* has ἀφείονται . ἀφιέναι in the sense of “ forgive” (sin) does not appear elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, but cf. 1 John 2:12 ἀφέωνταιὑμῖναἱἁμαρτίαι . In the Synoptists, Jesus declares to individuals “ thy sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5 and parallels, Luke 7:48); but here He seemingly commits, to those to whom He had imparted His Spirit, authority to use the like words. “ Whose soever sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them.” The meaning of this passage in its context must be sought quite apart from the inferences that have been drawn from it in later ages. As it stands, it is the parting commission of Jesus to the apostles, to whom He had previously promised the Holy Spirit, and to whom He had now imparted that Divine gift. Jn. says nothing about the authority of those who received it to impart the Spirit in their turn to others. That may be a legitimate inference, but it is an inference for the validity of which we must seek evidence elsewhere. That the apostles interpreted their evangelical mission as giving them authority to hand it on is, indeed, not doubtful. The terms of their commission as described in Matthew 28:19, Matthew 28:20 (cf. [Mk.] 16:15) imply that it was to last “ to the end of the world,” the apostolate being established in permanence. Clement of Rome, whose Epistle is contemporary with the Fourth Gospel, expresses the accepted view: “ Jesus Christ was sent forth from God … the apostles are from Christ … preaching everywhere, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons to them that should believe” (Clem. Rom. 42). And it would appear in like manner that, as early as the time of Origen1 at any rate, the bishops were regarded as having succeeded to the powers of binding and loosing committed to the apostles in Matthew 18:18. But, whether these developments were legitimate or not, we are here concerned only with the meaning of the commission to the apostles as recorded in vv. 22, 23; and confining ourselves strictly to this, we start from the presupposition— common to Jews and Christians— that no one can “ forgive” sin but God (Mark 2:7). But God is always ready to forgive (1 John 1:9); and the assurance of God’ s forgiveness can always be given confidently to repentant sinners. This assurance may be given by any one; it needs no authority to give it, for it is a fundamental principle of the Gospel. But, then, no one can give this assurance in an individual case, without being certain that this individual sinner is, indeed, repentant in his heart. And to be sure of this, he who says “ thy sins are forgiven” must be able to read men’ s hearts. Jesus claimed that He could do this: “ the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10). Of this the explanation is found in John 3:34, “ He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God, for He giveth not the Spirit by measure.” To Jesus, and to Him alone, was the Spirit given in its fullness, and so He alone could infallibly discern the secrets of the human heart (John 2:25). He could say, therefore, “ thy sins are forgiven thee” (Mark 2:5) with a complete authority. Now a main theme of the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus promised that He would send (14:16, 16:7-13), and did in fact impart (20:22), the Spirit to the apostles. It was not confined to them, but was for every believing disciple (7:38) But it was more largely promised, and more explicitly bestowed, on them than on any one else. And it was in the power of this Spirit of God that they were authorised not only to proclaim universally the message of God’ s forgiveness (Acts 10:43), but to say in individual cases “ thy sins are forgiven.” Among the gifts of the Spirit was the gift of insight (cf. διακρίσειςπνευμάτων , 1 Corinthians 12:10 and see John 16:8). Hence the words λάβετεπνεῦμαἅγιον govern the words giving the apostles authority to forgive or not to forgive. In so far as the Spirit was theirs, so far was their judgment of men’ s hearts a true judgment. Lk. does not tell of so explicit an authority being conferred upon the apostles; but the parting commission for him too is “ that repentance and remission of sins should be preached to all the nations” ; and the authority is described as “ the promise of the Father” which is presently to be granted (Luke 24:47, Luke 24:49). The parting commission to the Eleven in Matthew 28:18f. has one point of similarity with John 20:23, viz. that it rests the command to make disciples upon the universal authority of Christ. “ All authority hath been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore,” etc. Their power as evangelists would rest upon their being His disciples; just as in Jn. 22:23 their power of absolving is made dependent upon their assimilation of His Spirit. It is to be observed that Jn. makes no mention of any commission to baptize. The passages in Mt., however, which are specially recalled by Jn. 22:23 are Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, in both of which we find “ What things soever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and what things soever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In Matthew 16:19 these words are addressed to Peter, as having the keys of the kingdom of heaven; in Matthew 18:18 they are (seemingly) addressed to the Twelve. To “ bind” and to “ loose” are Rabbinical expressions signifying to “ prohibit” and to “ permit” (many illustrations are given in Lightfoot’ s Hor. Hebr. on Matthew 16:19)1; and the use of these verbs would suggest to Jews a form of ecclesiastical discipline (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:4, and esp. Acts 15:29, Acts 16:4). In Matthew 18:18 the context shows that something of this sort is indicated; the Divine ratification being promised of the Church’ s action. The words refer to the “ loosing” of “ sin,” and may imply forgiveness as well as discipline. To forgive sins is to loose; cf. τῷλύσαντιἡμᾶςἐκτῶνἀμαρτιῶνἠμῶν (Revelation 1:5; see also Job 42:9, LXX). Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 are passages which have marks of lateness; they are, e.g., the only two passages in the Gospels where the word “ Church” is found; and the tradition preserved in them of the Lord’ s commission to the Apostles is more likely to be dependent on that of Jn. 22:23 than vice versa. Indeed Jn.’ s brief narrative here is clearly an original statement, and does not betray any acquaintance with Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ THE (CHAPTER 21) The Fourth Gospel was plainly intended to end with 20:31. Anything following this is of the nature of an anticlimax. No copy, however, of the Gospel, so far as we know, was ever issued without the addition of c. 21, which is quoted by Tertullian (Scorp. 15) and is treated by Origen in his Commentary as on a par with cc. 1-20. It is probable that the Appendix was added as an afterthought, before the Gospel was published, and various opinions have been held as to its authorship, purpose, and source. We have first to ask if c. 21 is by the same hand as cc. 1-20. The only evidence by which such a question can be determined is the evidence of vocabulary and style; and it is hardly possible within the brief compass of twenty-five verses to collect sufficient data. δίκτυον (v. 6) does not occur in cc. 1-20, nor does πιάζειν (v. 3) in the sense of catching fish; but then there is no fishing anecdote in the body of the Gospel. Similarly no stress can be laid on unusual words such as προσφάγιον (v. 5), or ἐπενδύτης (v. 7). τολμᾶν and ἐξετάζειν (v. 12) do not appear elsewhere in Jn., and this must be noted, for they might very naturally have been used. So too in v. 4 we find πρωΐα , while πρωΐ is the form adopted in 18:28, 20:1. In 1:42 we have ΣίμωνὁυἱὸςἸωάνου , while at 21:15 we have the shorter ΣίμωνἸωάνου . But against these differences may be set remarkable agreements in style between cc. 1-20 and c. 21. The use of ἀμὴνἀμήν at v. 18; the evangelistic comment at v. 23; the verbal correspondence between v. 19 and 12:33, are among the more obvious. Such similarities