The Gospel According to John Commentary on Chapters 1 6 CHAPTER I Outline of Chapters 1 6 Theme: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God During His Public Ministry Revealing Himself to Ever-widening Circles, Rejected 1:1–18 1. The Glory of the Son, as Word of God a. In the beginning b. At the creation c. After the fall d. At the incarnation 1:19 4:54–2. Revealing Himself to Ever-widening Circles a. To John the Baptist who testifies concerning him b. To his immediate disciples. Their testimony; their faith when they witness the first sign c. To Jerusalem. The cleansing of the temple; the conversation with Nicodemus d. To Judea. John the Baptist's Recessional e. To Samaria. Conversation with the Samaritan Woman and ministry among the people of Sychar f. To Galilee. Healing of the nobleman's son 5 6 3. Rejected a. In Judea, as a result of the sabbath-healing of the man at Bethzatha and the claims made in that connection b. In Galilee, as a result of the Bread of Life discourse 1:1–5 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God. 2 He himself was in the beginning face to face with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and apart from him not a single thing that exists came into being. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not appropriate it. This Gospel opens magnificently. It begins by portraying the life of Christ in eternity, before the world was. That life was rich and glorious, filled with infinite delight and serene blessedness in the presence of the Father. Once this truth is grasped, the condescending love of Christ, in becoming flesh, will be appreciated more fully. 1:1 In the beginning when the heavens and the earth were created (Gen. 1:1) the Word already existed. This is another way of saying that he existed from all eternity. He was not what certain heretics claimed him to be, a created being. (See p. 33.) Was the Word. John and the heretics both spoke of the Word (A [Greek]); but though the term was the same, the meaning was different. John's doctrine is not dependent on that of heretics nor on that of speculative philosophers like Philo, a prominent Alexandrian who flourished in the first century a.d. One never knows what to make of Philo's Logos. He employs the term no fewer than thirteen hundred times! but the meaning is never very definite.^[16] It is described now as a divine attribute, then again as a bridge between God and the world, identical with neither but partaking of the nature of both. Philo allegorized, which makes it difficult to grasp his meaning. Thus, in his comments on Gen. 3:24he discusses the Cherubim, equipped with flaming sword, who are placed at Eden's gates to prevent access to the tree of life. As Philo sees it, these Cherubim are two divine potencies: God's loving-kindness and his sovereignty. The sword is the Logos or Reason which unites the two. Balaam, the foolish prophet, had no sword (Reason), for he said to the ass: If I had a sword, I would have pierced thee (On the Cherubim, XXXII). Surely, the term as employed by the evangelist cannot derive its meaning from such allegorization. It is rooted not in Greek but in Semitic thought.^[17] Already in the Old Testament the Word of God is represented as a Person. Note especially Ps. 33:6: By the Word of Jehovah (LXX: [Greek] ) were the heavens made. What is probably the best commentary on John 1:1is found in Prov. 8:27 30: When he established the heavens, I was there; When he set a circle upon the face of the deep. When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, When he gave to the deep its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him. As a New Testament designation of the Christ, the term Word occurs only in 1:1, 14; (I John 1:1; and Rev. 19:13. A word serves two distinct purposes: a. it gives expression to the inner thought, the soul of the man, doing this even though no one else is present to hear what is said or to read what is thought; and b. it reveals this thought (hence, the soul of the speaker) to others. Christ is the Word of God in both respects: he expresses or reflects the mind of God; also, he reveals God to manMatt. 11:27; Heb. 1:3). And the Word was face to face with God ([Greek] The meaning is that the Word existed in the closest possible fellowship with the Father, and that he took supreme delight in this communion. (I John 1:2.) So deeply had this former joy impressed itself upon the Logos that it was never erased from his consciousness, as is also evident from the high-priestly prayer: And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self or: in thine own presence, with the glory which I had with thee before the world existed. Thus, the incarnation begins to stand out more clearly as a deed of incomprehensible love and infinite condescension. And the Word was God. In order to place all the emphasis on Christ's full deity the predicate in the original precedes the subject. ([Greek] A [Greek]). Over against every heretic it must be made plain that this Word was fully divine. 2. He himself was in the beginning face to face with God. This fully divine Word, existing from all eternity as a distinct Person, was enjoying loving fellowship with the Father. Thus, the full deity of Christ, his eternity, and his distinct personal existence are confessed once more, in order that heretics may be refuted and the Church may be established in the faith and love of God. 3. All things came into being through him, and apart from him not a single thing that exists came into being. All things, one by one, came into being through this divine Word. Thus, the great truth that Christ created all things (for in the external works all three Persons cooperate) is first of all stated positively and from the viewpoint of the past. Stated negatively and from the viewpoint of the present, it is expressed thus: Apart from him not a single thing that exists came into being. Two facts are here stressed: a. that the Christ himself was not created; he was eternally (in order to convey that thought the imperfect tense is used four times in verses 1 and 2); and b. that all things (viewed distributively, one by one without any exception) were created by him (here the aorist tense is used). 4. In him was life. Not through but in, just as in 5:26; 6:48, 53; 11:25. The clause in him was life means that from all eternity and throughout the entire old dispensation life resided in the Word. Hence, the best reading has was, not is. But what is meant by the term life, as used here? Does it refer directly to every kind of life, physical as well as spiritual, the life of the butterfly as well as that of the archangel? Physical life, however, does not reside in the second person of the Trinity. God is not physical in any sense (cf. 4:24). Besides, it is a good rule in exegesis to see whether a term is explained when one reads on and on. When that rule is applied in this case, the result is as follows: The life is characterized as the light of men (1:4b). This light shines in the darkness and is not appropriated by sinful men (1:5). With reference to this light, the Baptist bears testimony (verses 6, 7). The latter was not the original and perfect light, in whose radiance all other lights seem dim, but he came to bear testimony with respect to the light (verses 8, 9). This light is now identified with the One who is rejected by the world but accepted by God's children (verses 10 13). From this context it is clear that the terms life and light belong to the spiritual sphere. Moreover, both in the Fourth Gospel and in the First Epistle the term life ([Greek]) always (54 times) moves in that realm. At times it is interchanged with the expression everlasting life (5:24). When one really possesses this life, he experiences close fellowship with God in Christ (17:3). The meaning is similar in the book of Revelation (book of life, water of life, tree of life, crown of life). From all this it would seem to be evident that basically the term refers to the fulness of God's essence, his glorious attributes: holiness, truth (knowledge, wisdom, veracity), love, omnipotence, sovereignty. This full, blessed life of God is said to have been present in the Word, and this from all eternity and throughout the entire old dispensation: In him was life. But although this life as such is wholely spiritual, and nothing of a physical nature pertains to it, nevertheless, it is the cause, source, or principle of all life, physical as well as spiritual.^[19] The universe owes its existence to it: All things came into being through him and apart from him not a single thing that exists came into being (verse 3); hence, so does also mankind (verse 10). It is true, of course, that this light is also the source of general revelation. Nevertheless, the present context does not specifically make mention of this idea. It is implied, of course, but it is not expressed. Here, in the present context (John's Prologue) the life of God in Christ, to which all things and all men owe their existence (creation and preservation), is represented as the source of men's illumination regarding spiritual matters and of the everlasting salvation of God's children. What we have here is a Gospel-context. Hence, we read: And that life was the light of men. When life is manifested, it is called light, for it is characteristic of light to shine forth. Since the fall, which is implied already here in the last clause of verse 4, that light was proclaimed to men. Mankind was characterized by darkness, evil, and hatred, which are the antonyms of light. To them (especially to Israel; see the explanation of verses 10, 11) throughout the old dispensation the truth and the love of God in Christ were proclaimed. Truth and love are the synonyms of light. (I John 2:8 10.) Of course, one should not limit the meaning of the term light to just these two attributes (truth and love); rather, they represent all God's attributes. In the work of salvation all the divine attributes were displayed. They were proclaimed to sinful men. 5. And the light shines in the darkness. Cf. verse 9: the light illumines every man. Note the change from the imperfect to the present tense: not only was the light shining throughout the old dispensation; it is shining still, for it is the very characteristic of light to shine. Moreover, whereas the Word (Christ) is the One in whom the life resides and by whom it is made to shine forth as light, he is also himself called the light. (I John 2:8.) Like the sun in the sky this light shines forth in the mother-promise (Gen. 3:15), in the book of Exodus with its Passover Lamb and all the other types, in Leviticus with its offerings that point forward to the shedding of Christ's blood, in Numbers with its serpent lifted up (Num. 21:8; cf. John 3:14, 15), yea, in all the historical, prophetical, and poetical books of the old dispensation. See, for example, Gen. 49:10; Deut. 18:15–18; II Sam. 7:12–14; Ps. 40:6, 7; 72; 110; 118; Isa. 1:18; 7:14; 9:6; 11:1ff; 35:5; 40; 42:1–4; 53; 54; 55; 60; 61; 63; 65; Hos. 11:8; Am. 5:4; Mic. 5:2; 7:18; Hag. 2:9; Zech. 9:9; 13:1; Mal. 1:11. We emphasize, however, that not only in these prophecies, promises, and invitations, is the light shining; rather, throughout the entire old dispensation and in the whole Old Testament it shines; also throughout the entire new dispensation and in the whole New Testament, revealing God in all his glorious attributes. That light is shining even today in the midst of this world darkness. The sad response to this communication of the light is stated in the second part of verse 5: But^[20] the darkness did not appropriate it. The darkness to which the evangelist refers has a concrete meaning. It refers to fallen mankind, darkened by sin and unbelief. This is not the only case in the New Testament in which an abstract noun acquires a concrete meaning. For other examples see Rom. 11:7( the election, meaning the elect remnant), Rom. 3:30( the circumcision, signifying the circumcized individuals). This darkness is synonymous with the world of verse 10. It is the antagonist of Christ, the light. It is an active, personal darkness: it did not accept or appropriate the light. A translation that is gaining favor takes [Greek] to mean did not overcome, did not overpower, did not put out or extinguish. We believe that this is wrong. Whereas in form the three clauses of verses 5b, 10b, and 11b are very similar, it would seem probable that they are also similar in meaning. We have here a striking illustration of parallelism: the darkness [Greek] (verse 5b); the world did not acknowledge him (verse 10b); his own did not welcome him (verse 11b). It is immediately evident that the rendering did not overpower (for verse 5b) does not fit into this parallelism. The translation did not appropriate (or did not apprehend, as in the A.R.V.) is much better. Besides, the usual and also the radical signification of the verb is to seize, to take (sometimes in the sense of to overtake, 6:17; 12:35), to apprehend, to take possession of, to lay hold on. It can also be used of mental apprehension or perception (Rom. 9:30; I Cor. 9:24; Phil. 3:12). But even when we correctly translate: but the darkness did not appropriate it, the fact must be stressed that we are dealing here with a figure of speech called litotes. From passages such as 3:20 (Eph. 6:12) it is evident that this darkness does not merely behave negatively; on the contrary, it hates the light. It refers to the world of mankind viewed as a hostile power, which actively resists the light and refuses to accept it. What we have here is a manifestation of the absolute antithesis between light and darkness, kingdom of God and the world, Christ and the forces of the evil one. Synthesis of 1:1–5 See the Outline on p. 68. The glory of the Son (or Word): a. In the beginning. When the universe was created, he already existed; he is from everlasting.^[21] He enjoyed an eternity of infinitely close communion with his Father, rejoicing always before him. He was himself God. b. At the creation. All things, one by one, came into being through him. Of all that exists today there is nothing that originated apart from him. In him from eternity and also c. After the fall, throughout the entire old dispensation, the full, rich life of God resided. Throughout that same old dispensation that life was made manifest: God's glorious attributes, exhibited in the work of salvation, were proclaimed to mankind. Life which is made manifest is called light. Thus, the life was the light of men. But the light is shining still, also during the new dispensation: it is the very nature of light to shine. However, the world did not appropriate the light: is steadfastly refused and actively opposed the message of God's truth and love. It hated the Christ in whom the life of God resided and from whom as light it shines forth to those in darkness. 1:6–13 6 There came a man named John, commissioned by God. 7 He came for the purpose of testifying, to^[22] testify concerning the light, in order that everyone through him might come to believe. 8 He was not the light; he came in order that he might testify concerning the light. 9 The true light, which illumines every man, was in the act of coming into the world:^[23] 10 In the world he was, and the world came into being through him, but the world did not acknowledge him. 11 To his own home he came, but his own people did not welcome him. 12 But as many as did accept him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who trust in his name; 13 who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 1:6. There came a man named John, commissioned by God. The Baptist is introduced as an example of the constant shining of the light. From this reference to the herald of the Lord it is again clearly evident that the author is discussing the light (not here explicitly of reason or of conscience but) of God's truth and love as concentrated in Jesus Christ; in other words, he is speaking about the light of salvation. John, whose name means Jehovah has been gracious, had been sent ([Greek] perfect passive participle, indicating abiding result; from [Greek]) from or commissioned by God. The purpose for which he had been commissioned is stated in verses 7 and 8: 7, 8. He came for the purpose of testifying, that he might testify concerning the light, in order that everyone through him might come to believe. He was not the light; he came that he might testify concerning the light. The exact nature of the work of the Baptist was in need of clarification, for the reason which has been stated above, under Readers and Purpose. It is as if the evangelist wishes to say: the Baptist never claimed for himself what certain heretics are claiming for him today. He definitely was not the light! He was the witness (verse 8). A careful examination of verses 6, 7, and 8, in comparison with verses 1, 2, 9, reveals the following contrasts between Christ and John: Christ John a was ([Greek]) from all eternity; b is the Word (A [Greek]); c is himself God; d is the real light; e is the object of trust. a came ([Greek]); b is a mere man ([Greek]); c is commissioned by God; d came to testify concerning the real light; e is the agent through whose testimony men come to trust in the real light, even Christ. He (the Baptist) came ([Greek] ): for testimony; i.e., for the purpose of testifying. The term testimony is almost confined to the writings of John. It occurs in the Fourth Gospel, in John's epistles, and also in the book of Revelation. See the following passages: 1:7, 19; 3:11, 32, 33; 5:31, 32, 34, 36; 8:13, 17; 19:35; I John 5:9, 10; III John 12; Rev. 1:2, 9; 6:9; 11:7; 12:11, 17; 19:10, 20:4. It is probable that the words testimony and testify are here used in their primary sense; namely, (to give) competent testimony concerning that which one has himself seen, heard, or experienced. This follows from what is stated in 1:29, 32, 34. The clause (verse 7) that he might testify repeated for the sake of emphasis in verse 8 explains the preceding, for testimony. The purpose of the Baptist's testimony was that through him ([Greek] ) everyone might come to believe ([Greek] ). In the original, however, the order of the words is reversed: in order that everyone might come to believe through him. The question has, therefore, arisen: Does through him mean through Christ or through John (the Baptist)? We choose the latter, for the following reasons: a. Nowhere else does the evangelist use the expression believe through him as meaning believe through Jesus. Jesus is always represented as the object (not as the agent) of faith (cf. 3:16). b. The subject of verse 7 is John the Baptist, and this is also the subject of verse 8. It is natural to construe the pronoun he ([Greek]) of verse 8, which certainly refers to the Baptist, as referring back to the pronoun him (in the phrase through him) of verse 7. That through him everyone might come to believe ([Greek] first aorist active subjunctive, ingressive). While the noun faith ([Greek]) is not found at all in the Fourth Gospel, and only once in John's epistles (I John 5:4), the verb to believe occurs nearly one hundred times in his Gospel and nine times in his First Epistle, many times as often as in the Synoptics. Nevertheless, also in the Synoptics Christ is definitely represented as the object of faith (Matt. 18:6). Synonymous expressions are used at times; such as, to come to Jesus, to receive or to confess him (Matt. 10:32, 40; 11:28). Moreover, how is it ever possible to give meaning to passages like Matt. 7:22, 23; 25:31ff. without accepting the fact that Christ viewed himself as the legitimate object of faith and trust, so that unwillingness to accept him meant everlasting punishment? Paul, too, proclaims the necessity of faith in the Person of Christ and in his atonementRom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16, 20; 3:22, 26; Eph. 1:5; Phil. 3:9; Col. 1:4; 2:5; etc. . The Baptist's intention was that all those who heard his testimony might embrace Christ by a living faith. On Christ as light see under verses 4 and 5; also under verse 9. Christ is the light; the Baptist is a reflector. The latter is light in a derived sense. Thus only can he be called a burning and shining lamp (5:35). John testifies concerning the Christ like the moon testifies concerning the sun. 9. The true light, which illumines every man, was in the act of coming into the world. Christ is here called the true light (for the reason, see under verse 5). The word which has been translated true is [Greek], which means real, ideal, genuine. The Word is the perfect light in whose radiance all other lights seem dim. This light illumines every man. Among the many interpretations which have been given and must be considered are the following: a. Christ, who is the light, actually grants spiritual illumination, in the highest and fullest sense of the term, to every human being dwelling on earth, without any exception. b. He grants this spiritual illumination, which renews both heart and mind, to every covenant-child (whether elect or not). Some lose it again. c. He grants this supreme blessing to every man who is saved; in the sense that not one of the saved receives his illumination from any other source. d. He bestows upon every human individual, without exception, the light of reason and conscience. e. He illumines every man who hears the Gospel; i.e., he imparts a degree of understanding concerning spiritual matters (not necessarily resulting in salvation) to all those whose ears and minds are reached by the message of salvation. The majority, however, do not respond favorably. Many who have the light prefer the darkness. Some, however, due entirely to the sovereign, saving grace of God, receive the word with the proper attitude of heart and mind, and obtain everlasting life. Interpretation a. and b. can be rejected at once. The Fourth Gospel teaches a limited atonement. Not every one is saved, but those who are saved remains saved (10:28). Although d. is favored by eminent conservative exegetes and proclaims an element of truth that must not be denied, we do not believe that in this context or anywhere in the Fourth Gospel where the term light ([Greek]) is used the reference is specifically to the light of reason and conscience.^[24] We accept the position that the light of which John speaks is the life of God in Christ and therefore Christ himself made manifest to the world by the preaching of the Gospel. (See reasons for this position under verse 4.) As we see it, the only defensible views are c. and e. And of these two we prefer the latter, for the following reasons: First, this explanation is in harmony with the succeeding context. Note that also verses 10, 11, and 12 refer to a wider and a more restricted circle in which the Gospel operates. In each case it is the same glorious Gospel of salvation, but though many are called, few are chosen. Thus, in verse 10 we see Christ standing in the midst of mankind which, however, did not acknowledge him, and in verse 11 he is represented as having came to his own home, but his own people did not welcome him. There are, however, exceptions, as verse 12 indicates: some accept him. Secondly, this explanation is also in harmony with the preceding context; see verses 4b and 5: &and that life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not appropriate it. See our explanation of that passage. Thirdly, this interpretation accords well with similar passages in the same Gospel. An author should be allowed to explain his own phraseology. We have such an explanation in 3:19 and in 12:46: And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil (3:19), and I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believes on me may not abide in the darkness (12:46; cf. 12:35a, 36). Fourthly, this view is entirely in harmony with (Heb. 6:4 8where the same verb illumine ([Greek]) is used as here in 1:9. In the Fourth Gospel this verb occurs nowhere else. In the rest of the New Testament it is used both intransitivelyRev. 22:5) and transitively. The latter means either: to bring to light (I Cor. 4:5; II Tim. 1:10) or to illumine, enlighten. In Eph. 1:18this illumination concerns the eyes of the heart and is given to believers. But in Heb. 6:4it is said to have been given to those who subsequently fell away and could not be renewed to repentance. Accordingly, Heb. 6:4clearly teaches that there is an illumination which does not necessarily lead to salvation. Concerning the source whence this illumination proceeds namely, Christ, the light we read: The true light &was in the act of coming into the world. The phrase coming into the world ([Greek] ) must not be understood as modifying every man ([Greek] ), as the A.V. renders it. The Gospel of John does not contain any undisputed passage in which the expression coming into the world refers to the birth of an ordinary human being. On the other hand, it is customary for the apostle to speak of Christ as the One who came into the world:^[25] 3:19; 9:39; 11:27; 12:46; 16:28; and 18:37. Also note that in verse 10 the subject is still the Christ. When the Baptist testified concerning the true light, the latter was on the point of entering upon his public ministry. He was in the act of coming into the world, the theatre of human history, the realm of mankind. 10, 11. In the world he was, and the world came into being through him, but the world did not acknowledge him. To his own he came but his own people did not welcome him. In verse 10 the evangelist summarizes the entire presence of Christ in the world. In a note we point out the various uses of the term world ([Greek]) in the Gospel of John.^[26] Here (1:10, 11) it indicates the realm of mankind which, though created by the Word, became alienated from the life of God. That [Greek] does not here refer to birds and trees is evident from the clause: but the world did not acknowledge him. The clause and the world came into being through him is added to show that the world should have acknowledged Christ, the light. (Cf. verse 3.) A pathetic fact is now recorded: but the world did not acknowledge him. The verb [Greek] is constative aorist. As is clear from Matt. 7:23the verb [Greek] means not only to know, to come to know, to recognize, to perceive, to understand, but also to acknowledge as one's own. So also here: the fact that more than mere intellectual recognition is intended is evident also from the parallelism in verses 5 and 11. The world to which Christ, the light, came, is represented by Israel, which was like a small circle inside a larger circle; as if John were saying, He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, and yet the world did not acknowledge him; specifically, he came to his own home,^[27] and yet his own people did not welcome him. ^[28] Israel was in a very special sense God's own possession (Ex. 19:5; Deut. 7:6). During the entire old dispensation and also at the beginning of the new dispensation Christ came to his own home. Yet his own people gave him no reception. For the meaning of the verb [Greek] see 14:3.Isa. 1:2, 3is the best commentary on the tragedy that is here recorded: Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for Jehovah has spoken. I have nourished and brought up children, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master's crib; Israel does not know, my people does not consider. As has been pointed out (see under verse 5), the clauses did not appropriate, did not acknowledge, and did not welcome, are instances of litotes. They indicate that the world particularly, the Jews, which represented it utterly disowned the Christ. All rejected him; all, with the exception of those to whom reference is made in verses 12 and 13: 12. But as many as did accept him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who trust in his name. Note: as many as &to them, which is a common Aramaic idiom. (See p. 64.) While the world and its representative, the Jewish people, rejected the Savior, individuals accepted him. But these persons receive the greatest spiritual benefit without respect to nationality or physical descent. The expression as many as amounts to whosoever whether Jew or Gentile. The Jew was very slow to learn that in the new dispensation there are no special privileges based upon physical relationships. And the evangelist is keenly aware of this Jewish trait, as he indicates again and again in his book. It is, therefore, not at all strange that John dwells on this great truth and develops it in some detail in verse 14. As many as did accept him; i.e., as many as appropriated, acknowledged, and welcomed the light (see verses 5, 10, 11), as many as continue to embrace him by a living faith in his name (i.e., in his self-revelation in the sphere of redemption), to them he gave it is ever a gift of God's sovereign grace the right, (cf. 5:27; 10:18; 19:10, 11; the authority, cf. 17:2) to become children of God. Did the Jews boast about their hereditary rights, and did they call themselves the children of Abraham? Believers receive the right actually to become children (I John 3:1); to become children not of Abraham only but of God. But how is it to be understood that believers become children of God? Is it not true that they are children of God as soon as (and in a sense even before) they consciously accept Christ? We do not believe that the solution of this problem lies in interpreting the sentence as if it should be read: But as many as did accept him, to them he had previously given the right to become God's children, for otherwise they could not have accepted him. The two aorists ([Greek] and [Greek]) are simultaneous: when one accepts Christ, he at that self-same moment receives the right to become a child of God. Nor is the answer found by weakening the sense of the verb to become ([Greek]), as if it meant no more than to be called (or to represent oneself as) a child of God. As we see it, in order to arrive at a correct interpretation of this clause, we should bear in mind the connotation which John attaches to the term God's children. Neither in the Gospel nor in the epistles does this evangelist ever employ the term [Greek] in referring to believers. One becomes a [Greek] by adoption, but a [Greek] by regeneration and transformation. Paul uses both terms in describing believers as children of God. The noun which John uses for this purpose comes from [Greek], to beget. To him salvation is the impartation of life, the being begotten of God, so that one becomes his child (I John 2:29; 3:9). By means of being thus begotten of God one is transformed into the likeness of God. And inasmuch as God is love, hence, being begotten of God is manifested in loving the brethren (I John 4:7, 8). John, accordingly, dwells at length on love as the mark of the Christian: love is light, but hatred is darkness, and one who hates walks in darkness (I John 2:10, 11). The love that is required of us is of the self-sacrificing kind (I John 3:16). But this transformation, though beginning with an instantaneous act of God, is, nevertheless, a gradual process. In principle, one becomes a child of God at the very moment when the life from above enters the soul. Even now we are the children of God. The highest realization of this ideal is, however, reserved for the future when, freed from every impurity, the life of God his holiness and love shall have become completely manifest in us. If this be understood, it becomes clear why John can say here in 1:13: to them he gave the right to become God's children. This explanation would seem to be in harmony with John's own teaching. Cf. (I John 3:2: Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be, but we know that when he is made manifest, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself, even as he is pure.II Cor. 3:18; Gal. 4:19; and II Peter 1:4.) 13. The clause who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God has led to much controversy. Able commentators, both liberal and conservative,^[29] following the example of Ireneus, prefer to read: to him who was born, so that verse 14 would refer to Christ's virgin birth (Ireneus, Against Heresies, III, xvi, 2; xix 2). Some are even willing to accept the theory of Tertullian, that who were born is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics (Tertullian, On The Flesh of Christ, XIX). But all the old Greek uncials have the plural. Moreover, the clause is a very fitting explanation of the word as many as &to them of verse 12. The evangelist teaches that God's true children do not owe their origin to blood^[30] (physical descent; for example, from Abraham), nor to the will of the flesh (carnal desire, the sexual impulse of man or woman), nor to the will of man (the procreative urge of the male) but to God alone. Note the climactic arrangement of the three expressions. All three emphasize that in no sense whatever do believers derive their birth or standing from physical or biological causes. Nicodemus needed that lesson; so did most of the Jews, as is very clear from following passages: 3:6; 8:31–59; Luke 3:8; Gal. 3:11, 28.^[31] Synthesis of 1:6–13 See the Outline on p. 68. The glory of the Son after the fall (continued). This section shows us that the true light, the object of faith, is far more glorious than John the Baptist. The latter had been commissioned by God to give competent testimony concerning the former. While the Baptist was testifying, the true light whose pure Gospel of salvation is proclaimed to all men, regardless of race or nationality, was at the point of entering upon his public ministry. The evangelist, looking back, and summarizing the presence of the true light in the midst of this world's darkness, declares: In the world he was, and the world came into being through him, and yet the world did not acknowledge him. To his own home he came, but his own people did not welcome him. However, there have always been exceptions: those who did accept him he qualified to become children of God; i.e., to become transformed more and more into God's image. Such people do not boast about physical ancestors, race, or nationality (as the Jews so often did), but recognize that they are the product of God's sovereign grace. 1:14–18 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us as in a tent, and we beheld his glory, a glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testifies concerning him, and he cried, saying: this was the One of whom I said: he who is coming behind me has gotten ahead of me, for he existed before me. 16 For out of his fulness we have all received grace upon grace. 17 For, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 God himself no one has ever seen. The only begotten God, who lies upon the Father's breast, it is he who has made him known. 1:14. The glory of the Word at the incarnation is the theme of 1:14–18. The fact recorded in verse 14 is not later in time than what has been described in the preceding verses. Rather, it is greater in love. The incarnation and the realization of its purpose, the crucifixion is the climax of God's condescending grace. This is clear from the context; note verses 10, 11: In the world he was &but the world did not acknowledge him. To his own home he came, but his own people did not welcome him. And yet in the midst of this ungrateful world he manifested his supreme love. From the infinite sweep of eternal delight in the very presence of his Father, the Word was willing to descend into this realm of misery, to pitch his tent for a while among sinful men: Veiled in flesh the godhead see. And the Word became flesh.I John 4:2; Rom. 1:3; 8:3; II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:5–11; I Tim. 3:16; and Heb. 2:14. See on 1:1 for comments on the Word. The verb became has a very special meaning here. Not became in the sense of ceasing to be what he was before. When the wife of Lot becomes a pillar of salt, she ceases to be the wife of Lot. But when Lot becomes the father of Moab and Ammon, he remains Lot. So also here: the Word becomes flesh but remains the Word, even God (see verses 1, 18). The second Person of the Trinity assumes the human nature, without laying aside the divine. John everywhere insists over against heretics (see p. 33) that the divine and the human nature of Christ became fully united without being fused. The true human nature of Jesus is taught throughout this Gospel (4:6, 7; 6:53; 8:40; 11:33, 35; 12:27; 13:21; 19:28). The relation of the two natures to one another will forever remain a mystery, far above our comprehension; but a better formulation than that which is found in the Symbol of Chalcedon will probably never be found: We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood &to be acknowledged in two natures inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably ([Greek], [Greek], [Greek], [Greek]); the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us. The term flesh ([Greek]) has various meanings in the New Testament.^[32] In our passage it has reference to human nature, considered not as sinful (8:46), yet for a while with the curse due to sin resting upon it, so that until the ransom had been paid it is subject to weariness, pain, misery, death (4:6, 7; 11:33, 35; 12:27; 13:21; 19:30). It was that kind of flesh which the Word assumed in his incomprehensible, condescending love. And dwelt among us as in a tent. These words ([Greek] ) must not be regarded as a mere repetition of that which immediately precedes. The idea is rather that the eternal Word which assumed the human nature permanently though not permanently in its weakened condition pitched his tent for a while among men, lived among them. During that same period we i.e., the evangelist and other eye-witnesses beheld his glory. The verb beheld ([Greek]) indicates careful and deliberate vision which seeks to interpret its object. It refers, indeed, to physical sight; yet, it always includes a plus, the plus of calm scrutiny, contemplation, or even wonderment. It describes the act of one who does not stare absent-mindedly nor merely look quickly nor necessarily perceive comprehensively. On the contrary, this individual regards an object and reflects upon it. He scans it, examining it with care. He studies it, viewing and considering it thoughtfully (Acts 1:11).^[33] Thus, while Jesus was walking among them, the eye and mind of the evangelist and of other witnesses had rested on the Incarnate Word, until to some extent they had penetrated the mystery; i.e., they had seen his glory: the radiance of his grace and the majesty of his truth manifested in all his works and words (cf. 2:11), the attributes of deity shining through the veil of his human nature. A glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. These words of verse 14 lend themselves to various interpretations. The most natural meaning would seem to be that the glory which the eye-witnesses saw in Jesus was what could be expected with respect to One who is the only begotten from the Father. And this same Person i.e. the only begotten from the Father is full of grace and truth. The fact that the evangelist is actually thinking of the fulness of Christ is very clearly stated in verse 16: for of his fulness we all received grace upon grace. Thus, by reading on and on we arrive at the true meaning. We favor this interpretation for the following reasons: (1) Jesus repeatedly declares that he came forth from God ([Greek] ). See 6:46; 7:29; 16:27; 17:8. (2) Unless there are sufficient reasons to do otherwise and, indeed, there sometimes are! it is a good thing to link a phrase with the substantive that stands closest to it. Hence, we construe from the Father as a modifier of the only begotten. And for the same reason we consider the words full of grace and truth to modify the only begotten from the Father. (Acts 6:3, 8; 7:55; 11:24.) As already pointed out, it is the fulness of this only begotten Son which receives further elaboration in verses 16 and 17, the context. (Objections against this interpretation are answered in a note.^[34] Other explanations are discussed in another note.^[35]) Accordingly, the glory on which John and others had fixed their adoring gaze is the proper and natural possession of the One whose name is the only begotten from the Father. The question has often been asked: To what sonship does the term the only begotten from the Father refer? Is it the purely religious sonship, so that Jesus is here considered to have been a child of God in the same sense in which all believers are God's children? This can be dismissed at once, for in that case the modifier only begotten would have no meaning. Is it, then, the Messianic sonship? But even those who maintain that the word [Greek] has nothing to do with the verb [Greek] and merely signifies that Christ was the only Son (the only, [Greek], member of a kin, [Greek] from [Greek]), and being the only one, was therefore the beloved one, will have to admit that according to the context (see especially 1:1, 18) the sonship here indicated was present from eternity; hence, can have no reference to the Messianic office which was assumed in time. (On the question whether [Greek] should be connected with [Greek], to be born [Dutch: Eeniggeboren Zoon] or with [Greek], to beget [English: only begotten Son] see G. Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus, New York, 1926, pp. 218, 219.) Is it, perhaps, the nativistic sonship that is discussed in this passage? If so, then the meaning would be that Christ's human nature is here ascribed to the supernatural paternity of God. But in that case the evangelist would be thinking of one kind of sonship here in verse 14 and of another in verse 18, which is not probable. (See under verse 18.) We conclude that the reference must be to Christ's trinitarian sonship, i.e., to the fact that he is the Son of God from all eternity. This is favored by the context (1:1, 18) and by such passages as 3:16, 18, which prove that the Son was already the only begotten before his incarnation. On this subject H. Bavinck states: But the name Son of God when ascribed to Christ has a far deeper meaning than the theocratic: he was not a mere king of Israel who in time became an adopted Son of God; neither was he called Son of God because of his supernatural birth, as the Socinians and Hofman held; neither is he Son of God merely in an ethical sense, as others suppose; neither did he receive the title Son of God as a new name in connection with his atoning work and resurrection, an interpretation in support of which John 10:34 36; Acts 13:32, 33; and Rom. 1:4are cited; but he is Son of God in a metaphysical sense: by nature and from eternity. He is exalted high above angels and prophets, Matt. 13:32; 21:27; 22:2; and sustains a very special relation to God, Matt. 11:7. He is the beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased, Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; the only begotten Son, John 1:18; 3:16; I John 4:9ff.; God's own Son, Rom. 8:32; the eternal Son, John 17:5, 24; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; to whom the Father gave to have life in himself, John 5:26; equal to the Father in knowledge, Matt. 11:27; in honor, John 5:23; in creative and redemptive power, John 1:3; 5:21, 27; in work, John 10:30; and in dominion, Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; 22:29; John 16:15; 17:10; and because of this Sonship he was condemned to death, John 10:33; Matt. 26:63ff. (The Doctrine of God, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1951, p. 270). Now, with reference to this only begotten One we read that he is full of grace and truth. Of grace, for when he spoke, his messages were filled with unmerited favor for the guilty (e.g., for publicans and sinners), and the same attributes were revealed in his miracles of healing, yea, in his entire life and death, considered as an atoning sacrifice whose very purpose was to merit for his people the grace of God. Of truth, for he himself was the final reality in contrast with the shadows that had preceded him. Great, indeed, was the glory of the only begotten! 15. John testifies concerning him, and he cried, saying: this was the One of whom I said: he who is coming behind me has gotten ahead of me, for he existed before me. It follows, of course, that he outranks John the Baptist. The readers in Asia Minor needed this reminder. (See p. 32.) Between the two (Christ and the Baptist) there is a difference as between the Infinite and the finite, the eternal and the temporal, the original light of the sun and the reflected light of the moon. And this is exactly what the Baptist himself had confessed, as verse 15 indicates. Perhaps immediately after he had baptized Jesus and the latter had departed, John (i.e., the Baptist) had cried out and the testimony was still resounding: This was^[36] the one of whom I said: he who is coming behind me has gotten ahead of me, for he was before me. Upon life's pathway,^[37] not only in his birth but also in his public ministry, Jesus had come behind John (Luke 1:36; Mark 1:4 9). Yet he who was behind had gotten ahead: the rights of seniority belong not to John but to Jesus (Mark 1:7). He ranks far above the Baptist in power and glory. The reason for this was stated by the latter in these words: he was before me: he existed from eternity as the Word of God (contrast 1:1 with 1:6: the evangelist agrees with the Baptist). 16, 17. For out of his fulness we have all received grace upon grace. For, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. In these verses it is not the Baptist but the evangelist who is speaking. The thought of verse 14 is here continued. In that verse the fulness of Christ had been confessed. The author now substantiates this by adding that he and all other believers with him had experienced the blessed fruits of this fulness: they had received grace upon grace from that infinite plenitude. (For the various interpretations of this verse see my thesis The Meaning of the Preposition [Greek] in the New Testament in the libraries of Princeton Seminary, Princeton, N.J., and of Calvin Seminary, Grand Rapids, Mich.) The meaning of verse 16 is that believers are constantly receiving grace in the place of grace. One manifestation of the unmerited favor of God in Christ is hardly gone when another one arrives; hence, grace upon grace. From our thesis we quote the following: We agree with this very common interpretation for the following reasons: (1) It is in harmony with the usual sense of the preposition [Greek]. That [Greek] indicates substitution has been fully proved in this thesis. (2) It is in harmony with the context, which pictures the fulness which is in Christ, and out of which we have received [Greek]. The interpretation which we favor does justice to the unity of the phrase, so that it is regarded as being in its entirety the object of the verb [Greek]. The concept grace upon grace, an incessant supply of grace, harmonizes better with the idea from his fulness than does the simple term grace. The limitless supply or reservoir indicated by the words his fulness would seem to suggest a limitless outflow: grace upon grace. (3) This interpretation is also supported by a (linguistically) similar quotation from Philo: Wherefore God ever causes his earliest gifts to cease before their recipients are glutted and wax insolent; and storing them up for the future gives others in their stead ([Greek] ), and a third supply to replace the second ([Greek] ), and ever new in place of earlier boons ([Greek] ), sometimes different in kind, sometimes the same (Philo, The Posterity and Exile of Cain, CXLV). In further corroboration of the thought of verse 14 that the only begotten one is characterized by a fulness of grace and truth we read: For, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. There was nothing wrong with the law, moral and ceremonial. It had been given by God through Moses. It was preparatory in character. It revealed man's lost condition and it also foreshadowed his deliverance. But there were two things which the law as such did not supply: grace so that transgressors could be pardoned and helped in time of need, and truth, i.e., the reality to which all the types pointed (think of the sacrifices). Christ, by his atoning work, furnished both. He merited grace and he fulfilled the types. Note also that while the law was given, grace and truth came through the Person and work of him, who is here for the first time in the Fourth Gospel, called by his full name Jesus Christ. 