might possibly be due to conscious imitation of the mannerisms of Jn. by the author of the Appendix, but there are others, more subtle, which can hardly be thus explained. ἀπό in v. 8 is used exactly as at 11:18; ὁμοίως in v. 13 just as at 6:11; σύν (v. 3) is rare in Jn., but it is found 12:2, 18:1; μέντοι (v. 4) is thoroughly Johannine (cf. 12:42); and so is ὡςοὖν (v. 9; see on 4:40).1 The view taken in this commentary is that the author of c. 21 is the person whom we designate as Jn. But, whereas throughout cc. 1-20 Jn. is accustomed to reproduce the reminiscences of John the son of Zebedee, often in the form in which the aged disciple dictated them, this cannot be affirmed with confidence of the earlier part of c. 21, although it is true of vv. 15-22. The correspondence between 21:1-13 and Luke 5:10-11 are so close that they demand investigation; and it is necessary also to take account of the Synoptic parallels to the Lucan passage. The story of the Call of Peter and Andrew, and also of James and John (Mark 1:16f., Matthew 4:18f., Luke 5:1f.) is not given by Jn., who reports instead an earlier incident, when these four disciples were attracted to Jesus for the first time (1:35f.). The Lucan narrative differs from that of Mk., Mt. in significant particulars: (a) Lk. does not tell explicitly of any call of the fishermen, as Mk., Mt. do; while he ends his story by saying that the four left all and followed Jesus (Luke 5:11), sc. that James and John followed as well as Peter and Andrew. Cf. John 21:19, John 21:20 where John (who has not been invited to do so) follows as well as Peter, to whom alone the call “ Follow me” is addressed. (b) In Mk., Mt. the promise, “ I will make you fishers of men,” is explicitly given to Peter and Andrew, while the story suggests that it was intended for James and John as well. But in Lk. it is confined to Peter alone: “ Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men.” This is in remarkable correspondence with the giving of the commission, Pasce oues meas, to Peter alone, in John 21:17. (c) Lk. interpolates the incident, which Mk., Mt. do not report, of Peter’ s allegiance having been stimulated by a great catch of fish which he regarded as due to supernatural knowledge on the part of Jesus. So too in Joh_21 it is Peter who is specially moved by the great success of the fishing due, again, to the direction of Jesus, and he alone plunges into the water to greet Jesus before the others (cf. at this point the story, peculiar to Matthew 14:28-31, of Peter walking on the waters). (d) That the vocabulary of Joh_21 should recall that of Luk_5 is not in itself remarkable, for in stories relating to successful catches by fishermen the same words would naturally occur; e.g. ἐμβαίνειν “ to embark” (Luke 5:3, John 21:3), ἀποβαίνειν “ to disembark” (Luke 5:2, John 21:9), δίκτυον (Luke 5:4, John 21:6). But the correspondence is not only one of vocabulary. In Luke 5:5 the fishermen say δἰὅληςνυκτὸςκοπιάσαντεςοὐδὲνἐλάβομεν : cf. John 21:3 ἐνἐκείνῃτῇνυκτὶἐπίασανοὐδέν . In both cases, it is by the direction of Jesus that they cast the net into deeper water (Luke 5:4, John 21:6, where see note); and in both cases they make a great catch. In Luke 5:6 the nets were beginning to break , but they did not actually break, for the fishermen managed to secure them full of fish; so in John 21:11 it is noted that the nets were not broken. That this should be mentioned shows that there was danger of them breaking, as in Luke 5:6. These correspondences between the stories in Luk_5 and Joh_21 of a great draught of fishes are so close that they cannot reasonably be accounted for on the hypothesis that they represent distinct traditions of two distinct incidents. Accordingly, two alternative explanations offer themselves. (1) The author of Joh_21 may have taken his story directly from Luk_5, putting it in a different context (Wellhausen, Pfleiderer). Pfleiderer1 regards Luke 5:4-11 as itself only an “ allegorical” narrative, and if this were the aspect under which it was viewed by Jn., his transference of the Lucan passage from one point to another would hardly call for comment. But that Lk. intended his story of the miraculous draught of fishes to be taken as an account of an incident that actually happened is not doubtful; nor is there any reason for thinking that Jn. understood it differently. Jn., however, corrects Synoptic narratives sometimes;2 and it is conceivable that he has deliberately retold this Lucan story, and ascribed it, not to the early days of our Lord’ s ministry, but to the period after His Resurrection. (2) A more probable explanation, however, is that Luke 5:1-11 and Joh_21 are derived, in part, from the same source, viz., a Galilæ an tradition (see on 20:1) about the Lord’ s appearance to Peter after His Resurrection, and the restoration of Peter to his apostolic office. (a) First, as to Luk_5. We have seen that Mk. (followed by Mt.) tells that when Peter, Andrew, James, and John abandoned their fishing and followed Jesus, He promised two of them (if not all four) that He would make them “ fishers of men.” Lk. seems to have confused this promise with the commission afterwards given to Peter to feed the sheep of Christ; and accordingly in his account of the call of the disciples he has interpolated the tradition of a miraculous draught of fishes followed by a special charge to Peter. In Lk., the promise “ henceforth thou shalt catch men” is for Peter alone. Further, the words which Lk. ascribes to Peter, “ Depart from me, for I am a sinful man,” (Luke 5:8) are not adequately explained by saying that Peter was moved to confess his sinfulness because of an extraordinary take of fish. But if such words were spoken when he met his Master for the first time after he had denied Him, they are very appropriate. This sentence in Lk.’ s narrative suggests of itself that the narrative belongs to the period after Jesus had risen. (b) Next, in Joh_21 there are indications that the story was originally current as a tradition, not of the third appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples, but of His first manifestation of Himself after His Resurrection. It is difficult to understand how disciples who already had twice conversed with the Risen Christ (20:19, 26) should fail to recognise Him when He presented Himself by the lake-side (but see note on 21:4). That they should have gone back to their fishing after the extraordinary communication to them recorded in 20:22, 23 is strange enough (Chrysostom can only suggest that they had gone back to Galilee through fear of the Jews); but it would be stranger still if they were not sensitive, after such an experience, to every slightest indication of the presence of Jesus. Again, the story, as narrated, suggests that this was the first occasion on which Peter met and conversed with Jesus since the night when he denied Him. Vv. 15-19 relate how he was questioned by his Master, and finally reinstated, with a new and great charge, in his apostolic office. Is it likely that the person who first wrote down this story believed that Peter had seen the Risen Lord at least twice before, and had, along with his companions, been already granted the gift of the Holy Spirit and a commission to forgive sins? The inference that 21:15-19 must not be taken as posterior to 20:23 is difficult to evade. It must not be overlooked, in this connexion, that the genuineness of πάλιν in 21:1 is doubtful. Different MSS. place πάλιν at different points in this verse (see note in loc.), and one uncial, at least, omits it altogether. It is probable that the adverb πάλιν in v. 1 and the whole of v. 14 (τοῦτοἤδητρίτονἐφανερώθηκτλ .) have been added by Jn. to his source to bring the tradition of an appearance in Galilee into harmony with those which he has already described at Jerusalem. V. 14 is obviously a parenthesis, for the narrative runs smoothly and consecutively from v. 13 to v. 15. These considerations lead to the conclusion that Luke 5:1-11 and Joh_21 both go back to a current story that the first manifestation of the Risen Jesus to Peter (at any rate) was by the Sea of