18. God himself no one has ever seen. The only begotten God, who lies upon the Father's breast, it is he who made him known. Not only had the law been given through Moses, but the latter enjoyed the great privilege of speaking with God face to face. Nevertheless, even Moses did not see God; i.e., he did not get to know God in all his fulness (Ex. 33:18). For him as well as for all others the words of Job 11:7remain true: Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is high as heaven; what canst thou do? Deeper than Sheol; what canst thou know? Cf. also Deut. 4:12; John 5:37; 6:46; I Tim. 1:17. From 6:46 we can draw the inference that the idea of this verse is not: No one has ever physically seen God, because God is spiritual and therefore invisible. Physical vision of God would have been impossible even for the Son. But the evangelist is thinking of a vision of God which is possible for the Son; for in the very similar passage 6:46 we read: Not that any one has seen the Father, except he that is from God, he has seen the Father. Note also the word-order: God himself no one has ever seen. We do not see God himself but his revelation in Jesus Christ. (For the meaning of the verb [Greek] both here and in 6:46, see explanation of 1:14, footnote 33.) The reading the only begotten God ([Greek] ) instead of the only begotten Son is supported by the best and oldest manuscripts. Since the concept God implies eternity, it is evident that the expression the only begotten God must refer to Christ's trinitarian sonship. All other types of sonship imply a beginning in time, irreconcilable with the idea of deity. Besides, the added clause who lies upon the Father's breast indicates a relation of abiding closeness between the Father-God and the Son-God. Because Jesus Christ is the Son in the highest sense of the term, he knows the Father thoroughly. Therefore it is he who made him known. He alone is qualified to be the Interpreter or Exegete (the verb is [Greek]) of God. This does not mean that he gives us an adequate knowledge of God, so that, after all, the finite would begin to grasp the Infinite; but that he expounds to us with reference to the being of God whatever is necessary for our complete salvation and for a relative knowledge of his work in creation and redemption, so that we may by means of them glorify our Maker and Redeemer. Synthesis of 1:14–18 See our Outline on p. 68. The glory of the Son at the incarnation. Verse 14 continues the line of thought begun in verses 10 and 11. Not only did the true light manifest itself to the world, not only did he come to his own home and people, but the climax of his love is indicated in this, that the Word became flesh; i.e., he assumed our human nature, weakened for a while by the results of sin, though in itself sinless. In this human nature he became the Immanuel, and pitched his tent among us. Hence, our eyes and minds rested on his glory: the radiance of his divine attributes shining through the veil of his human nature. This glory was the kind which one could reasonably expect to find in him, for it was glory as of the only begotten who proceeds forever from the Father, and possesses a fulness of grace and truth. It was, accordingly, the glory of one who is far superior to John the Baptist, as the latter himself openly acknowledged when he uttered those remarkable words: This was the one of whom I said: he who came behind me (i.e., on life's pathway) has gotten ahead of me, for he existed before me. Our own experience as believers enables us to bear testimony with reference to this plenitude that is in Christ, for out of his fulness we have all received grace upon grace, like the waves that follow one another upon the seashore, one taking the place of another constantly. The law, which was given through Moses, was unable to supply this fulness of grace and truth. Though good in itself, it was unable to save. It made demands, but did not possess the pardoning and enabling grace needed by sinners who are confronted by these demands. It provided types and shadows (e.g., in its sacrifices) but never the reality (truth). This grace and this truth came through Jesus Christ, who by his redeeming life and death merited the grace and furnished the reality (truth) to which the types and shadows of the Mosaic law had been pointing. And because he is fully divine, being the only begotten God, who, according to his divine nature, rests forever on the Father's breast, and knows him thoroughly, he alone is able to be the Father's Interpreter. Accordingly, he made known to us the God whom no one else has ever seen (comprehended). For a synthesis of this synthesis read only the words in italics. They form a connected paragraph. 1:19–28 19 Now this is the testimony of John. When the Jews sent priests and Levites to him from Jerusalem in order to enquire of him, Who are you? 20 he confessed, and did not deny, but confessed,^[38] I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Are you Elijah? And he said, I am not. Are you the prophet? And he answered, No. 22 They said to him then, Who are you, (tell us) in order that we may give an answer to those who sent us; what have you to say about yourself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one shouting in the desert, Make the road straight for the Lord, as Isaiah the prophet said. 24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, saying, Then why are you baptizing if you are neither the Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet? ^[39] 26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water. In the midst of you stands one whom you do not know, 27 my successor,^[40] whose sandal-straps I am not worthy to^[41] unloose. 28 These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 1:19–23. Now this is the testimony of John.& In verses 6 8, 15 the evangelist has indicated the purpose of the ministry of John the Baptist; namely, to focus the attention of everyone upon the true light, Jesus Christ, as the object of faith. In the paragraph which we are now studying we receive a detailed account of the Baptist's testimony as given before a committee sent by the Sanhedrin. The two paragraphs which follow this one (1:29–34 and 1:35–42) contain a record of his testimony; respectively, before a group of people who are not identified, and before two of his disciples. In the light of the lofty descriptions of the Christ and the exalted titles given to him by the Baptist in 1:27, 29 36 it is easy to see why the evangelist has included this material in his book. Its inclusion is in harmony with his main purpose as stated in 20:30, 31. It is not the appearance of the Baptist, his manner of life, his preaching as such, the excitement which he created, or even his baptizing, that is emphasized by the author of the Fourth Gospel. He seems to take for granted that the readers are acquainted with all this from oral tradition and from the reading of the Synoptics. It is very specifically the testimony of the Baptist with reference to Christ that forms the theme of these paragraphs. And he points out that this testimony, in turn, rests upon divine revelation (1:31–34). John the Baptist had made his first public appearance in the summer of the year 26 a.d. His austere mode of life, stern preaching, and emphasis upon the fact that even the sons of Abraham are in need of thorough repentance and spiritual cleansing (symbolized by baptism) caused a mighty stir among the people, so that there went out unto him all the country of Judea and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins (Mark 1:5). It would seem that the Baptist, beginning in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, had gradually ascended the Jordan Valley until he had reached a little place which in the best manuscripts is called Bethany (1:28). We are distinctly told that this Bethany was beyond the Jordan, not to be confused with the place of identical name where Mary, Martha, and their brother Lazarus lived. The latter was near Jerusalem. Although the exact location of the Bethany mentioned in our paragraph is not known, it would seem that those are not far wrong who look for it just east of the Jordan, about thirteen miles below the Sea of Galilee and about twenty miles south-east of Nazareth (H.B.A., p. 99; cf. A. Fahling, The Life of Christ, St. Louis, Mo., 1936, p. 148). On many of the older maps and also on Plate XIV of W.H.A.B., it is suggested that this Bethany was located just north of the Dead Sea. However, the entire section, John 1:19 2:1, pleads against a location so far to the south. If it be assumed that all the events recorded in the first chapter of John (i.e., 1:19–51) took place near Bethany beyond the Jordan, an assumption which is probably correct, then, if Bethany were situated so far to the south, it is very difficult to see how Jesus and his disciples could have arrived in Cana of Galilee on the third day (2:1) after these events. Traveling was very slow in those days. It should also be borne in mind that all the disciples to whom reference (either direct or indirect) is made in chapter 1 had their home in Galilee. Peter, Andrew, and Philip were from Bethsaida; James and John, from Capernaum; Nathanael, from Cana. Accordingly, the scene of the event recorded in the paragraph which we are going to discuss (1:19–23) is in the general vicinity of Galilee, but not in Galilee itself (see 1:28, 43). It was during the last days of December of the year 26 or in the month of January of the year 27 that Jesus had left Nazareth in order that he might voluntarily take upon himself the great task assigned to him by the Father. He had gone to Bethany beyond the Jordan, which, as we have seen, was located not far away from his home. Here he had been baptized by JohnMatt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9 11; Luke 3:21, 22; for the story . From the Jordan Valley Jesus had been led to the heights of the desert, to be tempted by the devil. This temptation covers a period of more than forty days and apparently immediately followed the baptism (Mark 1:12). It is probable that from his victory in the temptation Jesus returned directly to the place where John was baptizing. His arrival is recorded in 1:29. The event described in our present paragraph (1:19–28) takes place one day earlier. Accordingly, the scene is just east of the Jordan, not far from the Sea of Galilee, and the time is February (or early March) of the year 27. The evangelist tells us what happened during a period of four successive days (see the definite time indications in 1:29, 35, 43) and on the third day after that (2:1). When the Jews sent priests and Levites to him from Jerusalem. We learn that on the first of these four days the Jews sent a committee to investigate John. The term Jews in the Fourth Gospel, often carries a sinister connotation: the nation as represented by its religious leaders who were hostile to Jesus (7:1; 9:22; 18:12–14). In this case it was the Sanhedrin (consisting of highpriests, scribes, and elders) which sent the delegation. The reason, though not definitely stated, is easy to surmise. Reports concerning the new preacher and the excitement which he created had been coming in thick and fast. Probably rumor even suggested that he might be the Messiah. There was also his impressive method of urging repentance by uttering heavy threats upon the impenitent, and the fact that he baptized &Jews, just as if they, children of Abraham, still needed repentance and cleansing. Moreover, it had probably been reported to them that this new revivalist (?) had said certain very unfriendly things about Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 3:7). Surely, an investigating committee was in order. A false Messiah might do a great deal of damage. Was it not the duty of the venerable members of the Sanhedrin to expose false prophets and would-be Messiahs (Deut. 18:20–22) and to guard the religious interests of Israel? The committee consisted of priests and Levites. The actual questioning was probably done by the former. The latter were sent along to see that the company would have a safe arrival, and to quell any riot which might arise. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER II 2:1–11 2 1 And on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 And Jesus was also invited to the wedding, together with his disciples. 3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine. 4 And Jesus said to her, Woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come. 5 His mother said to the waiters, Whatever he tells you, do. 6 Now six stone water-jars were standing there, in accordance with the Jews manner of purifying, each holding two or three measures. 7 Jesus said to them, Fill the jars with water. And they filled them to the brim. 8 And he said to them, Now dip out, and bring it to the steward of the feast. And they brought it. 9 And when the steward of the feast tasted the water, now become wine, and did not know where it came from, though the waiters who had dipped out the water knew, the steward of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 and he said to him, Everybody serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, they serve the wine of lesser quality; but you have kept the good wine until now. 11 This Jesus did as a beginning of his signs at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him. 2:1, 2. And on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee.It was the third dayafter Jesus had gained two more disciples: Philip and Nathaniel. We may probably assume that on the two preceding days (and perhaps even on part of the third day) the Lord and his first six disciples (Andrew, John, Peter, James, Philip, and Nathaniel) had been traveling afoot toward the place where the event recorded in John 2occurred. Hence, on the third day we find the little company present at Cana in Galilee. The statement that the mother of Jesus, who lived at Nazareth, was also present, may indicate that Cana and Nazareth were not very far apart. There seem to have been several Cana's, however, even in the province of Galilee. The exact location of the one where the wedding was held no one knows. Present-day commentators and geographers favor a spot situated about 8 or 9 miles north of [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] Now if we are right in locating Bethany beyond Jordan about twenty miles south-east of Nazareth, then two days (or slightly more than two days) of travel were, indeed, required. We should also figure with the possibility that 1:43 may imply the departure from Bethany on the very day when Philip and Nathaniel were called; i.e., there may have been a few hours of travel also on that day. If Bethany and Cana were located where we have placed them, no serious travel-difficulty remains. On the other hand, those who place Bethany far to the south, near the Dead Sea, get into difficulty when they must account for Christ's presence in Cana of Galilee on the third day after the event recorded in 1:43–51. Though even this very long journey may have been [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] within such a brief period of time, it must be regarded as improbable. Some of those who, nevertheless, insist on the seventy mile trip try to get around the difficulty by bringing Jesus to Cana after the festivities had been in progress a few days. But this hardly merits comment. And the mother of Jesus was there.The mother of Jesuswas also at the wedding. The author is consistent in not mentioning the name of the lady who was probably his aunt (the sister of his mother Salome). Throughout the Gospel he leaves himself and his close relatives anonymous. It is probable that Mary was not an invited guest but rather an assistant at the wedding. This might explain how it was that she knew about the wine giving out. Jesus was also invited, together with his disciples.As these disciples had joined the master so recently, the question might occur, How could they have been included in the invitation which was extended to Jesus? We must leave room for several possibilities, one of which is that Jesus, on his way to Cana, stopped at Nazareth (which would not have necessitated a detour of any great extent) and received the invitation for himself and all who were with him. Another possibility is that Nathaniel, who was from Cana, was authorized to extend invitations. Some are of the opinion that he was a relative of the bridegroom, but of this we know nothing. The main point, however, is this, that Jesus accepted the invitation for the entire group. He was not an ascetic. He came eating and drinking (Matt. 11:19). 3. And when the wine failed.As the wedding proceeded, the wine began to run short. We have no way of knowing what may have been the reason for this, and it is better not to [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 ([Greek] That the deficiency in the wine-supply was occasioned by the unexpected arrival of Jesus with his six disciples is probably a wrong guess, for their arrival cannot have been altogether unexpected. They had been invited!The fact that wine was considered a staple article of food is clear from such passages as Gen. 14:18; Num. 6:20; Deut. 14:26; Neh. 5:18; Matt. 11:19. Because of its intoxicating character its use was definitely restricted: in connection with the execution of certain functions it was forbidden; excessive indulgence was always definitely condemnedLev. 10:9; Prov. 31:4, 5; Eccl. 10:17; Isa. 28:7; I Tim. 3:8). In Palestine grapes ripened from June to September. There is, accordingly, no good reason to suppose that wine served at weddings which took place during the period October-May would be anything else but fermented grape-juice, in other words, actual wine. Nevertheless, intemperance, as has been indicated, is contrary to the spirit of both Old and New Testament. There is, therefore, nothing in this account which can in any way give comfort to those who favor the abuse or excessive use of the gifts of God. The mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine. (Now in these embarrassing circumstances, when the wine failed, Mary comes to the rescue with the remark, addressed to Jesus, They have no wine. Of all those present no one knew better than Mary who Jesus actually was and what task had been assigned to him.Luke 1:26 38.) Did she show a degree of impatience because he did not at once do something about the present embarrassing situation? Note, however, that she did not in so many words tellhim what to do. She merely mentioned the need, but the hint was clear enough. That Mary expected a miracle seems certain. 4. And Jesus said to her, Woman(here one could almost translate Lady, for no disrespect of any kind is intended; cf. 19:26), what have you to do with [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] My hour has not yet come.When the Lord said, Woman, he did not indulge in rudeness. On the contrary, it was very kind of him to emphasize, by the use of this word, that Mary must no longer think of him as being merely her son; for, the more she conceives of him as her son, the more also will she suffer when he suffers. Mary must begin to look upon Jesus as her Lord. The words, My hour has not yet come, clearly indicate Christ's consciousness of the fact that he was accomplishing a task entrusted to him by the Father, every detail of which had been definitely marked off in the eternal decree; so that for each act there was a stipulated moment. (See also 7:6, 8; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; and 17:1.) When Jesus knew that this moment had arrived, he would act, not before. 5.Mary immediately sensed that the reply of Jesus implied his readiness to act at the proper time. In the spirit of complete submission and confident expectation his mother said to the waiters(servants, in the sense of assistants at the wedding), Whatever he tells you, do.That she regarded it necessary to speak to the servants should not cause surprise. She was aware of two things: a. that otherwise it might seem rather strange that waiters should receive orders from a guest; and b. that what Jesus would order these attendants to do would, perhaps, even seem foolish, so that they might not have been willing to do it. 6. Now six stone water-jars were standing there, in accordance with the Jews manner of purifying.Somewhere in the vicinity of the room where the feast was held six stone water-jars were standing. These were considerably larger than the one used by the Samaritan woman (4:28). The purpose of these larger jars is explained in Mark 7:3, For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders. Each (of the jars) holding two or three measures.A measurewas the equivalent of about 8½ gallons; hence, each jar was able to hold between 17 and 25 gallons of water. Accordingly, the six jars had a total capacity of between 100 and 150 gallons! But why is this fact stated? Obviously, in order to emphasize the greatness of Christ's gift! 7. Jesus said to them(i.e., to the waiters), Fill the water-jars with water. And they filled them to the brim.Also this detail of the story places the emphasis on the greatness of the gift. Besides, the phrase with wateris added, to show that the jars contained nothing else, and that nothing else could be added, for they were full to the very top. 8. And he said to them, Now dip out, and bring it to the steward of the feast. And they brought it.Apparently what these men dipped out was water (see verse 9), but it changed into wine immediately. However, the author does not intend to convey the idea that only a small portion of the water was actually dipped out and changed into wine. On the contrary, the sense seems to be: keep on carrying ([Greek]) wine. They dip out again and again. And the jars hold between one hundred and one hundred fifty gallons, all of which, having been dipped out, was immediately changed into wine. 9, 10. And when the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from, though the waiters who had dipped out the water knew.The waiters carry the wine to the steward of the feast (A [Greek]); i.e. literally: to the superintendent of the room with three couches (usually found on three sides of a low table). Evidently this banquet-manager had not been present in the hall where the water-jars were standing. Hence, he was greatly surprised to see this wine, and especially was he surprised when he tasted it. It was wine such as he had never tasted before, so excellent in quality. So he called the bridegroom and said to him, Everybody serves (lit.: sets on the table) the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely (not necessarily: have become drunk), they serve the wine of inferior quality; but you have kept the good wine until now.From these words we learn that it was apparently a custom to hold in reserve the inferior wine until the taste of the guests had been dulled sufficiently so that they would not be able to discern the exact flavor and excellence of the wine that was served last of all. The steward, therefore, expressed astonishment that this bridegroom had reversed the usual order. The remark of the banquet-manager has been interpreted as a mild rebuke. However, it is not necessary to draw this conclusion. The exclamation must be regarded as one that expresses surprise. It may even have been intended as a compliment to the groom on the excellence of this wine. 11. This Jesus did as a beginning of his signs.In chronological order this was the first [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] The term is used more often by John than by the other Gospel-writers. It indicates a miracle viewed as a proof of divine authority and majesty. Hence, it leads the attention of the spectator away from the deed itself to the divine Doer. Often, too, the sign,a work of power in the physical realm, illustrates a principle that is operative in the spiritualrealm; that which takes place in the sphere of creation points away from itself to the sphere of redemption. Thus, the multiplication of the loavessign,6:14, 26, 30 rivets the attention on Christ as the Bread of Life (6:35); the opening of the eyes of the man born blindsign,9:16 centers about the Lord's saying, I am the light of the world (9:5) light in the realm of the spiritual (9:39–41); and the raising of Lazarussign,11:47; 12:18 is immediately connected with Jesus as the Giver of spiritual (as well as material) life (11:23–27). Whether in any particular passage the term signhas this deep meaning namely, a physical illustration of a spiritual principle will have to be determined by the context. One thing, however, is certain: the signpoints away from itself to the One who performed it. This truth receives a particularly striking illustration in the present account. Note that everythingelse remains in the background. Who was the bridegroom? We do not know. Who was the bride? We are not told. In exactly what relation did Mary stand to the wedded pair: was she, perhaps, the aunt of bride or groom? Silence again. Did Nathaniel serve as best man (friend of the bridegroom)? Also on this score our curiosity receives no satisfaction whatever. In the full light of day stands the Christ. All the rest is shadow.What Rembrandt did for art, John, under the Spirit's guidance, does for religion. In thorough keeping with this fact is the following clause: and manifested his glory.(For the term glory see on 1:14.) Christ stands revealed here as: (1) The One who honors the bond of marriage. This does not surprise us, for according to John's description (Rev. 19:7) Christ is himself the Bridegroom, who, by means of his incarnation, work of redemption, and final manifestation, comes to his Bride (the church). How, then, would he not honor that which is a symbol of his own relation to his people? (2) The One who bestows his gifts lavishly, without stint. Surely One who supplies so abundantly in the physical realm will not be less generous in the spiritual. To his munificence there are no bounds. And all his gifts are of the very best. He helps us even in our embarrassments. (3) The One whose infinite love is made effective by his equally infinite power. (4) The One who, accordingly, is the Son of God, full of grace and glory. And his disciples believed in him.The faith of the disciples, present even before this time, was strengthened by this sign. Synthesis of 2:1–11 See Outline on p. 68. The Son of God revealing himself to ever-widening circles: to his immediate disciples, their faith when they witness the first sign. Starting out, perhaps, on the very day when Philip and Nathaniel were called, and continuing for two more days, Jesus and his little band of disciples, after journeying for a distance of not much less than thirty miles, finally arrived at Cana in Galilee on the third day, to attend a wedding to which they had been invited. It is significant that Jesus accepted the invitation. He did not come in order to rob men of their joy and gladness. As the wedding proceeded, the wine began to run short. Jesus mother, who may have been a widow by this time, was also present, perhaps in the capacity of general assistant. She may have been a good friend of the young couple. When she noticed the embarrassing situation, she said to Jesus, They have no wine. In this connection it must be borne in mind that Mary had not only kept in her heart (Luke 2:51) all the wonderful sayings which had come to her in connection with the conception and birth of Jesus, but must also have heard about the wondrous happenings in connection with his baptism (the descent of the Spirit, the voice from above). Hence, she, knowing better than anyone else who he really was, expected a miracle from him. However, she did not fully realize that the mother-son relationship would be replaced by the believer-Savior relationship. She still felt that she must at least hint to her son that he should do something about this deficiency of wine. So she said to him, They have no wine. Jesus answered, Woman, what have you to do with me? My hour is not yet come. Jesus knew that all his deeds had been predetermined as to the exact hour of their occurrence. Mary, perceiving that this answer, though cast in the form of a mild (even merciful!) rebuke, contained a promise, said to the waiters (Phil. 1:1, it acquired the meaning deacon), Whatever he tells you, do, a suggestion which, for obvious reasons, was entirely necessary. Somewhere, perhaps in a hall or vestibule near the room where the feast was held, six stone water-jars of considerable size and capacity were standing. The water in these jars was for the purpose of ceremonial cleansing, on which the Jews insisted with such rigor (especially after their return from the Babylonian captivity). Together the six jars could hold between 100 and 150 gallons of water. Jesus tells the waiters to fill these jars, and they filled them to the brim. Then Jesus said, Now dip out and bring it to the steward of the feast. Imagine their surprise when they noticed that the conscious water saw its God and blushed (Crashaw). No natural explanation will suffice. The notion that these same jars had previously been filled with wine and that this wine-sediment explains what happened, deserves no answer at all. The idea that what is here recorded was in reality an acceleration of a natural process which takes place whenever rain-water, having descended into the soil, is drawn up by the roots of the vine, and is thus gradually changed into grape-juice, which, when fermented, becomes wine, explains nothing. It should be borne in mind that (thiswaterJohn 2:7 9) is not in contact with the soil, does not enter into combination with plant-food and minerals, does not come under the influence of the fostering rays of the sun, and is, therefore, in an entirely different condition. There simply is no explanation for what happened here. It is a miracle which one either accepts or denies. There is no third way out of the difficulty. The steward compliments the bridegroom on the excellent character of this wine. Generally the best wine was served first; in this case, last. By means of this sign, the first one of a long series, Christ displayed the glory of his power and of his love. We see the Bridegroom honoring the bond of marriage. Here the Bridegroom does not receivegifts. He bestowsthem, and in a most liberal manner. Moreover, he stands revealed as being infinite not only in his love but also in his power; hence, as being, indeed, the Son of God. His disciples began to realize this, and believed in him. Anyone who, failing completely to see the glorious lessons here revealed, should draw from this miracle-account the inference that in the complex, present-day situation (with its heavy traffic, stress and strain) unrestrained indulgence in the use of liquor receives any support should read and take to heart the following passages: I Cor. 8:9; 9:12; 10:23, 24, 32, 33. 2:12–22 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he himself and his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and he stayed there for a few days. 13 And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And he found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting. 15 So he made a whip out of cords and drove all out of the temple, also the sheep and the oxen, and he scattered the coins of the money-changers, and he threw their tables upside down. 16 And he said to those who sold the pigeons, Take these things out! Stop making my Father's house a house of merchandise. 17 And his disciples recalled that it is written, Zeal for thy house will consume me. 18 The Jews, accordingly, said to him. What sign do you show us [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] doing these things? 19 Jesus answered and said, Break down this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 The Jews then said, For forty-six years this sanctuary has been in the process of building, and you,will you raise it up in three days? 21 But he was speaking about the sanctuary of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. 2:12. After this he went down to Capernaum, he himself and his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and he stayed there for a few days. The event recorded in the preceding paragraph probably occurred in late February or early March of the year 27 a.d. Accordingly, when now we read, After this,the first thought which occurs to us is that what is about to be recorded took place shortly after the wedding at Cana. This would seem to follow from the very expression that is used, for elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel it indicates an event which followed soon after(11:11; 19:28). This inference receives further corroboration from the very next verse where we read, And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now, all of this is very logical: Jesus in February or early March changes the water into wine; from Cana's wedding he proceeds to Capernaum where he stays a few days; there follows the Passover festival, which was held in early Spring (about April). We cannot agree, therefore with those who are of the opinion that the temple-cleansing here recorded took place at the close of Christ's ministry and is to be identified with the one about which we read in Matt. [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] From the higher ground of Nazareth, Jesus, his mother Mary, (his brothersMark 6:3), and his disciples went down to the lower levels of the lake-side, until they reached Capernaum. Here two of the disciples lived: John and James, the sons of Zebedee and Salome. It is not strange, therefore, that the Lord made a brief visit here before journeying to Jerusalem. From what we read in the final clause of verse 12, and he stayed there for a few days, it hardly seems to follow that the family movedto Capernaum at this time. 13. And the Passover of the Jews was near.Every male Jew, from the age of twelve and up, was expected to attend the Passoverat Jerusalem, a feast celebrated to commemorate the deliverance of the people of Israel from Egyptian bondage. On the tenth of the month Abib or Nisan (which generally corresponds to our March, though its closing days sometimes extend into our April) a male lamb, of the first year, without blemish, was taken, and on the fourteenth day, between three and six o clock in the afternoon, it was killed. The elaborate evening-celebration of the feast in the days of our Lord's sojourn included the following elements: a. A prayer of thanksgiving by the head of the house; drinking the first cup of wine. Other cups were emptied as the feast proceeded. b. The eating of bitter herbs, as a reminder of the bitter slavery in Egypt. c. The son senquiry, Why is this night distinguished from all other nights? and the father sappropriate reply, either narrated or read. d. The singing of the first part of the Hallel (Pss. 113, 114) and the washing of hands. e. The carving and eating of the lamb, together with unleavened bread. The lamb was eaten in commemoration of what the fathers had been commanded to do in the night when the Lord smote all the first-born of Egypt and delivered his people.Ex. 12and 13. The unleavened bread was a memorial of the first days of the journey during which this bread of hastehad been eaten by the ancestors. It was also an emblem of purity. f. The continuation of the meal, each one eating as much as he liked, but always last of the lamb. g. The singing of the last part of the Hallel (Pss. 115 118). The day on which the lamb was killed was followed by the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, celebrated from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Nisan. So very close was the connection between the Passover-meal proper and the immediately following Feast of Unleavened Bread that the term Passoveris frequently used to cover both. Thus, in (Luke 22:1a very significant passage we read: Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover. Also in Acts 12:4(see the preceding verse) the term Passover clearly covers the entire seven-day festival. The Old Testament, too, calls the Passover a feast of seven daysEzek. 45:21). During this seven-day festival, called Passover, many animals were offered in sacrifice (Num. 28:16–25) to Jehovah. Hence, when in the second chapter of John we read about oxen and sheep that were sold in the temple-court, the conclusion would seem to be warranted that the term Passover, in verse 13, refers also here to the entire one-week festival. And Jesus went up to Jerusalem,true in this case even in a literal senseascendingfrom 680 feet below sea-level near the Sea of Galilee to 2,500 feet above sea-level, the altitude of the Holy City , but ever true in the religious sense. 14. And he found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting.Now at this occasion Jesus, entering Jerusalem's temple, notices that the court of the Gentiles had been changed into what must have resembled a stockyard. There was the stench and the filth, the bleating and the lowing of animals, destined for sacrifice. It is true, in the abstract, that each worshipper was allowed to bring to the temple an animal of his own selection. But let him try it! In all likelihood it would not be approved by the judges, the privileged venders who filled the money-chests of Annas! Hence, to save trouble and disappointment, animals for sacrifice were bought right here in the outer court, which was called the court of the Gentiles because they were permitted to enter it. Of course, the dealers in cattle and sheep would be tempted to charge exorbitant prices for such animals. They would exploit the worshippers. And those who sold pigeons would do likewise, charging, perhaps, $4 for a pair of doves worth a [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 ([Greek] And then there were the money-changers, sitting cross-legged behind their little coin-covered tables. They gave the worshipper lawful, Jewish coin in exchange for foreign currency. It must be borne in mind that only Jewish coins were allowed to be offered in the temple, and every worshipper women, slaves, and minors excepted had to pay the annual temple tribute of half a shekelEx. 30:13). The money-changers would charge a certain fee for every exchange-transaction. Here, too, there were abundant opportunities for deception and abuse. And in view of these conditions the Holy Temple, intended as a house of prayer for all people, had become a den of robbers (Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11; Mark 11:17). 15, 16.What Jesus did about this is stated in verses 15 and 16. Out of pieces of cordor rope not difficult to find where so many animals are tied up he made a whip. And drove all out of the temple.But to what does the word [Greek]) refer? Merely to the sheep and the oxen?That is the picture drawn by the -2 _ftnref9 A.R.V.However, the -2 _ftnref10 A.V.and the -2 _ftnref11 R.S.V.favor the idea that Jesus actually drove out all the wicked traffickers together with the sheep and oxen. The latter view is not only better from a grammatical point of [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] but is also supported by Matt. 21:12. In the second cleansing of the temple, described in that passage, it is definitely stated that the cattle-dealers were themselves driven out. If that happened then,we may take for granted that it also took place now. Filled with holy zeal Jesus turned his attention to the money-changers and he threw their tables upside downso that he scattered their coins. And he said to those who sold the pigeons, Take these things out;i.e., he told those who sold doves to remove the crates in which they were kept. When he added, Stop [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 ([Greek] my Father's house a house of merchandise,Zech. 14:21) he exercised his right as the Father's only-begotten Son (Luke 2:49). 17. And his disciples recalled that it is written, Zeal for thy house will consume me.The disciples, witnessing this manifestation of the zeal of their Lord for the house of his Father, are filled with fear that Jesus may suffer what David had to endure in his day; namely, that this zeal in some way would result in his being consumed. Now, in expressing this thought use is made of Ps. 69, which is one of six Psalms most often referred to in the New Testament (the others being Pss. 2, 22, 89, 110, and 118). Other echoes of various passages of this PsalmsPs. 68in the LXX are heard in Matt. 27:34, 48; Mark 15:36; Luke 23:36; John 15:25; 19:28; Rom. 11:9, 10; 15:3; Heb. 11:26; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 16:1; 17:8; 20:12, 15; and 21:27. While some of these are quotations, others are allusions, references more or less indirect. Jesus himself (15:25) cites Ps. 69:4, They hated me without a cause, and refers it to his own experience. In fulfilment of Ps. 69:21he uttered the word from the cross, I thirst (19:28). From this it appears that Ps. 69is Messianic. It is possible that the disciples so regarded it even at this time, but that cannot be proved. These men, watching Jesus in the act of cleansing the temple, are reminded of Ps. 69:9. Note, however, that they, fearing that in some way what once happenedto David, when he suffered reproaches as a result of his burning zeal for the cause of Jehovah, is going to happento Jesus, change the tense from the past (LXX [Greek]) to the future ([Greek]). 18. The Jews, accordingly, said to him, What sign do you show us for doing these things?The hostile Jewish authorities (perhaps temple-police, scribes, priests) now ask that Jesus vindicate his drastic action. He has taken it upon himself to act in the capacity of a Reformer. Now let him prove that he had the right to act as he did. But this request was stupid. The temple-cleansing was itself a sign. It was a definite anticipatory fulfilment of Mal. 3:1 3( The Lord whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple &he will purify the sons of Levi ) and also as was shown under verse 17 of Ps. 69. The majestic manner in which Jesus performed this task, so that none, seeing him, even dared to resist, was proof sufficient that the Messiah had entered the temple and was purging it, as had been predicted. What additional sign could one ask for? The request for a sign was not only stupid, however; it was also wicked. It was the result of unwillingness to admit guilt. The authorities should have been ashamed of all this graft and greed within the temple-court. Instead of asking Jesus by what right he had cleansed the temple, they should have confessed their sins and thanked him. 19, 20. Jesus answered and said(to them). Break down this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.We have here another mashal;that is, a paradoxical saying, a veiled and pointed remark, often in the form of a riddle. The first one was uttered by John the Baptist (see explanation of 1:15). The one now under discussion requires very careful consideration, for it contains several terms which (probably in Aramaic as well as in Greek) lend themselves to twofold [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] Thus, break [Greek]) is a term which is applicable both to the tearing down of a building and the destruction of the human body. This [Greek] ) could refer to the sacred shrine (Holy Place and Holy of holies usually, but in verse 20 probably the entire temple, including the courts; otherwise the Jews could not have said forty-sixyears); but it might also indicate man's physical frame viewed as a dwelling-place of the Spirit. And finally, I will raise [Greek]) is an expression used with respect to both reconstruction of buildings and resuscitation of individuals. The Jews, instead of jumping at the conclusion that Jesus was referring to nothing else than the physical structure which he had just cleansed, should have pondered this paradox. After all, their own literature was full of just such veiled sayings. But they completely misinterpreted the mashal (verse 20). Afterward they even twisted it as if Jesus had said that he himself would destroy the temple (Matt. 26:61; cf. Acts 6:14). What, then, did the Lord really mean? The first part of the saying must not be interpreted as a direct command, as if Jesus were actually ordering them to break down or destroy. The meaning of the entire saying may be paraphrased as follows: Even though you, Jews, by your wickedness, are clearly breaking down the sanctuary of my body (see explanation of verse 17) and even though, as a result, you are also destroying your own temple of stone and the entire system of religious practices connected with it; nevertheless, in three days I will raise up that sanctuary (referring to his resurrection from the dead) and, as a result, I will establish a new temple with a new cult: the Church, with its worship of the Father in spirit and in truth. The type and the Antitype cannot be separated. Israel's physical temple (or tabernacle) was the place in which God dwelt. Hence, it was the type of Christ's body, which also, and in a far superior sense, was the dwelling-place of God (. If anyone destroys the second, Christ's body, he also pulls down the first, the temple of stone at Jerusalem. This is true for two reasons: a. when Christ is crucified, the physical temple and its entire cult cease to have any meaning (when Jesus died, the veil was rent!); also b. the terrible crime of nailing him to the cross results in the destruction of Jerusalem with its physical temple. Similarly, the raising again of the body of Christ (cf. 10:18), so that the resurrected Lord now sends forth his Spirit, implies the establishment of the new temple which is his Churchmade without hands,cf. Mark 14:58). On the Church as the sanctuary of Christ see also I Cor. 3:16, 17; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; and II Thess. 2:4. The Jews, however, said, For forty-six years this sanctuary has been in the process of building, and you,will you raise it up in three days?The Fourth Gospel contains numerous instances of unwarranted, crassly literal interpretation. The enemies of Jesus, the people with whom he came in contact, and frequently even his own disciples, fail to see the Antitype in the type; or, at least, they do not discern that the physical symbolizes the spiritual; see also, in this connection, the following passages: 3:3, 4; 4:14, 15; 4:32, 33; 6:51, 52; 7:34, 35; 8:51, 52; 11:11, 12; 11:23, 24; 14:4, [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] The Jews see only the literal sanctuary. Had they studied the scriptures with a believing heart, they would have known that the temple, together with all its furniture and ceremonies, was only a type, destined for destruction (Ps. 40:6, 7and Jer. 3:16). Because of their unbelief and darkened minds they now point to the [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] that the temple has been in process of building for forty-six years,Antiquities, Bk. 15, xi; E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, sec. ed., I, i, 438; and our Bible Survey, pp. 61, 415. Herod the Great began to reign in the year 37 b.c., and, according to Josephus, began building the temple in the eighteenth year of his reign; hence, in the year 20 19 b.c. So, in the Spring of 27 a.d. the Jews could say that it had already taken forty-six years to build their temple. It is interesting to note that this grand structure was not finished until &just a few years before it was destroyed by the Romans! & and [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] will raise it up in three days? This was spoken, as is evident from the very language, in a tone of contempt: it took usforty-six years, and we are not yet finished; but youthink that you can re-erect it in just three days! 21. But he was speaking about the sanctuary of his body.The author added these words, because he realized that even among the readers there might be those who would fail to understand that, for the reason already stated (pp. 123, 125), the temple was a type of Christ's body. 22.Because the truth had been cast in the form of a mashal (veiled saying), it lingered in the mind of the disciples. Again and again they turned it over in their minds. But until the day of Christ's resurrection they failed to see its meaning. No doubt this was due in part to their unwillingness to accept the fact that the Messiah would certainly suffer and die. We can easily see that when, therefore, he was raised from the deadon the third day,suddenly his disciples remembered that he had said this,and in three daysI will raise it up. So then they believed the scripture(all the various references in the Old Testament to the necessity of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection) and the word which Jesus had spoken(i.e., 2:19). Synthesis of John 2:12 22 See Outline on p. 68. The Son of God revealing himself to ever-widening circles: to Jerusalem, the cleansing of the temple (outward Reformation). Probably in late February or early March of the year 27 a.d. Jesus in the company of his mother, brothers, and disciples went down to Capernaum, the town of John and James. After a brief visit there he went up to Jerusalem, to attend the Passover, a religious and harvest festival, lasting seven days. When, upon entering his Father's house, he observed the terrible traffic that was being conducted in its outer court, the graft connected with the sale of animals and money-exchange, he made a whip and drove out of the temple all these thieves, together with their animals. He upset the little tables of the money-changers so that the coins were poured out over the floor. To those who sold pigeons he said, Take these things out! Stop making my Father's house a house of merchandise. His disciples saw in this a fulfillment of Ps. 69:9. The Jews, utterly failing to understand that what Jesus had just done was a fulfillment of Mal. 3:1 3and therefore a proof of his authority as Messiah, asked that he would vindicate his deed by means of a sign. Jesus then uttered the profound mashal, Break down this sanctuary and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews, because their minds were darkened by unbelief, expressed amazement at the idea that Jesus would raise up in just three daysa structure which had already been in building for forty-six years and was not yet finished. However, the Lord actually referred to the sanctuary of his body, of which the earthly temple was a type. The very fact that Jesus arose on the third dayopened the minds of the disciples so that they then understood the veiled saying about raising up the sanctuary in three days. By means of this temple-cleansing Jesus: (1) attacked the secularizing spirit of the Jews. One should not tamper with holy things; (2) exposed graft and greed; (3) assailed the anti-missionary spirit: the court of the Gentiles had been built as an invitation for them to worship the God of Israel (Mark 11:17); but Annas and his sons were using for their own selfish purpose that which had been intended as a blessing for the nations; and (4) fulfilled Messianic prophecy (Ps. 69and Mal. 3). 