Galilee. According to Mark 16:7 (followed by Matthew 28:7), the disciples had been told that Jesus would meet them in Galilee, and Matthew 28:16 states that He actually did so (see on 20:1, 21:1). Another instance of the survival of such a tradition is provided by the Gospel of Peter (second century), the extant fragment ending as follows: “ It was the last day of unleavened bread, and many went forth, returning to their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the Twelve (see on 20:24) disciples of the Lord, wept and were grieved; and each one, grieving for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went away to the sea, and there was with us Levi the son of Alphæ us, whom the Lord ..” That is to say, Pseudo-Peter makes the apostles remain at Jerusalem until the Passover Feast was over, but makes no mention of any appearances of the Risen Lord to them there. Instead, he represents them as returning to their homes, the Galilæ an fishermen going back to the Sea of Galilee. When the fragment ends, it seems as if an incident like that of Joh 21:1-14 was being led up to. Harnack holds1 that this tradition, the source of Joh 21:1-13 as of Luk 5:1-11, was narrated in the Lost Conclusion of Mark. It may be so— the evidence is insufficient for certainty; but it seems more probable that Matthew 28:16f. gives us part of what was in the original Marcan narrative. However that may be, we have reached the conclusion that Joh_21 and Luk_5 point back to a common source, viz. a Galilæ an tradition about the Risen Lord. The question then arises, why did Jn. add c. 21 to the already completed Gospel? (1) It has been suggested that c. 21 was added as a kind of postscript, because it was thought important that the rehabilitation of Peter should be placed on record. Of this there is no account in the Synoptists or in Jn. cc. 1-20. His denial is narrated in detail by all the evangelists, but his forgiveness and restoration to apostolic leadership is assumed without any explanation. That at some moment after the Resurrection he regained his old position of leader is manifest from the narrative of Acts. How were the other apostles reassured as to his stability? The beautiful story of 21:15-19 is the only explanation that has been preserved, whatever be its source; and it is easy to realise that the Church at the end of the first century would be anxious to have it placed on record, more especially after Peter’ s career had been ended by a martyr’ s death. The statement in v. 24 that the story was certified by the Beloved Disciple, i.e. in our view by John the son of Zebedee, who at the time of its being added to the Fourth Gospel was the only living person who could bear witness to its truth, is in no way improbable. How Peter came to be restored to his apostolic office would not seem to the first generation of Christians to be a question of sufficient importance for inclusion in a Gospel, but when the second generation began to look back it was recognised as of peculiar interest. (2) But the principal motive for the addition of c. 21 was, no doubt, that misapprehensions as to the meaning of some words of Jesus might be removed. The enigmatical promise (Mark 9:1 and parallels) that there were some among the disciples of Jesus who would not die until “ the kingdom of God came with power” must have made a profound impression (see on 1:51). Maran Atha was the watchword of apostolic Christianity (1 Corinthians 16:22), and at first it was expected that the Parousia (cf. 14:3 and 1 John 2:28) would come soon. Paul at one time thought that some of his contemporaries would live to see it (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 15:51). By the time that the Fourth Gospel was written, the hope of the speedy return of Christ was dying out; but it was still believed by some that the Lord had promised (either in the words preserved in 21:22, or in similar words such as Mark 9:1) that it would come to pass before all the apostles died. Accordingly, when the last survivor, John the son of Zebedee, was manifestly approaching the end of his course, there must have been some at least who were disconcerted. It was probably to reassure them that the story of the promise made by Jesus to John was added to the Gospel which was based on his reminiscences, and attention directed to its exact phrasing. Vv. 21-23 may have been written down after the death of John; but it seems more probable that the true account of this incident was gathered from his lips during the last days of his long life. The Appendix, then, embodies a tradition that was current as to an appearance of the Risen Christ in Galilee, which is also used (but misplaced) by Lk. In c. 21, it appears in a version for some deatils of which the authority of the Beloved Disciple is expressly claimed (v. 24); but it would seem that it has been edited (vv. 1, 14) by Jn. so as to bring it into harmony with c. 20. The Gospel proper contained only such incidents and sayings of Jesus as would serve the special purpose of the writer (20:30, 31); but before it was issued to the Christian community it was thought desirable to add an Appendix embodying traditions about Peter and John of which incorrect versions were current. For vv. 24, 25, see notes in loc. An Appearance of the Risen Christ by the Sea of Galilee (21:1-14) 21.1. μετὰταῦτα . This introductory phrase does not connote strict sequence.1 It is used by Jn. to introduce a fresh section of his narrative, and hardly means more than “ another time.” ἐφανέρωσενἑαυτόν . For φανερόω (cf. v. 14) and its use in Jn., see on 1:31. It is the verb used in the Appendix to Mk. (16:12, 14) of the manifestations of the Risen Jesus to the two at Emmaus, and to the Eleven. He was not visible continuously between His Resurrection and final Departure. ὁἸησοῦς . BC om. ὁ , but ins. א ACNΓΔ (see on 1:29, 50). τοῖςμαθηταῖς . Not to the Eleven, but to some of them only. οἱμαθηταί might stand for “ disciples” in the wider sense (see on 2:2), but that is not probable at this point, as we shall see. ἐπὶτῆςθαλάσσηςτῆςΤιβεριάδος , “ by the Sea of Tiberias.” For this description of the Sea of Galilee, see on 6:1. According to the Marcan tradition (Mark 16:7, Matthew 28:7), Jesus was to manifest Himself in Galilee (cf. Matthew 28:16). Of any appearances there, the Gospels of Lk. and Jn. tell nothing, but in this Appendix to the Fourth Gospel one such manifestation is described in detail, implying (as the story is told by Jn.) that, after the three appearances at Jerusalem described in c. 20, some of the Eleven (at least) returned to Galilee, where Jesus met them. But see note above, p. 656. πάλιν (a favourite Johannine word, cf. 1:35) is placed before ἑαυτόν by א * and before ἐφανέρωσεν by D. It is omitted by some cursives. ἐφανέρωσενδὲοὕτως . This brusque constr. does not appear again in exactly this form in Jn.; but cf. 4:6, ἐκαθέζετοοὕτωςἐπὶτῇπηγῇ . 2. According to Pseudo-Peter (see p. 691 above), the disciples remained in Jerusalem until the end of the Passover Feast, when some returned to their homes in Galilee. This falls in with c. 21. Peter and the sons of Zebedee were fishermen, who took up their work in partnership, as they had been accustomed to do (Mark 1:16). ἦσανὁμοῦ , “ they were together, ” and with them were Nathanael and also Thomas. The words ἄλλοιἐκτῶνμαθητῶναὐτοῦδύο suggest that all seven who were present were of the Twelve, for οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ generally represents the Twelve in the Fourth Gospel. οἱμαθηταί in vv. 4, 12 stands for the seven who have been already mentioned. See for this usage on 2:2. Nonnus, in his paraphrase of Jn., like Pseudo-Peter, says that Andrew was present on this occasion, and he may have been one of the two innominati; it would be natural that he would, as formerly, accompany Peter in his fishing. Pseudo-Peter represents “ Levi the son of Alphæ us” as one of the company, and it is possible that this is a true tradition and that he was the second unnamed disciple, although we should hardly expect that a former tax-gatherer (Mark 2:14) would be of use in a fishing-boat. If we had to guess