2:23–25 23 Now while he was in Jerusalem during Passover Feast, many trusted in his name when they observed his signs which he was doing. 24 But Jesus was not trusting himself to them, because he knew all men, 25 and because he did not need [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] have anyone bear testimony concerning man, for he himself knew what was in man. 2:23. Now while he was in Jerusalem during Passover Feast.Jesus remained in Jerusalem during the entire Passover Feast (see on 2:13). Many trusted in his name;i.e., because of the manner in which his power was displayed they accepted him as a great prophet and perhaps even as the Messiah. This, however, is not the same as saying that they surrendered their hearts to him. Not all faith is saving faith (cf. 6:26). These people, who had flocked to Jerusalem from every quarter, accepted him (in the sense explained) when they [Greek], see on 1:14; note 33) the signs(�p [Greek], see on 1:11) which he was doing. Signs are done in order to strengthen true, saving faith (20:30, 31). Of themselves they do not create faith. The Holy Spirit must do this. Moreover, once saving faith is present, one will believe in the word of Jesus even when there is no sign. 24, 25. But Jesus was not trusting himself to them.Note the contrast between many [Greek]) and he was not trusting [Greek] ) to them. Jesus did not look upon all these individuals as being true believers to whom his cause could be entrusted. The reason why he did not do this was because he knew all men;i.e., knew just what was in the heart of anyone with whom he would come in contact. This had become amazingly clear when the Lord saw Simon for the first time and when he first met Nathaniel. It would seem, however, that in this verse (2:24) the connection is rather with that which follows: and because he did not need to have anyone bear testimony concerning man, for he himself knew what was in man;i.e., it was not necessary for Jesus to listen to testimony(for this word see on 1:7); concerning any particular person, for his own penetrating eyes were able to look into the very depths of that person's heart; take, as an example, Nicodemus. So, chapter 3 relates the story of Christ's conversation with this Jewish leader. Hence, though 2:23–25, in a sense, is a continuation of the preceding paragraph (for in both Jesus work in Jerusalem is described), yet the chapter-division might have been made after verse 22. This becomes evident when the last verse of chapter 2 and the first verse of chapter 3 are read together; thus: He himself knew what was in man. Now there was a manof the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, etc. For Synthesis see after 3:21. -2 _ftn1 52 See Ch. Kopp, Das Kana des Evangeliums, Cologne, 1940. -2 _ftn2 53 As F. W. Grosheide contends in Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, Johannes, I., p. 167, note 1. Josephus affirms that by rapid travel Jerusalem may be reached in three days from GalileeThe LifeLVII . -2 _ftn3 54 S.BK., p. 401. A Jewish wedding often lasted a week, and new guests constantly arrived. -2 _ftn4 55 (See M. Smith, Notes on Goodspeed's Problems of New Testament Translation, JBL, Dec. 1945, pp. 112, 113; also Judg. 11:12, What hast thou to do with me? Cf. T. Gallus, Quid mihi et tibi, mulier? Nondum venit hora meaJoh. 2:4), VD, 22(1942). 41 50. -2 _ftn5 56 For synonyms see R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, pp. 339–344. In 4:48 [Greek] (wonder) is linked with [Greek], as also often in the book of Acts. On [Greek] see F. Stagg �HMEION in the Fourth Gospel, unpublished dissertation, submitted to the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, 1943. -2 _ftn6 57 On [Greek] see pp. 55, 57. -2 _ftn7 58 Closely connected with this is the question: Was 2:13 3:21 misplaced? For the reasons given we do not believe this. See E. B. Redlich, St. John 1 3: A Study in Dislocation. ExT55 (1944) 89 92; and G. Ogg, The Jerusalem Visit of John 2:13 3:21, ExT56 (1944) 70 72. -2 _ftn8 59 A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, New York, 1897, vol. I, p. 370. -2 _ftn9 A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version -2 _ftn10 A.V. Authorized Version (King James) -2 _ftn11 R.S.V. Revised Standard Version -2 _ftn12 60 The nearest antecedent of [Greek] is [Greek]. Besides, if [Greek] refers only to the animals, one would have expected [Greek] before [Greek] in verse 15 (just as in verse 14). -2 _ftn13 61 [Greek] and the present active imperative. -2 _ftn14 62 Cf. F. W. Gingrich, Ambiguity of Word Meaning in John's Gospel, ClW37 (1943 1944) 77. -2 _ftn15 63 Cf. D. W. Riddle and H. H. Hutson, New Testament Life and Literature, Chicago, Ill., 1946, pp. 192, 193. -2 _ftn16 64 Note the aorist. Though it had taken forty-six years, yet the entire building process over all these years is here viewed as one fact. -2 _ftn17 65 Note the emphatic [Greek] at the very beginning. -2 _ftn18 66 On [Greek] see pp. 46, 48. CHAPTER III 3:1–21 3 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 He came to him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs which you do unless God is with him. 3 Jesus answered and said to him, I most solemnly assure you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot again enter into his mother's womb and be born, can he? 5 Jesus answered, I most solemnly assure you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that^[67] I said to you, you must be born anew. 8 The wind blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from and where it goes to. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said to him, You are Israel's teacher, and yet you do not know these things? 11 I most solemnly assure you,^[68] that which we know we utter, and that which we have seen we testify, but you do not accept our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?^[69] 13 And no one has gone up into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.^[70] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, 15 in order that whoever believes may in him have everlasting life. 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his Son, the only-begotten, in order that^[71] whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent his Son into the world, not in order to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the only-begotten Son of God. 19 Now this is the judgment, that^[72] the light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For whoever is in the habit of practicing what is wrong hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest^[73] his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who is in the habit of doing what is true comes to the light, in order that it may become clearly evident that his deeds were wrought in God. This lengthy paragraph may be divided into three sections: the first verse, in which Nicodemus is introduced; verses 2 10, in which he asks three questions and receives three answers; and verses 11 21, in which the dialogue becomes a discourse Nicodemus having become a silent listener to the words of Jesus, and information with respect to earthly things is supplanted by teaching concerning heavenly things. 3:1. Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The Son of God reveals himself to ever widening circles. In 2:23 3:21 (see especially 2:23 and 3:21) he makes himself manifest to the people who are present in Jerusalem on and after the Passover Feast. In 3:22–36 he becomes known to the inhabitants of the country-region of Judea. 3:1–21 is an illustration of Christ's penetrating insight into the secrets of the human soul, an insight to which reference was made in 2:24, 25. One night, while the Lord was carrying on his work in Jerusalem, he received a visitor. The name of that visitor is mentioned, as are also his religious-party affiliation and position. His financial standing would seem to be implied in 19:39. There are commentators who believe that in 3:4 something is said with respect to his age, but this is probably an instance of reading too much into a verse. His name was Nicodemus (meaning: victor over the people). It is a Greek name, but that does not mean that the man was a Greek. It must be borne in mind that beginning with the period of the Maccabean rulers who followed Simon one can expect to find an intermingling of Greek personal names among the Hebrew.^[74] Nicodemus belonged to the party of the Pharisees. This party seems to have originated during the period preceding the Maccabean wars. It may be looked upon as the crystallization of a reaction against the secularistic spirit of Hellenism.^[75] During the second century b.c. those people who abhorred the idolatrous customs of the Greeks and who, during the fierce religious persecution led by the monstrously wicked Antiochus Epiphanes, stood firm and refused to abandon the faith, were called [Greek] (Pietists or Saints). They were the forerunners of the Pharisees (Separatists), who began to appear under that name during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135 105 b.c.). One is reminded of the fact that in England the 17th century Puritans became the 19th century Non-conformists. Although the Pharisees were right in many points of doctrine the divine decree, man's moral accountability and immortality, the resurrection of the body, the existence of spirits, rewards and punishments in the future life and produced men of high renown Gamaliel, Paul, Josephus, they made one basic and very tragic error: they externalized religion. Outward conformity to the law was far too often considered by them to be the goal of one's existence. In actual practice (though not in theory) the oral law, which via the men of the great synagogue, the prophets, the elders, and Joshua, was traced back to Moses and thus to God himself, was often honored even more highly than the written. The Lord denounced them again and again for their exhibitionism and holier-than-thou attitude (Matt. 5:20; 16:6, 11, 12; 23:1 39: Luke 18:9 14). Their scrupulosity knew no bounds, especially with respect to the observance of man-made Sabbath laws. Thus, some of them held that a woman should not look into a mirror on the sabbath because she might see a gray hair and be tempted to pull it out, which would be working! One was allowed to swallow vinegar on the sabbath, as a remedy for a sore throat, but not use it as a gargle. The climax, perhaps, was the rule that an egg laid on the sabbath could be eaten, provided one intended to kill the hen.^[76] The Pharisees owed their influence upon the people to the antipathy of the masses against the House of Herod. To this salvation-by-works party Nicodemus belonged. He occupied a very prominent position, being a ruler of the Jews. Cf. also 3:10 and 7:50 which indicate that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, also that he was a scribe: i.e. a professional student, interpreter, and teacher of the law. 2. He came to him by night. Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. Was he afraid lest, if discovered in conversation with Jesus, he might be criticized by other Sanhedrin-members? Some commentators are of this opinion, which is rather popular and may be correct (cf. 19:38). Others, again, say that at this very early stage of Christ's ministry opposition to his teachings could not have been sufficiently pronounced to produce such fear. Some accept the fear-element but for that very reason assign the entire story to the period immediately preceding Christ's death. And finally, there are those who believe that the only reason why Nicodemus came by night was because Jesus was too busy during the day: at night one could converse at leisure. We just do not know why he came by night. And (he) said to him, Rabbi (for explanation see on 1:49) we know that you are a teacher come from God &This amounted to saying, We I and other likeminded persons (cf. 2:23; 3:11) know that you are a prophet. The reason which Nicodemus assigns for this conviction is given in these words: &for no one can do these signs which you do unless God is with him. (On the meaning of the term sign see on 1:11.) Nicodemus is convinced that Jesus must stand in very close relation to God to be able to do these signs. 3. Jesus answered and said to him, I most solemnly assure you (see on 1:51), unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus has not asked any question. Nevertheless, Jesus answers him, for he read the question which was buried deeply in the heart of this Pharisee. On the basis of Christ's answer we may safely assume that the question of Nicodemus was very similiar to the one found in Matt. 19:16. Like the rich young ruler, so also this Pharisee, who came to Jesus one night and who by some is considered to have been a rich old ruler, wanted to know what good thing he had to do in order to enter the kingdom of heaven (or: in order to have everlasting life, which is simply another way of saying the same thing). However, Nicodemus was never even given the chance to translate into actual words the question of his inner soul. The answer which Jesus gives is another mashal (see on 2:19). It must have sounded like a riddle to the ears of Nicodemus. This remains true whether the conversation was conducted in Greek or in Aramaic. The Greek text as it lies before us immediately raises a problem. When Jesus said, Unless one is born [Greek], what is the meaning of that last word? It can mean from above (from the top). In fact, everywhere else in John's Gospel it has that meaning (3:31; 19:11; 19:23). It seems probable, therefore, that also here (in 3:3, 7) it has that significance. Moreover, also in (Matt. 27:51, Mark 15:38, and James 1:17; 3:15, 17, it has that sense. Jesus, then, we may believe, was referring to the birth from above, i.e., from heaven. However, the word can also have a different connotation; namely, anew, or againGal. 4:9). And, in the third place, it may mean from the first, from the beginning (Luke 1:3; Acts 26:5). Nevertheless, the third meaning may be dismissed, because it would not be suitable to the present context. Nicodemus, then is faced with the choice between the first and the second connotation. However, all that has been said so far is true only on the basis of the Greek. If it be assumed that the conversation was conducted in Aramaic, which seems probable, the riddle, in slightly modified form, remains. It may be argued that there was no Aramaic word identical in ambiguity to the Greek [Greek]. But even if that should be granted, Nicodemus would still be faced with this great difficulty: how can a man experience another birth in any sense whatever? Of course, we know what Jesus meant; namely, that in order to see the kingdom of God it is necessary that a person be born from above; i.e., that the Spirit must implant in his heart the life that has its origin not on earth but in heaven. Let not Nicodemus imagine that earthly or nationalistic distinctions qualify one for entrance into this realm. Let not this Pharisee think either that improvement in outward behavior a conduct more precisely in keeping with the law is all that is necessary. There must be a radical change. And unless one is born from above he cannot even see the kingdom of God; i.e., he cannot experience and partake of it; he cannot possess and enjoy it (Luke 2:26; 9:27; John 8:51; Acts 2:27; Rev. 18:7). When Jesus speaks about entering the kingdom of God, it is clear that the expression is equivalent to having everlasting life or being saved (cf. 3:16, 17). The kingdom of God is the realm in which his rule is recognized and obeyed and in which his grace prevails. Before one can see that kingdom, before one can have everlasting life in any sense, one must be born from above. It is very clear, therefore, that there is an act of God which precedes any act of man. In its initial stage the process of changing a person into a child of God precedes conversion and faith. (See also on 1:12.) 4. Nicodemus reveals that he has failed completely to grasp the deep meaning of the divine mashal. He said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? This answer certainly does not necessarily imply that Nicodemus was an old man. Jesus had uttered a saying which would apply to any person. Nicodemus, as if to show the absurd character of the saying, takes the most extreme case: one certainly cannot conceive of the idea that an old man would actually have to be born all over again! Nicodemus continues, He cannot again enter into his mother's womb and be born, can he? The very suggestion seems utterly impossible to this Pharisee. To his rhetorical question he expects a negative answer. (For other instances of crassly literal interpretation see on 2:19.) 5. Jesus answered, I most solemnly assure you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. The key to the interpretation of these words is found in 1:22. (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16) where water and Spirit are also found side by side, in connection with baptism. The evident meaning, therefore, is this: being baptized with water is not sufficient. The sign is valuable, indeed. It is of great importance both as a pictorial representation and as a seal. But the sign should be accompanied by the thing signified: the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit. It is the latter that is absolutely necessary if one is to be saved. Note, in this connection, that in verses 6 and 8 we no longer read about the birth of water but only about the birth of the Spirit, the one great essential. Now it is true that the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit is not finished until the believer enters heaven. In a sense, becoming a child of God is a life-long process (see 1:12), but in the present passage the initial cleansing implied in the implantation of new life in the heart of the sinner is meant, as is evident from the fact that we are taught here that unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot even enter the kingdom of God. (For the meaning of kingdom of God see on 3:3.) 6. Great stress, accordingly, is placed on the fact that physical birth (see on 1:13) does not give one any priority in the sphere of salvation. Hence, Jesus continues, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (For the various meanings of the term flesh in the Fourth Gospel, see on 1:14.) One could paraphrase as follows: sinful human nature produces sinful human nature (Job 14:4, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. Cf. also Ps. 51:5). The Holy Spirit produces the sanctified human nature. 7. Jesus continues, Do not be amazed (or: do not begin to wonder) that I said to you, You must be born anew. To Nicodemus everything seemed so very, very strange. He was used to the idea of salvation by law-works; i.e., by an act of man. Now he is taught that salvation is a gift of God, and that, in its initial stage, it is brought about by an event in which man is necessarily passive. A person can do nothing about his own birth. And Jesus had said, You must be born anew. Very often, in present-day preaching, this word must is misinterpreted. It should be clearly understood that, in harmony with the entire context, it does not refer to the realm of moral duty, but to that of the divine decree. When Jesus says, You must be born again, he does not mean, By all means see to it that you are born again. On the contrary, he means, Something has to happen to you: the Holy Spirit must plant in your hearts the life from above. And Nicodemus should have had a sufficiently penetrating knowledge of his own inability and corruption to understand this at once. He should not have shown by his expression or by his words that the teaching of Jesus regarding the absolute necessity and sovereign character of regeneration is so very strange and surprising. 8. The sovereign character of regeneration is clarified by an illustration taken from the action of the wind. That in the first clause of verse 8 the term [Greek] means wind and not Spirit is clear from the last clause, So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. That clause particularly, the word so indicates that we are dealing with a comparison here. Jesus, then, says, The wind blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from and where it goes to. Nobody on earth can direct the wind. It acts with complete independence. It cannot even be seen. That it must be there you know, for, in striking any object it makes a sound. Its source and its ultimate goal or destination^[77] no one knows. Jesus adds, So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. The relation of the wind to your body resembles that of the Spirit to your soul. The wind does as it pleases. So does the Spirit. Its operation is sovereign, incomprehensible, and mysterious. What a lesson this was for a man who had been brought up in the belief that a person could and should save himself by perfect obedience to the law of Moses and to a host of man-made, thoroughly analyzable, human regulations. 9. It must have been very difficult for Nicodemus to unlearn what he had always believed. So he answered and said to him, How can these things be? He is constantly asking that same question: how can? &he cannot, can he? &how can? (3:4, 9). It becomes very clear that this religious leader lacked the most elementary knowledge of the way of salvation. At the outset his Pharisaic training seems to have made him immune to spiritual apprehension. Is he still of the opinion that the words of Jesus must be understood in a crassly literal sense? 10. Jesus answered and said to him, You are Israel's teacher, and yet you do not know these things? Both Israel and teacher are preceded by the definite article, so that one might paraphrase the exclamation as follows: And you, that widely recognized and very prominent teacher of the highly favored people of Israel, do you actually mean to say that you are ignorant with respect to these matters? Nicodemus had the Old Testament, the teachings of the Baptist, the instruction of Jesus given in 3:3–8, but up to this moment the truth seems not to have penetrated his mind. 11. The dialogue now changes to discourse. Jesus is speaking and Nicodemus is listening. Jesus says, I solemnly assure you (see on 1:51) that which we know we utter, and that which we have seen we testify. Thus, over against the we know of Nicodemus (3:2), a knowledge produced by human reflection, the Lord places his own we know, a knowledge resulting from close communion with the Father (5:20; 14:10). Jesus, accordingly, wants Nicodemus to know that there can be no doubt with respect to the doctrine of baptism and regeneration which he has discussed, nor with respect to the doctrine of God's eternal decree for the salvation of sinners, which he is about to unfold. In this eleventh verse, corresponding to that which we know stands that which we have seen, which is stronger. Similarly, we utter is explained by we testify, which also is the more definite and forceful expression. (For the terms testify and testimony see on 1:7.) Jesus uses the plural we instead of the singular I. In all probability he is not referring to himself and the prophets. The reference is in all likelihood to Jesus himself and John the Baptist. The term testify immediately reminds one of what was said with reference to the Baptist (cf. 1:7, 8, 34). Besides, 3:5 points to the work of the forerunner. Jesus adds, But you do not accept our testimony. Nicodemus had indicated by his questions and his entire expression that he was not ready to accept the teaching of Jesus concerning the necessity of regeneration. Besides, Jesus was able to read what was in his heart (2:25). And Nicodemus was not the only one who hesitated to believe this strange doctrine. Christ uses the plural you. The members of the Sanhedrin refused to admit that the Baptist was right when he testified concerning Jesus. This body also refused to believe that Jesus was whatever he claimed to be. Consequently, these chief priests, elders, and scribes rejected Christ's teaching on the subject of regeneration. 