at the second innominatus, the name of Philip would naturally suggest itself. He was of Bethsaida, as were Peter and Andrew (1:44); and in the lists of the apostles he always appears among the first five, with Peter, Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee (Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13). He is also associated with Peter, Andrew, and John, and with Nathanael in 1:37-46. The seven disciples present on the occasion now to be described would then be the seven most prominent in the Fourth Gospel and the seven who are named first in Acts 1:13. But the evidence as to the two innominati is not sufficient for certainty. ΣίμωνΠέτρος . See on 18:15 for the full name being used at the beginning of a new section, as is the habit of Jn. ΘῶμαςὁλεγόμενοςΔίδυμος . So he is described 11:16, where see note; cf. 20:24. καὶΝαθαναὴλὁἀπὸΚανᾶτῆςΓαλ . There is no reason for supposing (with Schmiedel) that this description is made up from a comparison of 1:45 and 2:1, or that it does not represent a genuine tradition as to Nathanael’ s home. See on 1:45. οἱτοῦΖεβεδαίου . Zebedee’ s name is not mentioned elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel. “ The sons of Zebedee,” their names not being stated, is a phrase occurring Matthew 20:20, Matthew 26:37, Matthew 27:56. 3. λέγειαὐτοῖςΣίμωνΠέτρος . He characteristically takes the lead, saying, “ I am off to fish.” For ὑπάγω , see on 7:33. The verb ἁλιεύειν occurs in the Greek Bible only once elsewhere, at Jeremiah 16:16. To repeat the full name ΣίμωνΠέτρος is not in accordance with Jn.’ s habit (see on 18:15); cf. vv. 7, 11, 15. καὶἡμεῖςσὺνσοί . σύν is not a favourite Johannine word, occurring only twice in Jn. (see on 12:2, 18:1). ἐξῆλθον , “ they went out,” not necessarily from the same house, but from the place where they were all gathered. ἐνέβησανεἰςτὸπλοῖον . For this phrase, see on 6:17. The rec. has ἀνέβησαν . Probably τὸπλοῖον was the large boat which they were accustomed to use as they went about the lake with Jesus (see on 6:1). The rec. adds εὐθύς , but om. א BC*DLNWΔΘ . ἐνἐκείνῃτῇνυκτὶἐπίασανοὐδέν . This recalls Luke 5:5; the night is the best time for fishing, and yet they caught nothing. πιάζειν is used several times by Jn. (see on 7:30) of “ arresting” or “ taking” Jesus; but to use it of the catching of fish, as here and at v. 10, is curious. Cf. Son 2:15, Revelation 19:20. 4. πρωΐαςδὲἤδηγινομένης , “ when dawn was now breaking,” and the light not yet good. Jn. never has πρωΐα in the body of the Gospel, while πρωΐ occurs 18:28, 20:1 (see also on 1:41). Mt. has πρωΐα (Matthew 27:1). For γινομένης , the rec. has γενομένης . ἔστηἸησοῦςἐπὶτὸναἰγιαλόν . ἐπί is read by א ADLΘ ; but BCNW have εἰς . Perhaps εἰς has come in here through assimilation to ἔστηεἰςτὸμέσον (20:19, 26, where see note). μέντοι is a Johannine word; see on 12:42. For ᾔδεισαν followed by the historic present ἐστίν , see on 1:39. That disciples, who had so recently seen the Risen Lord twice, according to the Johannine tradition (20:19, 26), should not recognise Him, even after He had spoken to them, might, perhaps, be accounted for by their distance from the shore and the dimness of the early morning light. Again, the failure of the two disciples at Emmaus to identify Him at first (Luke 24:31); and the failure of Mary Magdalene to recognise Him when she saw Him (20:14 οὐκᾔδειὅτιἸησοῦςἐστίν , words identical with those used here) may be taken as showing that the Risen Lord was not recognisable, unless He chose “ to manifest Himself.” The latter may be the true explanation.1 But the present instance of the disciples’ failure to recognise Him is perplexing, for (according to Jn.) they had already seen Him; even if we do not lay stress on the Marcan tradition according to which they had been told that they might expect to see Him in Galilee. 5. λέγει … Ἰησοῦς . The rec. inserts ὁ before Ἰης . with A2CDLNΘ , but om. א B. παιδία is not put into the mouth of Jesus in any other Gospel passage, when He is addressing His disciples. It is a colloquial form of address, as we might say “ My boys,” or “ lads,” if calling to a knot of strangers of a lower social class. παιδίον is thus used in Aristophanes (Nub. 137, Ran. 33). The use of παιδία in 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:18 is different. Jesus says τεκνία to the disciples at 13:33, but to have employed a tender term of this kind would at once have betrayed His identity by the lake-side. μήτιπροσφάγιονἔχετε ; i.e. “ have you caught any fish?” Wetstein (approved by Field) quotes a scholium on Aristoph. Clouds, 731, viz. ἔχειςτι ; schol. χαριέντωςτὸ · ἔχειςτιτῇτῶνἀγρευτῶνλέξειχρώμενος · τοῖςγὰρἁλιεῦσινἤὀρνιθαγρευταῖςοὕτωφασίν · ἔχειςτι ; That is to say, ἔχειςτι is the phrase in which a bystander would say to a fisherman or fowler, “ Have you had any sport?” προσφάγιον , lit. a “ relish,” something to season food, is a Hellenistic word like όψον or ὀψάριον for “ fish,” which was the relish in common use. See on v. 10 below. προσφάγιον is not found elsewhere in the Greek Bible. The form of the question, beginning with μή , suggests that a negative answer is expected (see on 6:67),1 so that we may render “ Boys, you have not had any catch, have you?” And, accordingly, they answered, “ No.” See on 4:29. 6. Then Jesus, perhaps having noticed from the shore that a shoal of fish was gathering at the farther side of the boat, calls to the fishermen, “ Cast your net towards the right of the boat, and you will have a take.” ειςταδεξιαμερητοῦπλοιου is a cumbrous phrase for which no linguistic parallel seems to be forthcoming. In Luke 5:4 the advice of Jesus was similar, although expressed differently, viz. to let down the nets in deeper water. As the story is told, it would seem that Peter jumped into the water on the side of the boat nearest the land, being unimpeded by the net which now was on the other (the right) side, farther from the shore.2 δίκτυον does not occur again in Jn., and is the word used Luke 5:2, Luke 5:4, Luke 5:5; but nothing can be inferred from this, as it is the common word for a fishing-net. After εὑρήσετε , א ca and several Latin texts mostly of the Irish school (e.g., ardmach, dim., stowe, corp., and Rawl. 1673) interpolate Luke 5:5, “ but they said, Master, we toiled all night and took nothing; but at Thy word we will let down the net.” This interpolation shows that the similarity between the two narratives of a great draught of fishes in Lk. and Jn. had been observed long before the dawn of modern criticism. καὶοὐκέτιαὐτὸἑλκύσαιἴσχυον . The rec. has ἴσχυσαν but the more vivid ἴσχυον is read by א BCDLN. For the verb ἑλκύειν see on 6:44. ἰσχύειν is not found in the body of the Gospel. ἀπὸτοῦπλήθουςτῶνἰχθύων . For the same constr cf. 2 Chronicles 5:6 of the animals that “ could not be numbered for multitude,” οἳοὐλογισθήσονταιἀπὸτοῦπλήθους . Nothing is said here of the breaking of the net, which Simon and Andrew feared in the parallel story (Luke 5:6). The Sea of Galilee still swarms with fish;1 and it is noteworthy that this great catch is not described as a σημεῖον , nor is it suggested that it was miraculous. 7. We have identified the Beloved Disciple with John the son of Zebedee (see on 13:23, and Introd., pp. xxxv ff.). This identification agrees well with the statement of v. 2 that the sons of Zebedee were present on this occasion; although v. 2 does not by itself prove this, for the Beloved Disciple might be one of the two innominati. The Beloved Disciple is the first to recognise Jesus, while Peter is the first to act on the knowledge that the stranger on the beach is He. This is entirely congruous with all that the Gospels tell of the two men, the one a spiritual genius, the other an eager, impulsive, warm-hearted leader. ὁκύριόςἐστιν . See on 4:1. ΣίμωνοὖνΠέτρος . See on v. 3. Peter, while working the boat and the nets, was γύμνος , i.e. he was naked except for a waist-cloth; but before leaping into the water, he threw on his upper garment, and fastened it with a belt. ἐπενδύτης is not found elsewhere in the N.T., but cf. 1 Samuel 18:4 where Jonathan presents David with his ἐπενδύτης as a personal gift. Meyer says that the Talmud takes over the word in the form א פ ו נ ד ת א , using it to describe a labourer’ s frock. The verb διεζώσατο signifies that Peter tucked the garment up into his girdle before he waded ashore in the shallow water (cf. 13:4). Syr. sin. adds, after the words “ he cast himself into the sea,” the gloss “ and came swimming.” The paraphrase of Nonnus also speaks of Peter swimming; and this may be intended by the Greek, but in fact the ἐπενδύτης or long garment which Peter put on would only have been an impediment if he had to swim ashore.1 Nothing is said of any conversation between Peter and the Risen Jesus at this point of the story (cf. contra, Luke 5:8). 8. The other disciples wished to get to shore as soon as they could, and to bring their catch with them; but the big fishing boat (τὸπλοῖον , v. 3) could not come closer in the shallow water, so they came (there were only six of them) in the dinghy (τὸπλοιάριον , cf. 6:22 and the note there), the distance being only about 100 yards. ἀπὸπηχῶνδιακοσίων , “ 200 cubits off.” For this constr. of ἀπό see on 11:18. πήχεων is contracted into πηχῶν as in Ezekiel 40:7, Ezekiel 41:21, Revelation 21:17, etc. σύροντεςτὸδίκτυονκτλ ., “ towing the net full of fishes,” i.e. having attached the ropes of the net to the dinghy. σύρειν does not occur again in Jn.; it is used, as here, of dragging towards one a net full of fish by Plutarch, de sollertia animalium c. 26. 9. ἀπέβησαν , “ they disembarked.” ἀποβαίνειν does not occur again in Jn.; and it is noteworthy that the only other place in the Greek Bible where it is found in the sense of “ disembark” is Luke 5:2 (cf. Abbott, Diat. 1763). For ἀνθρακιάν , see on 18:18. The Vulg. rendering of ἀνθρακιὰνκειμένην is prunas positas; but some O.L. texts have carbones positos, while others (a b c ff2r) have carbones incensos, as if they read ἀνθρακιὰνκαιομένην . It is possible that this is the original reading, for καιομένην would readily be corrupted into κειμένην , more expecially as ἐπικείμενον follows in the next line. ὡςοὖνἀπέβησαν . ὡςοὖν is thoroughly Johannine; see on 4:40. ὀψάριον . We have had the word ὀψάρια already at 6:9, where it probably means “ dried fish” (see note in loc.). But here the ὀψάρια (v. 10) are the fresh fish which had just been caught, and in v. 11 the net is said to have been full “ of great fishes.” In fact, despite the derivation of the word, ὀψάριον came to mean “ a fish” or “ fish” vaguely, whether fresh caught or dried; just as πᾶντὸὄψοςτῆςθαλάσσης in Numbers 11:22 means “ all the fish of the sea.” See on v. 5. The ὀψάριον which was cooking on the fire was not one of the fish which had just been caught; for it is only after the disciples see it that the net is drawn ashore. It was provided, along with the bread, by Jesus. Some have thought that the singular forms ὀψάριον , ἄρτον , are significant; and that there is here an allusion to a sacramental meal— one fish, one loaf. But neither ὀψάριον nor ἄρτον necessarily signify one fish or one loaf only; both may be taken generally as “ fish,” “ bread.” See further, on v. 13. The story of Luk 24:42, where the disciples give Jesus a piece of broiled fish , presents some likeness to the present passage, but there the Risen Jesus asks for food (cf. 21:5) and eats it. Jn. does not say that He ate anything, but only that He presided at the meal by the lake-side. 10. Ἐνέγκατεἀπὸτῶνὀψ . κτλ ., “ bring of the fish which you caught just now.” Prima facie, the story suggests that the fish on the fire was for the breakfast of Jesus Himself, and that He now invites the fishermen to bring some of the fish that they had caught, to cook them, and join Him at His meal. But this is not said directly. For πιάζειν , see on v. 3. For νῦν , “ just now,” cf. 11:8. 11. ἀνέβηοὖνΣ . Π . “ So Peter,” in obedience to the authoritative direction of Jesus, “ went aboard” the dinghy, or little boat. Peter is always foremost in action. καὶεἳλκυσεντὸδίκτυονκτλ ., “ and drew the net to land,” which was easier to do than to haul it over the gunwale into the dinghy. μεστὸνἰχθύωνμεγάλωνκτλ . Cf. Luke 5:6 ἰχθύωνπλῆθοςπολύ . Unlike the story in Lk., where the net was breaking , it is noted here as remarkable, οὐκἐσχίσθητὸδίκτυον . The simplest explanation of the number of fish, 153, being recorded, is that (as fishermen are wont to do, because the catch has to be divided into shares) the fish were counted, and their great number remembered as a notable thing. But commentators, both ancient and modern, have not been content tent with this, and have sought for a symbolic meaning in the number 153, which they (in modern times at least) assume was invented in order to suggest something esoteric. See Introd., p. lxxxvii. 12. Jesus calls to the disciples, Δεῦτεἀριστήσατε , “ Come and break your fast” (cf. for the constr. δεῦτε , ἴδετεκτλ ., 4:29). ἄριστον was the morning meal (Matthew 22:4, Luke 11:38, Luke 14:12); the verb ἀριστᾶν occurs again in N.T. only at Luke 11:37 Nothing is said of the cooking of any of the fish that had been caught, but the command of v. 10 suggests that it was thus that the disciples’ breakfast was provided. οὐδεὶςἐτόλμακτλ . The intimate familiarity of the old days had passed; they knew that it was Jesus who was speaking to them, but they did not dare to question Him as to His identity (cf. 4:27). Chrysostom says that they sat down for the meal in silence and trepidation, which may be implied. οὐδεὶς … τῶνμαθητῶν . For this constr., without ἐκ before the gen. plural, as usual in Jn. (see on 1:40, 7:19), cf. 13:28. On μαθηταί , see 2:2. εἰδότεςὅτιὁκύριόςἐστιν . It was not as at the Emmaus supper, where He was not recognised until He blessed and broke the bread (Luke 24:30); here He was recognised before the meal began. τολμᾶν and ἐξετάζειν do not occur in the body of the Gospel. For ἐξετάζειν , “ to cross-examine,” cf. Matthew 2:8, Ecclus. 11:7; it is a natural word to use in this context. 13. ἔρχεται has been thought to imply that Jesus was standing at a distance from the lighted fire, and that He came to it only when the disciples were gathered for their breakfast. But ἔρχεται goes with λαμβάνει which follows (cf. ἔρχεται … καὶλέγει , 12:22), and hardly needs explanation, or a reference to 20:26. The rec. οὖν after ἔρχεται is om. by א BCDLW. λαμβάνειτὸνἄρτονκαὶδίδωσιναὐτοῖς . Syr. sin. and D insert εὐχαριστήσας before δίδωσιν , this being evidently introduced from 6:11, to the language of which v. 13 is closely similar. No eucharistic meal is implied at 6:11 (see note in loc.), and there is here even less suggestion of such a thing. τὸνἄρτον and τὸὄψάριον do not indicate one loaf and one fish (see on v. 9); indeed the command “ bring of the fish which you caught” (v. 10) implies that several fish had been prepared for the disciples` breakfast. That Jesus “ took” and “ gave” them bread and fish, as before (cf. Mark 6:41, Mark 8:6, Matthew 14:19, Matthew 15:36, Luke 9:16), means only that He presided at the meal, as His custom had always been. With τὸὀψάριονὁμοίως , cf. ὁμοίωςκαὶἐκτῶνὀψαρίων (6:11). 14. With the constr. τοῦτοἤδητρίτον , cf. τοῦτοπάλινδεύτερονσημεῖον (4:54), and see 2:11. In both these passages (2:11, 4:54), Jn. implies a correction of Mk.’ s narrative, and it is probable that here too a correction of the Galilæ an tradition as to the appearance by the lake-side is intended. Jesus did not first manifest Himself to the apostles in Galilee (Matthew 28:16); He manifested Himself to them twice at Jerusalem (20:19, 26), and not until after that did He show Himself in Galilee. V. 14 seems to be an addition made by Jn. to his source. ἐφανερώθηἸησοῦς . Cf. v. 1 and see on 1:31. After μαθηταῖς the rec. has αὐτοῦ , but om. א ABCDLWO. ἐγερθεὶςἐκνεκρῶν . Cf. 2:22, 12:9, 17. ἀναστῆναι was the verb used 20:9. The Restoration of Peter to His Apostolic Office (vv. 15-17) 15. ὅτεοὖνἠρίστησαν , when the breakfast was over. Jn. is fond of these notes of time. See on 1:29. ΣίμωνἸωάνου . This is the better reading (א *BCDLW), as against ΣίμωνἸωνᾶ of the rec. text; and so also at vv. 16, 17. Note that we have here ΣίμωνἸωάνου three times, instead of ΣίμωνὁυἱὸςἸωάνου , as at 1:42. Jesus addresses him by the personal name by which he was generally known, “ Simon, son of John,” as He was accustomed to do. See on 1:42 for the designation Peter, which, it is to be observed, Jesus only uses once (Luke 22:34) in addressing the apostle. Cf. Matthew 16:17, Luke 22:31. Peter had thrice denied His Master, and the solemn questioning of him, in the company of his fellow-disciples, as the prelude to his restoration to the Master’ s favour and the renewal of His confidence, was fittingly repeated thrice. As Augustine has it, he was questioned “ donec trina voce amoris, solueret trinam uocem negationis.” 