12. The Lord continues, If I have told you earthly things he implies that he has been doing this and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Jesus had been speaking of earthly things; i.e., of things which, though heavenly in character and origin, take place on earth; e.g., regeneration. But it is clear from 1:11, 26; 2:4, 9, that such truths, though clearly taught even in the Old Testament, were rejected by men like Nicodemus. At best, such doctrines were regarded as being very strange. They were not received. Now, the point which Jesus stresses is this: if even such earthly matters, which take place within the sphere of man's experience (we did not say conscious experience) and whose necessity should be self-evident immediately to any one who reflects upon his own natural inability to please God, are regarded as being incredible, will not heavenly matters e.g., God's eternal plan for the redemption of mankind by sending his Son into the world (cf. 3:16) be rejected much more readily? Such heavenly things lie completely outside of the range of man's experience. In their conception and origin they are so majestic and transcendent that they could never have occurred to man's finite mind. If then the earthly things have been rejected, how can it be reasonably expected that the much more mysterious heavenly things will be accepted? The question is at the same time a warning to Nicodemus. Let him ponder and reflect. Let him no longer regard the teachings of Christ as being unbelievable. Is it possible that the further silence of Nicodemus, his failure to come up with another how can this be (3:4, 9), shows that the warning was taken to heart? 13. And no one has gone up into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. Now, in order to have first-hand information about those heavenly things one must have been present in God's Throne-room when the decisions were made. But no one has gone up into heaven. Hence, God's decree concerning the redemption of his people lies completely outside of the range of man's knowledge until it is revealed to him. Was there actually no one present with the Father when the plan was made which centers in the decree to send the Son into the world in order to bear the curse and set man free? Yes, there was One, the One who descended from heaven namely, the Son of man. (On A [Greek], see also p. 237.) On Son of Man see 12:34. On who is in heaven, see p. 129, footnote 70, Vol. II. 14, 15. The heart and center of this wonderful plan of redemption is stated in verses 14 18. It is stated not as something entirely new, but as something which had been partially disclosed in the types of the old dispensation; particularly, the type with reference to the serpent which by Moses had been set upon a standard, raised up high so that everyone could see it. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up. The story of The Serpent Lifted Up is found in Numbers. In fact that account (chapter 21) furnishes the key to the interpretation of the fourth book of the Pentateuch. The contents of this book may be summarized as follows: Theme: Israel's Journey from Sinai to the Plains of Moab: A Lesson Concerning Sin and Grace chapters 1 9: I. Preparations for leaving Sinai. 10 21 II. Journey from Sinai to the plains of Moab: a story of repeated sin and resulting failure until Jehovah in his grace causes the serpent to be lifted up. Thereupon mainly, 22 36 III. Blessing and victory in the plains of Moab.^[78] Israel had been rebellious again. The people had spoken against God and Moses, saying, Wherefore have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness, for there is no bread and there is no water; and our soul loathes this light bread (Num. 21:5). So Jehovah had sent fiery serpents among the people, killing many. When the people confessed their sins, Moses prayed for them. And Jehovah said to Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he sees it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it upon a standard: and it came to pass, that if the serpent had bitten any man, when he looked upon the serpent of brass, he lived (Num. 21:8, 9). Now, in John 3:14the words As Moses &so must the Son of man clearly indicate that the event recorded in Numbers 21is a type of the lifting up of the Son of man. This does not mean, however, that we now have the right to test our ingenuity by attempting to furnish a long list of resemblances between type and Antitype, as is often done. In reality, as we see it, only the following points of comparison are either specifically mentioned or clearly implied in 3:14, 15 (cf. also verse 16): a. In both cases (Numbers 21and John 3) death threatens as a punishment for sin. b. In both cases it is God himself who, in his sovereign grace, provides a remedy. c. In both cases this remedy consists of something (or some One) which (who) must be lifted up, in public view.^[79] d. In both cases those who, with a believing heart, look unto that which (or: look unto the One who) is lifted up, are healed. Here, as always, the Antitype far transcends the type. In Numbers the people are face to face with physical death; in John, mankind is viewed as exposed to eternal death because of sin. In Numbers it is the type that is lifted up. This type the brazen serpent has no power to heal. It points forward to the Antitype, Christ, who does have this power. In Numbers the emphasis is on physical healing: when a man fixed his eye upon the serpent of brass, he was restored to health. In John it is spiritual life everlasting life that is granted to him who reposes his trust in the One who is lifted up. The lifting up of the Son of man is presented as a must. (Mark 8:31; Luke 24:7). It is not a remedy; it is the only possible remedy for sin, for in this way only can the demands of God's holiness and righteousness and love! be met. But just what is meant by this lifting up? Here we cannot follow the reasoning of those commentators who would exclude from the meaning of this term any reference to Christ's death. On the contrary, that being lifted up on the cross is certainly included. In fact, in the fourth Gospel the term to be lifted up (from [Greek]) always refers to the cross (cf. 8:28; 12:32, 34). However, it is, indeed, significant that the inspired author employs a term which, while certainly referring to Christ's death on the cross, is elsewhere used with reference to his exaltation (Acts 2:33; 5:31). The cross is never isolated from other great events (such as resurrection, ascension, coronation) in the history of redemption. It is ever the path to the crown. Moreover, where does the glory of all of God's attributes in Christ shine forth more brilliantly than on the cross (cf. 12:28 with 12:32, 33)? Though Christ is lifted up in the sight of all, he does not save all. We read, in order that whoever believes may in him have everlasting life. Just as in connection with the serpent of brass the Israelite was healedII Kings 18:4, entirely unworthy of veneration and worship, nevertheless, God's blessing was obtained by looking at this serpent , so also in connection with Christ, the great Antitype, believers attain everlasting life. As the main concepts of verse 15 recur in the following verse, we shall proceed at once to that most precious of all Bible passages: 16. For God so loved the world that he gave his Son, the only-begotten, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. God's infinite love made manifest in an infinitely glorious manner, this is the theme of the golden text which has endeared itself to the hearts of all God's children. The verse sheds light on the following aspects of this love: 1. its character (so loved), 2. its Author (God), 3. its object (the world), 4. its Gift (his Son, the only-begotten), and 5. its purpose (that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life). The conjunction for establishes a causal relation between this and the preceding verse. We might paraphrase as follows: the fact that it is only in connection with Christ that everlasting life is ever obtained (see verse 15) is clear from this, that it has pleased God to grant this supreme gift only to those who repose their trust in him (verse 16). 1. Its character The word so by reason of what follows must be interpreted as indicating: in such an infinite degree and in such a transcendently glorious manner. Great emphasis is placed on this thought. So loved. The tense used in the original (the aorist [Greek]) shows that God's love in action, reaching back to eternity and coming to fruition in Bethlehem and at Calvary, is viewed as one, great, central fact. That love was rich and true, full of understanding, tenderness, and majesty.^[80] 2. Its Author So loved God (with the article in the original: A [Greek], just as in 1:1 where, as has been shown, the Father is indicated). In order to gain some conception of the Deity it will never do to subtract from the popular concept every possible attribute until literally nothing is left. God is ever full of life and full of love.^[81] Take all human virtues; then raise them to the nth degree, and realize that no matter how grand and glorious a total picture is formed in the mind, even that is a mere shadow of the love-life which exists eternally in the heart of him whose very name is Love. And that love of God ever precedes our love (I John 4:9, 10, 19; cf. Rom. 5:8–10), and makes the latter possible. 3. Its object Now the object of this love is the world. (See on 1:10 and note 26 where the various meanings have been summarized.) Just what is meant by this term here in 3:16? We answer: a. The words, that whoever believes clearly indicate that the reference is not to birds and trees but to mankind. Cf. also 4:42; 8:12; I John 4:14. b. However, here mankind is not viewed as the realm of evil, breaking out into open hostility to God and Christ (meaning 6, in note 26), for God does not love evil. c. The term world, as here used, must mean mankind which, though sin-laden, exposed to the judgment, and in need of salvation (see verse 16b and verse 17), is still the object of his care. God's image is still, to a degree, reflected in the children of men. Mankind is like a minor. Originally this mirror was very beautiful, a work of art. But, through no fault of the Maker, it has become horribly blurred. Its creator, however, still recognizes his own work. d. By reason of the context and other passages in which a similar thought is expressed (see note 26, meaning 5), it is probable that also here in 3:16 the term indicates fallen mankind in its international aspect: men from every tribe and nation; not only Jews but also Gentiles. This is in harmony with the thought expressed repeatedly in the Fourth Gospel (including this very chapter) to the effect that physical ancestry has nothing to do with entrance into the kingdom of heaven: 1:12, 13; 8:6; 8:31–39. 4. Its gift & that he gave his Son, the only-begotten. Literally the original reads, that his Son, the only-begotten, he gave. All the emphasis is on the astounding greatness of the gift; hence, in this clause the object precedes the verb. The verb he gave must be taken in the sense of he gave unto death as an offering for sinI John 3:16; especially I John 4:10; Rom. 8:32: John's gave is Paul's spared not . On the meaning of the only begotten, see on 1:14. Note that the article which precedes the word Son is repeated before only begotten. Thus both substantive and adjective receive emphasis.^[82] We hear, as it were, the echo of (Gen. 22:2, Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac.& The gift of the Son is the climax of God's loveMatt. 21:33–39). 5. Its purpose & in order that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. God does not leave mankind to itself. He so loved the world that his Son, the only begotten, he gave, with this purpose: that those who receive him with abiding trust and confidence^[83] may have everlasting life. Though the Gospel is proclaimed to men of every tribe and nation, not every one who hears it believes in the Son. But whoever believes whether he be a Jew or a Gentile has everlasting life. The words &should not perish do not merely mean: should not lose physical existence; nor do they signify: should not be annihilated. As the context (verse 17) indicates, the perishing of which this verse speaks indicates divine condemnation, complete and everlasting, so that one is banished from the presence of the God of love and dwells forever in the presence of a God of wrath, a condition which, in principle, begins here and now but does not reach its full and terrible culmination for both soul and body until the day of the great consummation. Note that perishing is the antonym of having everlasting life. & but have everlasting life. (On the meaning of life see on 1:4.) The life which pertains to the future age, to the realm of glory, becomes the possession of the believer here and now; that is, in principle. This life is salvation, and manifests itself in fellowship with God in Christ (17:3); in partaking of the love of God (5:42), of his peace (16:33), and of his joy (17:13). The adjective everlasting ([Greek]) occurs 17 times in the Fourth Gospel, 6 times in I John, always with the noun life. It indicates, as has been pointed out, a life that is different in quality from the life which characterizes the present age. However, the noun with its adjective ([Greek] ) as used here in 3:16 has also a quantitative connotation: it is actually everlasting, never-ending life. In order to receive this everlasting life one must believe in God's only begotten Son. It is important, however, to take note of the fact that Jesus mentions the necessity of regeneration before he speaks about faith (cf. 3:3, 5 with 3:12, 14 16). The work of God within the soul ever precedes the work of God in which the soul cooperates (see especially 6:44). And because faith is, accordingly, the gift of GodEph. 2:8, but also in the Fourth Gospel , its fruit, everlasting life, is also God's gift (10:28). God gave his Son; he gives us the faith to embrace the Son; he gives us everlasting life as a reward for the exercise of this faith. To him be the glory forever and ever! 17. In close connection with 3:16, verse 17 continues, For God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. As the Jews saw it, the Messiah at his coming would condemn the heathen. The Day of Jehovah would mean punishment for the nations which had oppressed Israel, but not for Israel. This misinterpretation of prophecy had been censured most severely by Amos (Amos 5:18 20), but it never subsided. It is against this Jewish exclusivism that the words of Jesus are directed. Verse 17 clearly indicates: a. That God's redemptive purpose is not confined to the Jews but embraces the world (men from every tribe and nation, considered as a unit); b. that the primary object of Christ's first coming was not to condemn but to save. It is true that the verb which was translated to condemn ([Greek] from [Greek]) has a very wide meaning in the original. Our word to discriminate, which is derived from the same stem, points in the direction of the basic idea: to separate. From this, in turn, came the idea of selecting one thing above another; hence, judging, deciding. Whereas in this sinful world to judge frequently means to condemn, the word employed in the original can also have that connotation, which is expressed more fully by the term [Greek]. The fact that here, in 3:17, it actually has (or at least approaches) that meaning is shown by the antonym: to save. Salvation, in the fullest sense of the term (deliverance from punishment not only but from sin itself, and the bestowal of everlasting life) was what God had in store for the world into which he sent his Son; not condemnation but salvation. This raises the question: Shall we say, then, that the purpose of Christ's first coming was to bring salvation, while the purpose of the second coming will be to bring condemnation (or judgment, at least)? But the matter is not as simple as that, as verse 18 indicates. No one needs to wait for the day of the great consummation to receive his sentence. To be sure, on that great day something very important is going to take place: the verdict will be publicly proclaimed (5:25–29). But the decision itself, which is basic to this public proclamation, has already been made long before: 18. He who believes in him is not condemned (or judged); he who does not believe is condemned already. Jesus divides all those to whom the message of salvation is presented into two groups, each of which is represented by one individual: (1) The one who abides in Christ by faith is not judged; i.e., no sentence of condemnation will ever be read against him. Even now he is in the eyes of God without guilt. (2) The one who rejects Christ by not believing in him as God's only-begotten Son (on this term see 1:14) does not need to wait for the final judgment, as if the verdict would be postponed until then. Already, by the very fact of his obstinate unbelief, he has been (and therefore stands) condemned. 19. With reference to such obstinate rejecters a verdict is announced in verse 19. Very little comment is necessary here, because most of the ideas and concepts of this passage have already been explained. Now this is the judgment. The term judgment ([Greek]) means (in this context) divine decision or verdict. (See also under 3:17; on the term [Greek].) For the clause, that the light has come into the world, see on 1:4, 5, 9, 10, 11. On the term world see 1:10; Note 26. On darkness see 1:5, and on light, see 1:4. But men loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. We may paraphrase the thought of verse 19 as follows: Now with respect to those who reject the only-begotten Son of God, this is the divine verdict, that the Christ who is himself the Light the very embodiment of the truth and love of God, yea, of all his attributes he, by means of the word of prophecy and especially by means of his own incarnation, came into the realm of fallen mankind; but, though some accepted him, by far the majority preferred the moral and spiritual darkness of sin (I John 2:11, but also 8:12; 12:35, 46; and I John 2:8, 9). In fact, they actually loved this darkness; and the reason was not that they were ignorant, having never heard the Gospel, but rather this: their works were evil. 20. To say that these people loved the darkness rather than the light does not mean, however, that, after all, they loved also the light to some extent. On the contrary, for whoever is in the habit of practicing what is wrong hates the light, and does not come to the light. Such a person is always avoiding the light; i.e., he will have nothing to do with the Christ, the source and embodiment of God's truth and love. Hence, he never reads the Bible; refuses to attend church, etc. In his heart he really hates the light. The reason for this is that he fears lest (by this light) his (evil) deeds might be exposed. People of this type resemble loathsome insects that hide themselves beneath logs and stones, always preferring the darkness, and terribly frightened whenever they are exposed to the light. 21. But while unbelievers may thus be compared to the denizens of the domain of darkness, believers, on the other hand, resemble beautiful house-plants which turn their green parts toward the window and the light of the sun: But he who is in the habit of doing what is true (I John 1:6) comes to the light. It has been indicated that there is a very close relationship between light and truth; hence, it is not surprising that he who does the truth comes to the light in order that it may become evident that his deeds were wrought in God. He desires to show that his deeds, though by no means perfect, were, nevertheless, wrought with God's approval (that they were done, in principle, according to God's law), and that they retain this character forever. He &comes to the light, said Jesus. Thus, the discourse ends most appropriately with the implied invitation that Nicodemus, too, should leave the realm of darkness and unbelief and should embrace Christ, the true light. Synthesis of 2:23 3:21 See the Outline on p. 68. The Son of God revealing himself to ever-widening circles: to Jerusalem; conversation with Nicodemus. At Jerusalem, during the Passover-week, many people, having closely observed the signs which Jesus did, accepted him as a divine teacher, a great and powerful prophet, and as such placed their trust in him. However, he knew that this was not saving faith, and he did not entrust himself to them. With his penetrating eye he read the secrets of men's hearts, as he had already shown in the case of Simon and Nathaneal, and as he was about to indicate in the case of Nicodemus. The latter was a Pharisee, and a member of the Sanhedrin. He was one of those who, having beheld the signs, accepted Jesus as a divine teacher. The latter immediately discerned the unspoken question within the heart of Nicodemus. That question was: How can I enter the kingdom of God? In reply, the Lord emphasized the necessity of being born anew. He employed a term which can mean either: to be born from above or to be born again. Nicodemus assigns to it the most crudely literal connotation. Jesus then points out that he was not speaking about anything physical, and that physical distinctions have no significance for the kingdom of heaven. He emphasizes that regeneration is a work of God over which man has no more control than he has over the wind. Evidently in a tone of protest Nicodemus asks, How can these things be? Jesus traces the surprise of Nicodemus and of those like him to its source: unbelief, and asks, If I have told you earthly things (baptism, regeneration), and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things (God's plan of redemption)? The plan of redemption was even more mysterious than regeneration, for it was made in heaven and can be revealed only by him who was there when it was made and who descended in order to disclose it. The heart of this plan was the decree to send the Son, in order that he might be lifted up upon the cross for man's salvation, just as the serpent had been lifted up in the wilderness for man's physical recovery. In this connection Jesus sets forth God's infinite love (3:16), making known a. its glorious character, b. Author, c. object, d. gift, and e. purpose. He points out that the purpose of the first coming was not the condemnation but the salvation of the world, and that at the second coming that verdict will be revealed, with reference to each person, which corresponds to his present attitude to God's only begotten Son. If anyone rejects the Son, such a rejecter is condemned already. Most of those who hear the Gospel belong to the latter category: the light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil. They hate to have their deeds exposed. They shun the light The discourse ends with a beautiful, implied invitation to Nicodemus to come to the light. The words of this closing passage are: But he who is in the habit of doing what is true comes to the light, that it may become clearly evident that his deeds were wrought in God. 3:22–36 22 After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the Judean country-district, and there he stayed with them and baptized. 23 And John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there were many waters there, and people came to him and were baptized; 24 for John had not yet been imprisoned. 25 So there arose a dispute between John's disciples and a Jew over purifying. 26 And they came to John and said to him, Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore testimony, look, he baptizes, and all are going to him. 27 John answered and said, No man can receive anything unless it is given to him from heaven.^[84] 28 I call you to witness that I said. I myself am not the Christ, but I am sent ahead of him. 29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom. Now the bridegroom's friend who stands and hears him is very happy to hear the bridegroom's voice. Therefore, this joy of mine is now full. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; he who springs from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks from the earth; he who comes from heaven is above all. 32 What he has seen and heard, to this he bears testimony; but no one accepts his testimony. 