1 The questioning has reference to one thing only, and that is Peter’ s love for Jesus. He is not asked to renew his confession of faith (probably that had never quite left him, his Master having prayed that it should not fail, Luke 22:32), nor is he asked if he is sure that he will be more courageous in the future than in the past. The Lord does not remind him in words of his failure when the great test came. If he loves, that is enough. This is the one essential condition of the apostolic office and ministry. Attention has often been directed to the use of the two verbs ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν in these verses; Jesus asking ἀγαπᾷςμε twice, Peter answering φιλῶσε , and on the third occasion of His query, Jesus changing the verb and saying φιλεῖςμε , taking up Peter’ s own word. This distinction of verbs is not treated as significant by the ancient commentators, Syriac, Greek, or Latin (Ambrose in Lc. x. 176 being perhaps an exception); and, when the delight of Origen, e.g., in playing on words is remembered, this is sufficient to show that the patristic expositors did not venture sharply to differentiate ἀγαπᾶν from φιλεῖν . But in modern times, the exegesis of the passage has largely turned on the idea that whereas Peter will say φιλῶσε , he does not presume to claim that he can say ἀγαπῶσε , ἀγαπᾶν being the more lofty word.1 It is necessary, then, to examine the usage of ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν more closely. Additional Note on φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾶν Of these two words it may be said that φιλεῖν is the more comprehensive, and includes every degree and kind of love or liking, while ἀγαπᾶν is the more dignified and restrained. But even so vague a distinction cannot be pressed very far. Both verbs are used in classical Greek to express sexual love (cf. Lucian, Ver Hist. ii. 25, and Aristotle, Topica, i. 15 [106, b 2]).2 So, in like manner, in the LXX sexual love is indicated by ἀγάπη , ἀγαπᾶν , at 2 Samuel 13:4, Son 2:5, Son 7:6 etc., and by φιλία at Ecclus. 9:8, Proverbs 7:18 (in which latter passage Aquila and Theodotion give ἀγάπη .) In Xenophon (Memorabilia, 11. vii. § § 9 and 12), φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾶν are used interchangeably, both indicating in turn affection (not sexual) and esteem. Cf. Æ lian, Var. Hist. ix. 4, where it is said of a man’ s relations with his brothers, πάνυσφόδραἀγαπήσαςαὐτοὺςκαὶὐπ ʼ αὐτῶνφιληθεὶςἐντῷμέρει . An analysis of the passages in which φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾶν occur in Jn. shows that they are practically synonyms in the Fourth Gospel. Both verbs are used of God’ s love for man: ἀγαπᾶν at 3:16 (where see note) 14:23, 17:23, 1 John 4:10, 1 John 4:19, etc., but φιλεῖν at 16:27 (cf. Revelation 3:19). Both verbs are used of the Father’ s love for the Son: ἀγαπᾶν at 3:35, 10:17, 15:9, 17:23, 24, 26 (cf. ὁυἱόςμουὁἀγαπητός , Mark 9:7), but φιλεῖν at 5:20. Both verbs are used of Jesus’ love for men: ἀγαπᾶν at 11:5, 13:1, 23, 34, 14:21, 15:9, 19:26, 21:7, 20, but φιλεῖν at 11:3, 36, 20:2. The last reference is specially noteworthy, as at 20:2 the beloved disciple is described as he ὃνἐφίλειὁἸησοῦς , while we generally have ὃνἠγάπα (13:23, 19:26). Both verbs are used of the love of men for other men: ἀγαπᾶν at 13:34, 15:12, 17, 1 John 2:10, 1 John 2:3:10, 1 John 2:14, 1 John 2:23, 1 John 2:4:7, 1 John 2:20, but φιλεῖν at 15:19. The noun ἀγάπη is used for the love of men for each other at 13:35, 15:13, 1 John 4:7; but the word that came to be specially appropriated to the brotherly love of Christian for Christian was not ἀγάπη but φιλαδελφία (see on 13:34, and cf. Titus 3:15). Both verbs are used of the love of men for Jesus: ἀγαπᾶν at 8:42, 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28, 21:15, 16, but φιλεῖν at 16:27, 21:15, 16, 17 (cf. Matthew 10:37, 1 Corinthians 16:22). The love of men for God is generally described in the LXX by ἀγαπᾶν (Exodus 20:6) or ἀγάπη (Wisd. 3:9); but in Proverbs 8:17 we have φιλεῖν (ἐγὼτοὺςἐμὲφιλοῦνταςἀγαπῶ 1). In this sense we have ἀγάπη at 5:42, 1 John 2:5, 1 John 2:15, 1 John 2:3:17, and ἀγαπᾶν at 1 John 4:19, 1 John 4:20, 1 John 4:21, 1 John 4:5:2 (not in the Gospel). The love of Jesus for the Father is mentioned only once in the N.T., viz. at 14:31 (where see note), and there the verb is ἀγαπᾶν . Having regard to these facts, it would be precarious to lay stress on the change of ἀγαπᾷς in vv. 15 and 16 to φιλεῖς in v. 17. And a closer examination gives further reason for treating them as synonymous here. First, it is clear that the author uses them as synonymous. Jn. purports to give a translation in Greek of Aramaic words spoken by Jesus. He makes Jesus say ἀγαπᾷςμε in vv. 15, 16, and φιλεῖςμε in v. 17; but by prefixing τὸτρίτον to φιλεῖςμε in the latter passage (cf. δεύτερον in v. 16), he seems to make it plain that the verbs are to be taken as identical in meaning, and to exclude the idea that a new thought is introduced by the use of φιλεῖς . Secondly, Peter is represented as saying “ Yes” to the question ἀγαπᾷςμε ; ναί , φιλῶσε is his answer. This is fatal to the idea that Peter will not claim that he loves Jesus with the higher form of love called ἀγάπη , but that he ventures only to say that he has φιλία for his Master. For why should he say “ Yes,” if he means “ No” ? Thirdly, the Syriac versions (both Old Syriac and Peshitta) use the same word to render ἀγαπᾷς and φιλεῖς in this passage, although two Syriac words were at their disposal. And this is the more remarkable because the Curetonian and Peshitta in rendering ἀγαπᾶν at 14:21, where it occurs 3 times, use both the available Syriac words without distinction.1 In this connexion it is significant that ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν are indifferently used in the LXX to translate the Hebr. א ָ ה ֵ ב ; this Hebrew root being nearly always behind ἀγαπᾶν , and always behind φιλεῖν except when φιλεῖν means “ to kiss,” when it represents נ ָ ש ׁ ַ ק . The Vulgate Latin distinguishes ἀγαπᾷς and φιλεῖς by the respective renderings diligis and amas;2 but the O.L. texts a e have amas throughout, in this agreeing with the Syriac. No distinction is drawn between ἀγαπᾷς and φιλεῖς here in the Arabic version of Tatian’ s Diatessaron. We conclude that we must treat ἀγαπᾷς and φιλεῖς in vv 15-17 as synonymous, as all the patristic expositors do. ἀγαπᾷςμεπλέοντούτων ; πλέον (א BCDL) must be preferred to the rec. πλεῖον . What is the meaning of πλέοντούτων It has been generally understood as meaning “ more than your companions, the other apostles, love me” ; and this yields a good sense. Peter had claimed that his loyalty surpassed that of the rest (Mark 14:29; and cf. 13:37). He had taken precedence of the others, in speech (6:68) and act (18:10), more than once. And the question of Jesus may mean, “ Do you really love me more than the others do, as your forwardness in acting as their leader used to suggest?” But (a) if this be the meaning, the construction is elliptical and ambiguous. We should expect the personal pronoun σύ to be introduced before or after ἀγαπᾷς to mark the emphasis; (b) comparisons of this kind, sc. between the love which this or that disciple displays or entertains, seem out of place on the lips of Jesus. To ask Peter if his love for his Master exceeds the love which, e.g., the Beloved Disciple cherished for Him, would be a severe test; and the question would be one which Peter could never answer with confidence. Does, then, ἀγαπᾷςμεπλέοντούτων ; mean “ lovest thou me more than these things?” sc. the boat and the nets and the fishing, to which Peter had returned after the Passion and the Resurrection of his Master. This interpretation is, indeed, unattractive; but it may possibly be right, and it is free from some difficulties which beset the usual interpretation. At any rate, Peter in his reply takes no notice of πλέοντούτων . If he had ever intended to claim that his affection for his Master was greater than that of his companions, he does so no longer. Nor does he rest his answer on his own feelings alone. His fall had taught him humility. “ Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee” (φιλῶσε , with which cf. 16:27). He rests his case on the Master’ s insight into his heart. The answer of Jesus accepts Peter’ s assurance: “ Feed my lambs.” The Lord “ confides those whom He loves to the man who loves Him” (Luthardt). At the time of his call, the charge to Peter was that he was to be a “ fisher” of men (Matthew 4:19, Mark 1:17, Luke 5:10); and such was his work as an apostle, during the days of his Master’ s visible presence and control. But that would not be sufficient for an apostolic ministry, when Jesus had departed. Henceforth the ministry consists not only of “ catching” men, but of guiding and guarding them in their new spiritual environment. And so the image now used at Peter’ s second “ call” is not that of the fisher, but of the shepherd, whose tender devotion must take as its exemplar the life of the Good Shepherd of 10:11-16. φιλῶσε is all that Peter will say. But it is enough. Βόσκετὰἀρνίαμου is the charge committed to him by the Chief Pastor in the first instance. The charge is repeated in varying forms in vv. 16, 17, and it is not easy either to determine the true text in each case or, having determined it, to decide whether the changes of verbs and nouns are significant for Jn. In vv. 15, 17, the verb is βόσκε ; in v. 16 it is ποίμαινε . In the Synoptists βόσκειν is always used of feeding swine; but it is regularly used in the LXX of feeding sheep (e.g. Genesis 29:7, Genesis 37:12), and in Ezekiel 34:2 in a metaphorical sense (as here) of a pastor feeding his flock with spiritual food. ποιμαίνειν is, etymologically, a verb of wider connotation, covering all duties that pertain to a ποιμήν or shepherd, guiding and guarding, as well as feeding the flock. It occurs again Luke 17:7, 1 Corinthians 9:7, in its literal sense, and in the spiritual sense of “ shepherding” Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2, Revelation 2:27, Revelation 7:17 etc. But it is doubtful if ποίμαινε of v. 16 should be understood as different from βόσκε of vv. 15, 17. ποιμαίνειν is used in the LXX of feeding sheep, exactly as βόσκειν is (e.g. Genesis 30:31, Genesis 37:2), and so too in its spiritual significance, e.g. Psalms 23:1 ὁκύριοςποιμαίνειμε , and Ezekiel 34:10 τοῦμήποιμαίνειντάπρόβαταμου . The Vulgate has in vv. 15, 16, 17, pasce … pasce … pasce, no attempt being made to distinguish the Greek verbs; and it would be rash to assume that different Aramaic words lie behind βόσκε and ποίμαινε respectively in the present passage, more particularly as in the LXX βόσκειν and ποιμαίνειν are used indifferently to translate ר ָ ע ָ ה . We now turn to the various words used to describe the flock who are to be tended, and here we have to do with conflicting readings: In v. 15, ἀρνία is certainly right; C*D giving πρόβατα . In v. 16, προβάτια is read by BC as against πρόβατα , which has the support of א ADNΓΔ . In v. 17, πρόβατα is read by א DNΓΔ , as against ABC, which have προβάτια . A careful study of the Syriac versions by Burkitt leads him to the conclusion that ἀρνία … προβάτια … πρόβατα were probably the original Greek words behind the Syriac.1 With this, the Latin Vulgate agnos … agnos … oves agrees, for προβάτια as a diminutive may be very well represented by agnos. The O.L. versions, for the most part, do not distinguish, and give oves three times; but there are also traces of a reading oviculas in vv. 16, 17. These variants indicate, as it seems, that two or three different Aramaic words lie behind the Greek, although such an inference is not certain, having regard to what has been said above in relation to ἀγαπᾶν — φιλεῖν and βόσκειν -ποιμαίνειν . And we incline to adopt the readings ἀρνία … προβάτια … πρόβατα in vv. 15, 16, 17 respectively, although the uncial evidence for προβάτια in v. 16 is not very strong. Hence the charge to Peter first entrusts to his care the lambs, then the young sheep, and lastly the whole flock, young and old. With ἀρνία , προβάτια , may be compared τεκνία of 13:33. This use of diminutives indicates a tenderness in the speaker’ s words. ἀρνίον occurs in the N.T. elsewhere only in the Apocalpyse, where it is used 29 times of the Lamb of God (see on 1:29): it is infrequent in the LXX. προβάτιον does not appear again in the Greek Bible. Some commentators (who find in the delivery of the special charge “ Feed my lambs, … my sheep” to Peter individually, an indication of his being entrusted with a higher commission than that of the other apostles) interpret the “ lambs” the faithful laity, while the “ sheep” whom Peter was to feed typify other pastors. This is anachronistic exegesis, but hardly more so than the interpretation which finds in this passage an anticipation of the primacy of the Roman See. Such thoughts were outside the purview of Christians at the time when the Fourth Gospel was published.1 16. λέγειαὐτῷπάλινδεύτερον . For this tautological phrase, see on 4:54. ΣίμωνἸωάνου , ἀγαπᾷςμε ; The “ more than these” of v. 15 is now dropped. And Peter’ s answer is the same as before: ναί , … φιλῶσε . The reply ποίμαινετὰπροβάτιάμου is only to be distinguished from βόσκετὰἀρνίαμου (v. 15) or βόσκετὰπρόβατάμου (v. 17), in so far as it entrusts a different section of the flock to the pastoral care of Peter. To distinguish ποιμαίνειν from βόσκειν here is a modern subtlety, unknown to Christian antiquity; and it has been shown above to be without support from the LXX use of these verbs, which consistently represent the same Hebrew root. 17. τὸτρίτον . Cf. δεύτερον in v. 16. This is the same question as before, repeated for the third time, and not a new question, as it would be if φιλεῖςμε ; were different in meaning from ἀγαπᾷςμε ; of vv. 15, 16. W has ἀγαπᾷς here, as in vv. 15, 16. ἐλυπήθηὁΠέτρος . He knew that he had given cause for the doubting of his love, and it grieved him that his repeated assurance that it still inspired him was not treated as sufficient by his Master. For ὁΠέτρος here, see on 18:15. καὶεἶπεναὐτῷ . א BCDΘ prefix καί , which is omitted by A. For εἶπεν , א ADWΘ have λέγει . Peter leaves out ναί in this third answer. He appeals to the knowledge of his feelings which he is assured Jesus must have. πάντασὺοἶδας (cf. 16:30). Long before this, the chosen companions of Jesus had learnt that His insight into human character and motive was unerring; cf. 2:25 αὐτὸςγὰρἐγίνωσκεντίἦνἐντῷἀνθρώπῳ , the verb γινώσκειν , of immediate observation, being used there, as here. Ἰησοῦς : om. א DW, ins. ANΓΔ BC om. ὁ . Βόσκετὰπρόβατάμου . This is the final charge, pasce oues meas. τὰπρόβατα includes the whole flock, young and old. Prediction of Peter’ s Martyrdom (vv. 18, 19); And a Misunderstood Saying About John (vv. 20-23) 18, 19. ἀμὴνἀμὴνλέγωσοι . When Jesus warned Peter that he would deny Him, he prefaced the warning by the same impressive phrase (13:38; see on 1:51). There is no explicit reference to Peter’ s death in the words which follow. He has been bidden to feed the Lord’ s sheep, and he is reminded that, although, when he was young, he was unfettered and able to follow his own wishes, yet when he grew old he would be obliged to yield to the will of others. At this time he was no longer a youth; he had been married for some time (cf. Matthew 8:14), and was approaching middle life. The words ἐζώννυεςσεαυτὸν … ἄλλοςζώσεισε may point only to the contrast between the alertness of youth and the helplessness of old age, which cannot always do what it would; and ἐκτενεῖςτὰςχεῖράςσου may refer merely to the old man stretching out his hands that others may help him in putting on his garments, whereas the young man girds himself unassisted, before he sets out to walk . Further, ζώννυμι (only again at Acts 12:8 in the N.T.) is always used in the LXX, as in Greek generally, of girding on clothes or armour,1 and no instance is forthcoming of its use in the sense of binding a criminal, which must be supposed to be the meaning of ἄλλοςζώσεισε if the Lord’ s words are taken as predictive of Peter’ s martyrdom. The order of the clauses in v. 18 is also strange if crucifixion was in the mind of the speaker; for we should expect the extension of the hands to be mentioned last. On the other hand, this feature of death by crucifixion, that the hands were extended upon the cross, is specially mentioned as its characteristic by other writers. Wetstein quotes Artem. Oniv. i. 76, κακοῦργοςδὲὢνσταυρωθήσεταιδιὰτὸὕψοςκαὶτὴντῶνχειρῶνἔκτασιν , and Arrian, Epict. iii. 26, ἐκτείναςσεαυτὸνὡςοἱἐσταυρωμένοι . Field adds a quotation from Dion. Hal. Ant. vii. 69, οἱδ ʼ ἄγοντεςτὸνθεράπονταἐπὶτὴντιμωρίαν , τὰς More significant than these parallels, however, is the fact that several early Christian writers treat ἔκτασιςτῶνχειρῶν or a like phrase as a sufficient description by itself of crucifixion. Thus Barnabas (§ 12) finds a τύποςσταυροῦ in the extension of Moses’ hands during the battle with Amalek (Exodus 17:12). Justin has the same idea: Μωυσῆς .. τὰςχεῖραςἑκατέρωςἐκπετάσας , and again, διὰτοῦτύπουτῆςἐκτάσεωςτῶνχεῖρων (Tryph. 90, 91). Irenæ us reports the same exegesis as that of one of his predecessors, ὡςἔφητιςτῶνπροβεβηκότων , διὰτῆςἐκτάσεωςτῶνχειρῶν (Hœ r. v. 17. 4; cf. Dem. 46).2 Or, again, the words of Isa 65:2, “ I have spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people,” are regarded as a prophecy of the Crucifixion by Barnabas (§ 12), Justin (Apol. i. 35), Irenæ us (Dem. 79), and Cyprian (Test. ii. 20). Cyprian in the same passage quotes also Psalms 88:9 and Psalms 141:2 as predictive of the Cross, although there is nothing in either verse suggestive of it, except that the Psalmist speaks of the “ spreading out” or the “ lifting up” of his hands in prayer. And, finally, the sign of the Cross in the heavens before the Last Judgment3 is baldly described in the Didache (xvi. 6) as σημεῖονἐκπετάσεωςἐνοὐρανῷ . It is, then, intelligible that the writer of the Appendix to Jn. should regard the words ἐκτενεῖςτὰςχεῖράςσου in v. 18 as an unmistakable prediction of martyrdom by the cross. But whatever the meaning of v. 18, the text clearly embodies a genuine reminiscence of words spoken by the Lord. If the author of the Appendix is right in his interpretation of them, “ this He said, signifying by what death He should glorify God,” he must be taken as relying on memory or tradition for his report of the words used; for, if he desired to place sentences of his own making in the mouth of Jesus, which should contain a prophecy of Peter’ s crucifixion, he would have phrased them with less ambiguity. It is possible (see on 2:21 and the references there given) that the comment of v. 19 is a mistaken one. But even in that case we have a clear indication that the narrator, at the time of writing, believed that Peter was dead, and that he had died a martyr’ s death by crucifixion. This became the tradition of the Church. The earliest appearance of it is in Tertullian (Scorp. 15, about 211 a.d.); and it is noteworthy that he makes reference to the words of Joh 21:18: “ Tunc Petrus ab alterocingitur, cum cruci adstringatur,” interpreting ἄλλοςζώσεισε of the binding of the martyr to the cross. Origen (ap. Eus. H.E. iii. 1, if indeed the report is Origen’ s, which is doubtful) is the first to tell that Peter was crucified with his head downward, ἀνεσκολοπίσθηκατὰκεφαλῆς , a statement which appears, embellished with legend, in the Acta Petri and in many later writers. The notices of Peter’ s death are perplexing,1 and the subject cannot be pursued here; but it is plain that the tradition of his crucifixion goes back to John 21:18, John 21:19. With the comment τοῦτοδὲεἶπενκτλ . should be compared 12:33, τοῦτοδὲἔλεγενσημαίνωνποίῳθανάτῳἤμελλενἀποθνήσκειν . For ἤμελλενἀποθνήσκειν we have here δοξάσειτὸνθεόν . We should expect ἤμελλενδοξάζειν … , but δοξάσει places the narrator back in the scene described, when the martyrdom of Peter was still in the future. It is characteristic of the style of Jn. (see on 1:45), that the writer does not stay to tell explicitly that Peter was dead, for this is a fact which the whole Church knew. The phrase descriptive of a martyr’ s death, by which he was said to “ glorify God” in his sufferings, occurs again in 1 Peter 4:16, where a man who is threatened with suffering ὡςΧριστιανός is exhorted thus: δοξαζέτωδὲτὸνθεὸνἐντῷὀνόματιτούτῳ . The phrase is common in the martyrologies. See on 13:31, where it is pointed out that this thought must be distinguished from the thought that in his death a martyr “ is glorified” by God. Ἀκολούθειμοι . See 1:43 for the invitation to Philip expressed thus, and the Synoptic references there given. It would seem from v. 20 that ἀκολούθειμοι here signified a literal following of Jesus as He moved away from the assembled disciples, Peter and John alone going with Him. But the words may well have recalled to Peter the invitation extended to him in early days, “ Come, and I will make you a fisher of men” (Matthew 4:19, Mark 1:17, Luke 5:10); and he could hardly have failed to remember a recent occasion when his eager offer to follow Jesus was put aside by the Master (John 13:36). See p. 529 above. 20. With ἐπιστραφεὶςὁΠέτρος , cf. 20:14, 16 (see also Mark 5:30). א DNΓΔΘ add δέ after ἐπιστρ ., but om. ABCW. Peter obeyed the summons to follow Jesus, and as they moved away from the others John went after them, not doubting that he was welcome, whenever Jesus called his close friend Peter. See Introd., p. xxxvi f. The “ disciple whom Jesus loved” (v. 7, 13:23) is more closely described by recalling his action, when, at the instigation of Peter, he asked who the traitor was. ἀνέπεσεν reproduces ἀναπεσών of 13:25 (where see note). 21. τοῦτονοὖν . The rec. om. οὖν with AWΓΔΘ , but ins. א BCD Peter has been told that he will die by crucifixion, and he at once asks what is to be the fate of his friend. Latham notes in his character “ a peculiar kind of curiosity, which we find in people of very active minds,” 1 and cites 13:24, where Peter is eager to ascertain at once who is the traitor in the company. οὗτοςδὲτί ; “ This man, what?” To this the answer is a rebuke, such as Jesus gave more than once to people who were curious about the duty or the destiny of others (see on 14:22). Dods (in loc.) recalls a man sketched by Thomas à Kempis: “ considerat, quod alii facere tenentur, et negligit, quod ipse tenetur” (Imit. Chr. ii. 1) 22. Ἐὰναὐτὸνθέλωκτλ . “ If it is My will (θέλω is here the θέλω of masterful authority, cf. 17:24) that he should tarry (μένειν is used of survival, as at 1 Corinthians 15:6) until I come, what is that to thee?” ἕωςἔρχομαι is literally “ while I am coming” (see on 9:4 for ἕως with the pres. indic. in Jn.), but it means here, as at 1 Timothy 4:13, “ until I come.” The emphasis is on ἐὰνθέλω . Jesus is not represented as saying that it is His will that the Beloved Disciple would survive; but if it was His will, that was no concern of Peter’ s. That ἕωςἔρχομαι is meant to be interpreted by the Second Coming of Christ is not doubtful (cf. 14:3). To apply it to the coming of Christ at a disciple’ s death is a desperate expedient of exegesis; and thus interpreted, the saying is meaningless, for every one “ tarries” until Christ comes in that sense. σύμοιἀκολούθει . “ As for you (σύ is very emphatic), follow me,” repeated from v. 19. This is the last precept of Jesus recorded in the last Gospel; and it is the final and essential precept of the Christian life. See on v. 19. 23. ἐξῆλθενοὖνοὗτοςὁλόγοςκτλ . “ So this saying went forth,” etc. Cf. Mark 1:28 for a similar use of ἐξῆλθεν . This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/