33 He who does accept his testimony attests that God is true. 34 For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for it is not by measure that he gives (him) the Spirit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. 3:22. On the meaning of the phrase after these things ([Greek] ) see also 5:1. Jesus and his disciples came into the Judean district. After Passover-week and the interview with Nicodemus, Jesus, in the company of his disciples (probably the six mentioned or referred to in 1:35–51), left Jerusalem and came into the country-district of Judea. Because baptism is mentioned in verse 22, it is regarded as probable that the locality here indicated was not far from Jericho, near the fords of Jordan. And there he stayed with them (i.e. with his disciples). He must have spent a considerable period of time in this neighborhood; probably from May December of the year 27.^[85] And baptized. While here, Jesus baptized, not in person but by means of his disciples (4:2). This rite, as here performed, may be regarded as a transition between Johannine and Christian baptism. In both, the water points to the need of spiritual cleansing, brought about by the blood and Spirit of Christ, the Lamb of God. However, by not baptizing in person but through the agency of others, Jesus manifests himself as being greater than John the Baptist. The next step will be the command to baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Matt. 28:19. That baptism, moreover, will extend to all nations. 23. And John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there were many waters there. While Jesus, through his disciples, was baptizing in the country-region of Judea, John was continuing his ministry farther to the north. We find him very close to the place where we last met him. He was then in Bethany beyond Jordan (1:28). Now he has crossed the river, so that he is carrying on his task on this side (i.e., west) of Jordan. According to many, Aenon (probably from the Aramaic, meaning fountains) near Salim was situated a few miles south-west of Bethany. Though its exact location is in doubt, the view that its site was near the juncture of Samaria, Perea, and Decapolis, about eight miles south of Scythopolis, fits all the circumstances and is supported by Eusebius and Jerome. Here there is a group of seven springs. Not far to the north lies Galilee. Hence, this place was centrally located, within easy reach for people of four provinces, and furnished with a goodly supply of water for baptizing. And people came to him and were baptized. People came to John from every direction and were baptized. But little by little the crowds left John and resorted to Jesus. 24. Before proceeding with his narrative the author solves a problem. The readers might raise the objection, How was it possible for John to be engaged in the work of baptizing at this time? Is it not true that immediately after our Lord's temptation the Baptist had been cast into prison? The author senses that some might misinterpret Matt. 4:11, 12in that sense. Hence, evidently taking for granted that believers in Asia Minor at this relatively late date had read the earlier Gospels (see pp. 31, 32), the author corrects a possible misunderstanding, and shows that between Matt. 4:11and 4:12Mark 1:13and 1:14; or between Luke 4:13and 4:14; i.e., between Christ's temptation and the arrest of John the Baptist there was a considerable period of time during which Jesus and John were engaged in a parallel ministry. It is thus that we explain the statement, For John had not yet been imprisoned. 25 28. So there arose a dispute between John's disciples and a Jew over purifying. The parallel ministry of Jesus and John resulted in a dispute between admirers of the latter and a Jew who favored the former. The argument was begun by the disciples of John, who probably ascribed superior (or exclusive) purifying efficacy to the baptism of their teacher. Filled with dissatisfaction caused by the constantly increasing multitudes which gathered about Jesus and the gradually dwindling crowds which remained with John, the disciples of the latter ran to their master with the words of bitter complaint. And they came to John and said to him, Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore testimony, look, he baptizes, and all are going to him. Note the following: (1) In the spirit of jealousy and anger they purposely avoid even mentioning the name of Jesus. As they see it, Jesus and John are rivals, competitors. (2) They seem not to have been very pleased with the fact that John had borne testimony to Jesus. Their words probably constitute a veiled rebuke. (With reference to this testimony see 1:6, 7, 8, 15; 1:26–34.) (3) They make full use of the figure of speech called hyperbole, All are going to him, i.e., soon you'll be without any follower. In harmony with the purpose of the book (see pp. 32, 33), the author now dwells at length on the self-effacing answer of the Baptist. Let those in Asia Minor who follow him take it to heart, so that they may know that when they place John above Jesus they sin not only against the latter but also against the former! The Baptist's answer was surprising and noble. John answered and said, No man can receive anything unless it is given to him from heaven. (I Cor. 4:7.) The herald of the Christ meant to say that to every one God has assigned a place in his eternal plan, and that he, the Baptist, has no right to lay claim to an honor which had not been given to him in heaven. Once given, it remains given, as the tense used in the original implies. Similarly, once withheld, it so remains. Instead of complaining about the success of Jesus, John's disciples should have rejoiced in the fact that the task of the Baptist was being fulfilled. And the nature of this task had been clearly indicated. Says John, I call you to witness that I said, I myself am not the Christ, but I am sent ahead of him. (For the first clause see on 1:8, 20; for the second, on 1:15, 23, 27.) 29. Then John takes an illustration from marriage customs. He says, He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The Baptist points out that the bride belongs to the bridegroom, not to the latter's friend. Now Christ is the Bridegroom, and his people are the Bride. The Bride, then, must be brought to the Bridegroom. That is exactly what John has been doing. He is constantly pointing to the Lamb of God, hoping that many will follow the latter. Now, the bridegroom's friend who stands and hears him is very happy to hear the bridegroom's voice. So it is with John. Just as the friend of the bridegroom, who stands at his side, listening, rejoices when the bridegroom voices his joy upon receiving the bride, so also the Baptist is very happy when he reflects on the satisfaction in the heart of the real Bridegroom, Christ, upon welcoming his own. He says, This joy of mine is now full. He means: when, in connection with the report regarding the dispute concerning purifying, I receive further assurance that people are leaving me and are flocking to Jesus, my cup of joy is running over. 30. Summing up the preceding, the way-preparer states, He must increase, but I must decrease, i.e., he (Jesus) must continue to grow, while I (John) must continue to diminish. Note the must, indicating that this is in accordance with God's eternal plan. Of what use is a herald after the king has arrived? Why should crowds continue to surround the forerunner after his task has been accomplished? When he lays aside his responsibilities, let the multitude depart. Let them follow the king! Let them realize that the latter is glorious in his origin and has a glorious message. It is the Baptist who continues:^[86] 31. He who comes from above is above all; he who springs from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks from the earth; he who comes from heaven is above all. The contrast between Jesus and the Baptist is continued. Jesus came from above (cf. 3:13), and, in view of his heavenly origin, is higher than all (Eph. 1:20–23); hence, higher also than the voice shouting in the desert. In comparison with Jesus, the herald has an earthly origin and character (Mat. 11:11). He even speaks from the earth; for, though when God speaks through him, he is the voice of God, nevertheless, at times, when the herald's own weak and sinful nature asserts itself, fears and doubts begin to manifest themselves (Matt. 11:2, 3). The Christ, even he who comes from heaven, is above all: sinful doubts and fears never assail him. 32, 33. His testimony is pure and should be accepted, for: What he has seen and heard, to this he bears testimony (cf. 1:18; 3:11, 13, 31; cf. 8:40; 15:15). (For the verb to bear testimony see on 1:7.) How has this testimony been received? On the whole, it was rejected: but no one accepts his testimony. Nevertheless, there are exceptions: He who does accept his testimony.& We have the same contrast here as in 1:11, 12. With reference to him who accepts the testimony of Christ it is stated that he attests that God is true. The simplest explanation is the following: those who accept Christ's testimony concerning himself (namely, that he is the Son of God) thereby set the seal of their approval upon God's own testimony regarding Jesus: Thou art my beloved Son (Luke 3:22; cf. John 1:34). They show that they believe that God is true in thus addressing Jesus. What is affirmed here in a positive way is stated negatively in I John 5:10, He who does not believe God has made him a liar; because he has not believed in the testimony which God has borne concerning his Son. 34, 35. Every one should accept Christ's testimony not only because a. he utters that which he has seen and heard (verse 32); and because b. his testimony with reference to himself is in perfect agreement with the Father's testimony regarding him (verse 33); but also (and in close harmony with the preceding) because c. he whom God has sent (as his ambassador) speaks the words of God. Although it is true that not only Jesus is represented in the Fourth Gospel as having been sent by God (in 1:6 and 3:28 it is the Baptist who is said to have been sent), it is, nevertheless, also true that in nearly every case this designation is used with reference to him; i.e., to the Son (3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 9:7; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21). Hence, we see no good reason to depart from the usual interpretation that in 3:34 the Son is described in the words, he whom God has sent. Now it is the only begotten Son who, having been sent by God, speaks the words of God. In fact, he never utters anything else, for he is not like an ordinary prophet (e.g., the Baptist) upon whom the Spirit rests in a limited degree. For it is not by measure (but in fulness) that he (i.e., God; see preceding clause) gives (him) the Spirit. The best texts omit the pronoun him. Nevertheless, it should he supplied mentally, and it must be considered as referring to Christ, as is clearly indicated by verse 35. (See also 1:33.) Not only did the Father give the Spirit to the Son. He gave all things into his hand (Matt. 11:27; 28:18). To limit this passage to Christ's Messianic sonship is hardly correct. The language (beginning at verse 31) is too majestic to permit such an interpretation. The Baptist, having witnessed the descent of the dove, and having heard the voice of the Father from heaven, understood that the mediatorial sonship of Jesus rested upon the trinitarian sonship. Thus, too, the gift of all things results from the eternal love-relationship between the Father and the Son: The Father loves (see on 21:15–17) the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36. In verse 36 the testimony of the Baptist reaches its final climax. A kind of climax was also noted in 1:29 and again in 1:34. By combining the three we get the following: Look, the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world. And I have seen and I have testified that this one is the Son of God. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. Whereas all things are in the hand of the Son (verse 35), everlasting life too is in his hand. Accordingly, we read, He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. This passage leads us back to the very similar words of Jesus himself in 3:16–18. (See on 3:16–18.) Christ's climax is also John's. Everlasting life is given to those who have an abiding faith in the Son. It is not for thrill-seekers (who believe in him as a worker of miracles; cf. 2:23) but for trusters. Over against the destiny of believers Jesus had placed that of unbelievers (cf. 3:16 with 3:18). The Baptist does the same when he closes his remarks by stating that he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, the wrath of God remaining on him. Note that over against abiding faith stands disobedience; i.e., refusal to accept Christ by a true and abiding faith. Such base rejection of the Son of God (for explanation of this term see on 1:14) who confronts sinners with the invitation and the demand to trust and obey, results in the punishment described in the final clause: they shall not see life; i.e., they shall not experience its joys and delights. The wrath of God, moreover, abides on them. The Baptist had spoken about this wrath of God in another connection (Matt. 3:7; cf. Luke 3:7). Luke refers to God's wrath in his Gospel (21:23). Paul speaks of it again and again (Rom. 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; 13:4, 5; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; Col. 3:6; I Thess. 1:10; 2:16; 5:9). The concept is also found in Hebrews (3:11; 4:3), and in the book of Revelation (19:15; cf. 6:16, 17; 11:18; 14:10; 16:19). Upon one occasion this attitude is ascribed to Christ (Mark 3:5), who in his parabolic teaching does not hesitate to ascribe it to the King, Lord, or Householder in heaven (Matt. 18:34; 22:7; Luke 14:21). Though in the light of Rom. 1:18and Eph. 2:3it is surely erroneous to limit this divine disposition too narrowly by defining it as God's displeasure with those who reject the Gospel (it also rests on those who have never heard the Gospel!), it is, nevertheless, true that man's impenitent heart, his obduracy and sinister unwillingness to embrace Christ by a living faith, often furnishes the setting for these wrath-of-God passages. That is true also with respect to the passage which we are now studying (3:36). It is the only instance of the use of this word wrath ([Greek]) in the Fourth Gospel. It indicates settled indignation (sometimes in contrast with anger, [Greek], which is then defined as turbulent commotion, suddenly blazing up and quickly extinguished, like fire in straw,^[87] but especially when applied to God it is probably wrong to press the distinction between the two words).^[88] The mention of man's disobedience, his base refusal to accept the Gospel, causes the mind to travel back to the story of the fall in Paradise. As a result of this fall Adam and Eve had been refused access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24), and the wrath of God had been visited upon mankind. John 3:36now teaches us that this wrath remains on those who disobey the Son. (For further comment see comments on 3:18.) This conclusion of the Baptist's testimony is beautiful because of its clear implication: Embrace the Son of God by a living and abiding faith, and have everlasting life. Cf. 3:21. Synthesis of 3:22–36 See the Outline on p. 68. The Son of God revealing himself to ever-widening circles: to Judea; John the Baptist's Recessional. After his conversation with Nicodemus in Jerusalem, Jesus retired to the country-region of Judea, near Jordan, where, by means of his disciples, he baptized (probably May-December in the year 27 a.d.). Farther to the north, at Aenon near to Salim, John not yet imprisoned was baptizing. His crowds gradually diminished and went over to Jesus. This resulted in jealousy on the part of the disciples of the Baptist, who, having argued with a Jew who favored Jesus, rushed to their master, complaining, Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore testimony, look, he baptizes, and all are going to him. In harmony with the purpose of his book the author dwells at length on the self-effacing answer of the Baptist. The latter, having referred to his earlier testimony, maintains that each man should accept with gratitude whatever station in life God assigns him. He points out that just as in natural life the bride belongs to the groom and not to the latter's friend, so it is in the realm of the kingdom. Here, too, it is the duty of the friend to lead the Bride to the Bridegroom. In this case the Bridegroom is Christ. The Bride represents those who are brought to him and accept him by a living faith. The friend is John the Baptist. When the latter hears the Bridegroom's voice welcoming the Bride, he rejoices greatly. When the heavenly king arrives, the earthly herald recedes. Let everyone now accept the king, the Spirit-filled Son of God, who speaks the words of God. Those who, in contrast with the great majority, embrace Christ with a living faith, thereby indicate that they have accepted the verdict of the Father with reference to him. Their faith in the Object of God's love and generosity will be rewarded with everlasting life. But upon the disobedient God's wrath (settled indignation) remains. Implication: Harden not your heart but accept by faith the Son of God! 67 On [Greek] see pp. 55, 57. 68 On [Greek] see pp. 54 (and footnote 13), 57. 69 The conditional sentence belongs to Group IA and IIIA1; see pp. 40, 43. 70 N.N. omits who is in heaven. So does F. W. Grosheide, op. cit., p. 226, Note 1. The idea contained in that omitted clause is, however, definitely scriptural (cf. 1:18). See Note on 3:13 in Vol. II. 71 On [Greek] see pp. 45, 48. 72 On [Greek] see pp. 55, 57. 73 Literally, in order that not. 74 Cf. A. Sizoo, Uit De Wereld van het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, 1946, pp. 183–200. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER IV 4:1–26 4 1 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard, Jesus is gaining and baptizing more disciples than John 2 although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples, 3 he left Judea and went back again to Galilee. 4 Now he had to go through Samaria. 5 So he came to a Samaritan town called Sychar, near the parcel of ground which Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6 And Jacob's spring was there. So Jesus, travel-weary, was sitting by the spring just as he was. It was about the sixth hour. 7 There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, Give me a drink. 8 For his disciples were gone away into the town in order to buy articles of food. 9 So the Samaritan woman said to him, How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a Samaritan woman? (For Jews do not use [vessels] together with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that said to you, Give me a drink, you would have been the one to ask him, and he would have given you living water. ^[89] 11 She said to him, Sir, you have no rope-bucket, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water? 12 Surely, you are not greater, are you, than our father Jacob, who gave us this well, and he himself drank from it, and so did his sons and his flocks? 13 Jesus answered and said to her, Whoever drinks this water will get thirsty again; 14 but whoever drinks the water that I shall give him will in no way be thirsty again forever, but the water that I shall give him will become within him a spring of water that keeps on bubbling up unto everlasting life. 15 The woman said to him, Sir, give me this water, in order that I may not get thirsty nor have to keep on coming so far to draw. 16 He said to her, Go, call your husband, and come back here. 17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, You were right when you said, A husband I have not 18 for five husbands you have had, but the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have stated correctly. 19 The woman said to him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that^[90] the place where one must worship is in Jerusalem. 21 Jesus said to her, Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 you worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming yea, has already arrived! when the genuine worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such are the very people whom the Father is seeking as his worshipers. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship (him) must worship in spirit and truth. 25 The woman said, I know that Messiah is coming (the One who is called Christ); whenever he arrives, he will declare everything to us. 26 Jesus said to her, I, the One who is talking to you, am he. 4:1. Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard, Jesus is gaining and baptizing more disciples than John. About December of the year 27 a.d. the Baptist was imprisoned (Mark 6:17 20). The religious leaders of Jerusalem who, in the days of John's great popularity, had been filled with jealousy, rejoiced. What were the reasons for their displeasure with him? (See on 1:19.) But this joy was of short duration, for other tidings reached the Pharisees: namely, that the multitudes surrounding Jesus the disciples whom he was gaining and baptizing were more numerous than those which had followed the herald. In fact, even before John's imprisonment Jesus had forged ahead of him in popular favor (3:22–26). Hence, from the point of view of the members of the Sanhedrin, matters were becoming worse instead of better. Now when the Lord (see on 1:38, footnote 44) knew. How did he know? (See on 5:6). The modern Greek New Testament has [Greek] learned here; he had come to know. Specifically, Jesus had come to know: a. that John had been imprisoned (Matt. 4:12); and b. that the Pharisees had heard that the crowds had gone over to Jesus, who was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John. 2. Although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples. No one must ever be able to boast, I was baptized by the Lord himself in person, whereas you were baptized by a mere disciple. (I Cor. 1:17.) That Jesus, nevertheless, approved of baptism and assumed responsibility for the rite as administered by his disciples is clear from the use of the singular of the verb to baptize both here (4:1) and in 3:22. What they (his disciples) did, he was in reality doing (through his agents). 3. He left Judea. Jesus decides to leave (on this verb see 4:28) Judea. Why? Because he was well aware of the fact that his own great popularity in the country-region of Judea would bring about such keen resentment on the part of the religious leaders in that southern province that this resentment, in the natural course of events, would lead to a premature crisis. Now the Lord knew that for every event in his life there was an appointed time in God's decree. And he also knew that the appropriate moment for his death had not yet arrived. As soon as that moment arrived, he would voluntarily lay down his life (cf. 10:18; 13:1; 14:31). He would do so then, but not before then. Hence, he must now leave Judea. And went back again to Galilee. Jesus went back again to Galilee. From this word again ([Greek]) it certainly cannot be deduced that he had already been living in Galilee for a considerable period of time, so that the entire story recorded in Chapter 4 must be referred to the close of Christ's earthly ministry. It is much more natural to infer that the author was thinking of the events recorded in 2:1–12. Jesus had been in Galilee in late February or early March. It was there that he had performed his first sign. From Cana and Capernaum he had traveled to Jerusalem at the time of the Passover. And now, after having spent some time in the capital and in the country-region of Judea, he was going back again to Galilee. 4. Now he had to go through Samaria. Jesus had to go through Samaria. There were several roads leading from Judea to Galilee: one near the seacoast, another through Perea, and one through the heart of Samaria. Josephus informs us, however, that it was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journey through the country of the Samaritans (Antiquities, XX, vi, 1). Besides, the shortest distance from the Jerusalem-Jericho region, where Jesus had been carrying on his ministry, to Cana in Galilee, his destination (4:46), was the road through Samaria. It is possible that the verb had to or must ([Greek]) refers merely to this circumstance; namely, that in order to save time and needless steps, a traveler coming from the country-region of Judea had to go through Samaria if he desired to reach Cana in Galilee. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that our Lord's consciousness of fulfilling the divine plan is constantly stressed in this Gospel (see 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; 14:31) and is implied also in the immediate context (4:1–3), it is more probable that the meaning here is: he had to go through Samaria in agreement with the orders of his heavenly Father: to do the will of the One who had sent him and to accomplish his work (4:34). 5. So he came to a Samaritan town called Sychar. Having entered the province of Samaria, Jesus reached the fork of an old Roman road, just south of Sychar at the site of present-day Askar, with Joseph's tomb near-by. To the w.n.w of Sychar or Askar is Gerizim, the mount of the blessing (Deut. 27:12). Behind Askar and to the n.e. of Gerizim rises the more elevated Ebal, the mount of the curse (Deut. 27:13).^[91] Today a modern city of considerable size is situated at the foot and on the slopes of Mt. Gerizim. It is called Nablus, which is an Arabic corruption of Neapolis (new city). On the southern slope of Gerizim one finds the synagogue of the Samaritans that contains the scrolls of the Samaritan Pentateuch, to which the owners ascribe a fantastic antiquity. The biblical city of Shechem was located not far from the present Nablus. On Shechem see Gen. 12; 34; 37:12, 13; Josh. 21:21; 24; Judg. 9; I Kings 12:25; Jer. 41:5. Jesus stopped at a spot about one-half mile's.s.w. of Sychar, near to the parcel of ground which Jacob had given to his son Joseph. According to (Gen. 33:19Jacob, on his return from Paddan-aram, had bought a field from the children of Hamor for a hundred pieces of silver. The ground purchased was probably a rather extensive tract, much larger than the burial-lot which contains Joseph's tomb. It probably included the place where the well was dug, which was therefore near the burial-lot of Joseph. However, it would seem that the Amorites failed to honor this business-transaction, and that they acted as if the land h ad never been sold to Jacob. So Jacob had to regain his property by force of arms. Later he gave it to his favorite son Joseph. We readGen. 48:22): Moreover, I have given to thee one portion (literally shoulder or mountain-slope, Hebrew shechem, from which the city of Shechem derived its name) above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow. When Joseph was about to die in Egypt, he requested that when the Lord would visit his people by bringing them back to the land of the fathers (Gen. 50:25, 26) his body would be buried there (Gen. 50:25, 26). This was done, as is recorded in Josh. 24:32: And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money; and they became the inheritance of the children of Joseph. 6. It was on this piece of land which Jacob once had owned, and not far from the lot where Joseph had been buried, that Jesus stopped in order to rest a while. The place was admirably suited to this purpose, for Jacob's Spring (or Jacob's Well) was there. Jews, Samaritans, Mohammedans, and Christians agree in associating this spring with the patriarch Jacob. There is not a good reason to doubt the truth of this tradition. We must distinguish between two terms used in this account: spring^[92] ([Greek], probably in 4:6 in the sense of spring-fed well) and well ([Greek]). The first term occurs in 4:6, 14. In 4:6 (used twice in that verse) it probably refers to the fact that water was known to be bubbling up at the bottom of the pit. The second term is found in 4:11, 12. It indicates any kind of well, whether spring-fed or not. The shaft of Jacob's Well at the time of this story and again today is more than 100 feet deep. The debris, which collected during the intervening centuries, and which caused so many commentaries to say that the depth Isaiah 75 feet, has been removed in recent years. The well is surrounded by the walls of a convent. The water of Jacob's Spring is very refreshing, not inferior in quality to that of the surrounding springs. The question has often been asked, Why did Jacob dig a well here, when an unusually copious water-supply was gushing out of the near-by mountains of Samaria? The answer may be that other fountains sometimes were dry in the summer or that he wanted his own well on his own ground for his own flocks, He did not desire to have any trouble with the neighbors regarding water-rights. For the troubles of his father Isaac regarding wells see Gen. 26:15. So Jesus, travel-weary (fatigued as a result of a long journey), was sitting by the spring, just as he was; i.e., tired, dusty, and thirsty. The Fourth Gospel stresses not only the divine but also the human nature of Jesus; see p. 84. The Greek preposition [Greek], which we have translated by, has as primary meaning upon. The phrase in which it occurs can, therefore, be rendered upon (the curbstone of) the spring. Yet, in view of the fact that this preposition (used here with the locative) can also have the secondary meaning by or at, which is simpler (requiring no mental insertion of words which are not actually found in the text), it is probably better to give it that meaning here, just as in 5:2. It was about the sixth hour. (For the difficult problem of time-computation in the Fourth Gospel we refer to what has been said on pp. 104, 105.) Here in 4:6 the Roman civil day computation so that it would be either 6 A. M. or 6 P. M. when Jesus arrived at the spring can lay claim to many arguments in its favor. However, we must immediately modify this statement, for 6 A. M. is obviously out of the question, in view of the entire context. We are not saying that it is entirely impossible that the Jewish time-reckoning is followed here, so that it was noon when our Lord arrived at the well. Nevertheless, we prefer the theory that it was 6 P. M., and this on the basis of the following considerations: (1) This was the usual time for drawing water (Gen. 24:11). The fact that a woman comes to this well all alone does not prove anything to the contrary. Let it be borne in mind that there were several springs in the immediate vicinity, so that it may not have been strictly necessary for all the women of Sychar to go to this one.^[93] Or the other women may have come a little earlier, not wishing to associate with this particular woman, for obvious reasons (4:16–18). (2) There would still be plenty of time for the events recorded in verses 27 40. Besides, it is certainly more likely that the Samaritans in great numbers would resort to Jesus in the cool of the evening, when the work was done, than at high noon. (3) If it was toward evening (6 P. M.), we can also understand the request of the people that Jesus abide with them (4:40), which reminds one of Luke 24:29: Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is now far spent. We admit, of course, that a similar request could have been made any time of the day, but it was most appropriate in the late afternoon or evening. 7 10. At Jacob's Spring she sees a stranger. It is Jesus who, in obedience to the will of the Father and in complete harmony with his own inner desire (4:34), is going to direct every effort to manifest his glory in the land of the Samaritans, gathering fruit for eternal life (4:36). By means of this woman the Lord purposes to reach her neighbors. He will prove to be the Savior not only for his elect in Judea but also for those in Samaria. The contrast between the third chapter of John (Christ's work in Judea) and the fourth (his work in Samaria) is very striking. In the former Jesus was described as dealing with a man (Nicodemus); here, in chapter 4, with a woman; there with a Jew, here with a Samaritan; there with a person of high moral standing, here with an individual of low repute. Nevertheless, the Lord proves himself able to save both. Now in the process of winning the soul (Prov. 11:30; Dan. 12:3; James 5:20) of this woman Jesus appeals to her sympathy, to her curiosity, to her desire for ultimate rest and satisfaction ( whoever drinks the water that I shall give him will in no way be thirsty again forever ) and to her conscience. He addresses himself to every phase of her personality in order that the goal may be reached. And what is the woman doing? One would almost be justified in saying: for a while she is trying her utmost not to be saved, as will be shown. Nevertheless, though she opposes the efforts of Christ, the bulwarks of opposition are being broken down one by one, until finally, and in her case perhaps rather suddenly, grace penetrates and achieves the victory. However, that victory of grace over sin in her own life is presupposed (cf. 4:34, 36) rather than explicitly stated. The real topic is not the salvation of this soul, nor even the salvation of many souls in the province of Samaria, but rather the manner in which by means of this work the glory of God in Christ is made manifest. There came a woman of Samaria. The idea is not that the woman came all the way from the city of Samaria, a two hour walk at least! What is meant is that she was a native of the province of Samaria. She came to draw water. Hence, we can picture her carrying her water-pitcher (4:28) upon her head or, like Rebecca, upon her shoulder (Gen. 24:15), as she walks from her home in Sychar (4:5, 28) in a southerly direction to Jacob's Spring. How many people living today would not consider it rather burdensome to have to walk even this half mile to get water? The Samaritan woman would agree with them (4:15). Appealing then to her sympathy Jesus said to her, Give me a drink. It is reasonable to assume that the request was made after the woman had drawn the water; see on 4:28. It was an altogether natural request, for Jesus was, indeed, thirsty. At the same time it was also a manifestation of divine strategy and of psychological insight, for if you wish to gain entrance into the heart of another person two methods can be employed: a. do that person a favor; b. give that person an opportunity to do you a favor. Often b. is more effective than a. Rightly considered, however, Jesus combined the two (a. and b.)! 8. The request of Jesus was also very natural for this reason that he was alone, there was no one else to serve him; and he had nothing with which to draw water. His disciples (see on 2:2) were gone away into the town in order to buy articles of food, i.e., to purchase provisions. It would seem that at this time Jews and Samaritans, though mutually hostile, still had dealings with each other to some extent (Jews could buy from Samaritans), which observation should guard us against a wrong interpretation of the parenthetical sentence in 4:9. 9. Nevertheless, the relation between Jews and Samaritans was by no means cordial, as is evident from what the woman now says in answer to the request of this stranger. So the Samaritan woman said to him, How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a Samaritan woman? Christ's accent and pronunciation probably sufficed to indicate to this woman that the stranger was a Jew. In order to understand the religious enmity between the two peoples it is necessary to give a brief review of the history of the Samaritans. When Israel's last king Hosea, after first paying tribute to Assyria, transferred his allegiance to Egypt, Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom, was surrounded by the armies of Shalmaneser and after a long siege was taken by Sargon. This was in the year 722 b.c. Most of the people were driven forth from their country and carried away to Assyria, Halah, and the Habor, the river of Gozan, and the cities of the Medes (II Kings 17:3–6). The very poor were allowed to remain behind in the land of Israel. Foreigners from Babylon and surrounding territories were brought to the devastated region, and these intermarried with the Israelites which had been left behind. To this mixed population was given the name Samaritans (after Samaria, the metropolis, founded by Omri). The colonists from foreign lands were not pleased with conditions as they found them. They found the country overrun by wild beasts, and they correctly ascribed this plague to the displeasure of Jehovah whom they had offended. They begged their monarch to send them an Israelitish priest, who would teach them the law of the god of the land. And so it came about that an adulterated Judaism was grafted on the pagan cult. When a remnant of the Jews returned to the land of the fathers (chiefly, but not exclusively, from those who had been deported in the Babylonian Exile of 586 b.c.), built the altar of burnt-offering, and laid the foundation of the temple, jealous Samaritans and their allies interrupted the workEzra 3and 4 . The reason for this was that they had been refused permission to cooperate in the work of rebuilding. They had asked: Let us build with you; for we seek your God, as you do; and we sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assyria, who brought us up hither. The answer which they had received was as follows: You have nothing to do with us in building a house unto our God. Having received this blunt refusal, the Samaritans hated the Jews (Neh. 4:1, 2) and subsequently built their own temple on Mt. Gerizim. This was destroyed by one of the Maccabean rulers, John Hyrcanus, about the year 128 b.c. The worshipers, however, continued to offer their adorations on the summit of the hill where the sacred edifice had stood. They do so even today. At Passover the entire community leaves home and camps on top of Gerizim where, when the full moon rises, the highpriest intones the prayers, and the slaughterers cut the throats of the lambs just as they did many, many centuries ago. The Samaritans now number about 270 people. Of the Old Testament they accept only the five books of Moses. It seemed for a while as if the sect was doomed to extinction, owing to their close inbreeding and the great shortage of women among them. Of late, how ever, they have begun to marry Jewish women, The unfriendly sentiments of the Jews with respect to the Samaritans may be gathered from such passages as 8:48 and (the apocryphal book) Ecclesiasticus 50:25, 26. The similarly hostile attitude of the Samaritans toward the Jews is shown in (Luke 9:51 53. Our Lord's lovingkindness overleaped the boundaries of national hatred as is shown not only here in John 4but also in Luke 9:54, 55; 17:11–19; and in the Parable of the Good SamaritanLuke 10:25 37). Having now briefly reviewed the history of the relation between Jews and Samaritans, we are somewhat better prepared for the woman's question, How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a Samaritan woman? Nevertheless, unless another factor is taken into account, we might still be tempted to ask, If Samaritans were willing to sell victuals to the Jews (4:8), why should they not be willing to offer them water? Or, the question might be stated thus, If the disciples of Jesus could buy food from the Samaritans, why did the woman consider it so strange that a Jew would ask her for a drink? The explanation is found in the explanatory note (whether added by John himself or another the textual evidence is indecisive does not matter): (For Jews do not use [vessels] together with Samaritans.) The verb which we have translated (do not) use [vessels] together with ([Greek]) in all probability should not be translated have (no) dealings with. As a matter of fact the Jews did have dealings with the Samaritans, but according to Pharisaic interpretation of the laws of purity (Lev. 15) Jews and Samaritans were not allowed to use drinking-vessels together.^[94] It is for this reason that this woman, realizing that Jesus will have to use her pitcher, is greatly surprised and, perhaps also somewhat pleased that this Jew addresses her and is willing to drink from her pitcher. 10. Our Lord makes use of this aroused feeling of surprise on her part, and fans into flame her curiosity in order that her respect for him may increase, and the work of rescuing this soul from the fetters of sin and evil may make further progress. Though he does not answer her question in so many words, he does not ignore it. He shows that the question is based on an erroneous presupposition. She proceeded from the assumption: you, a Jew, are needy and helpless.& I, a Samaritan woman am self-sufficient and therefore able to supply your need. Jesus, by his answer, shows that the very opposite is the case: she is the one who needs the water, and he is the Fountain that is able to supply it! Cf. Rev. 3:17. Hence, we read: Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that said to you, Give me a drink, you would have been the one to ask him, and he would have given you living water.^[95] We have in these words another glorious mashal. (We refer the reader to what has been said on this subject in connection with 2:19.) The term living water lends itself to a twofold interpretation (just as do the mysterious terms in 2:19 and 3:3). A riddle-like character of the saying causes reflection, wonderment. It will make the woman ask questions. And that is exactly what Jesus wants. Even though she does not grasp the significance of his words at once, she will revolve them in her mind, until by and by, with dramatic suddenness, all will become clear. This, as we have said before, is divine pedagogy! When Jesus spoke about the gift of God, he meant living water. But living water could mean spring-water (Gen. 26:19), which bubbles up by itself, in distinction from rain water, which must be collected in a cistern or reservoir. Of course, it happens at times that a shaft is sunk into the earth until a spring is reached. Jacob's Spring illustrates the point exactly. Hence, when Jesus said, he would have given you living water, the woman interprets this to mean, he would have given you not the water which has for some time been standing in the well but the spring-water at the bottom of it. However, in the mind of Christ fresh and pure and never-ceasing spring-water was a symbol of everlasting life or salvation. As yet the woman does not know who he is namely, the Author of salvation nor what is meant by the living water of which he speaks. Note also this point: there is a mild rebuke in the words of Jesus; as if he had said, I asked you for ordinary water, the lesser gift, but you hesitate; if you had asked me for living water, the supreme gift, I would not have hesitated but would have given it to you at once. However, the rebuke is softened by the clause: If you knew the gift of God and who it is, implying, You did not know. 11. She said to him, Sir, you have no rope-bucket, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water? Jesus had told the woman that to the one who asks him he gives the living water. Thinking that the reference was to the spring-water at the very bottom of the well, the woman answered, Sir, you have no rope-bucket (from [Greek], bilge-water in a hold; hence, [Greek]: to bale out, to draw out; and [Greek]: the rope-bucket used to draw water out of a well). As the woman sees it, two obstacles make it impossible for Jesus to supply this living water about which he has been speaking: a. he has no rope-bucket; but even if he had one, b. the well ([Greek], see on 4:6) is deep (again, see on 4:6). How then will anyone be able to get at the spring-water that bubbles up at the very bottom of this well, below the standing water? The woman is thoroughly perplexed and mystified. What this stranger is saying seems to be absurd. Meanwhile, however, she keeps on revolving the riddle in her mind! 12. She continues, Surely, you are not greater, are you, than our father Jacob (through Joseph the Samaritans traced their descent to Jacob, conveniently forgetting their mixed ancestry), who gave us this well (explained in connection with 4:5), and he himself drank from it, and so did his sons and his flocks (flocks, literally: nurselings, whatever has to be nourished or fed; here the reference is to animals). Though the question anticipates a negative answer, yet the woman shows that she is beginning to ponder the greatness of this stranger. Thus, she is being made receptive for the Gospel. 13, 14. Has she questioned the stranger's superior greatness? Jesus now indicates that he is, indeed, greater by far than Jacob, for the gift which he bestows is infinitely more precious than the one bequeathed upon posterity by the patriarch. It is in this sense that Christ's answer must be interpreted: Jesus answered and said to her, Whoever drinks this water will get thirsty again; but whoever drinks the water that I shall give him will in no way be thirsty again forever, but that water which I shall give him will become a spring of water that keeps on bubbling up unto everlasting life. Thus Jesus appeals to her craving for ultimate rest and satisfaction. Note the contrast which Jesus draws here: Physical water from Jacob's Well: The Living Water which Jesus Bestows: (1) cannot prevent one from becoming thirsty again &and again &and again. (1) makes one lose this thirst for all time to come; i.e., gives lasting satisfaction. Once a believer, always a believer. Once reborn, always reborn. Cf. 6:35; also Is. 49:10; Rev. 7:16, 17; 21:6; 22:1, 17. (2) remains outside of the soul, and is incapable of filling its needs. (2) enters into the soul and remains within, as a source of spiritual refreshment and satisfaction. (3) is limited in quantity, lessens, disappears whenever we drink it. (3) is a self-perpetuating spring (the progressive idea; see also on 1:12). Here on earth it sustains a person spiritually, with a view to the everlasting life in the realms above. 15. The woman by this time has become aware of the fact that Jesus (verse 14) is referring to a very special kind of water. Hence, she said to him, Sir, give me this water &Nevertheless, she still believes that this water, no matter how precious it may be, is physical in character. She believes that it can prevent physical thirst: &that I may not get thirsty nor have to keep on coming so far (present subjunctive [Greek]) to draw. Ordinarily, if she wanted the water from Jacob's Well, she would have to walk those ten minutes from her home to this well, and she would have to do this every day, at least once a day. Hence, she yearns for the water which not only quenches but prevents thirst. You would have been the one to ask for this gift of God, Jesus had said (4:10). Now she actually asks, Sir, give me this water. Yet, her request is not in compliance with the hint contained in verse 10, for she does not yet recognize the spiritual nature of the gift of God neither does she know the character of the Giver. 16. Many see no connection between the woman's request, Sir, give me this water, (verse 15) and Jesus reply. He said to her, Go, call your husband and come back here. They are of the opinion that the Lord changes the subject at this juncture. Others, in somewhat similar vein, suggest that what Jesus meant was something like this: Since you, woman, are so slow of understanding that you do not perceive that in mentioning living water I was speaking about a spiritual gift, I now consider your case hopeless. Please call your husband. Perhaps, I can succeed better with him. However, in that case we would have to suppose that Jesus actually did not know that she had no husband; but the context informs us that he did know this (4:17, 18). There is, however, a close connection between the woman's request and Christ's command. Does the woman desire living water? Then there must be a thirst for this water. This thirst will not be truly awakened unless there be a sense of guilt, a consciousness of sin. The mention of her husband is the best means of reminding this woman of her immoral life. The Lord is now addressing himself to her conscience. 17, 18. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Very abrupt is the woman's answer. She, who has been so very talkative (note 4:11, 12, 15), suddenly becomes close-mouthed. It is interesting to count the number of words in her various replies: according to the Greek, in verse nine she uses 11 words (Syriac, closely related to Samaritan, also 11 words); in verse fifteen, 13 words (Syriac, 15); in verses eleven and twelve, 42 words (Syriac, 29); but in verse seventeen, only 3 words: not I-have husband ([Greek]; Syriac, also only 3 words)! Is she single then? A widow, perhaps? She knows very well that her curt reply does not do justice to the truth! She is throwing up her guard. She refuses to be exposed or unmasked. She is by no means immediately ready to make a full confession of her sins. That is what we meant when we said (see on 4:7–10): One would almost be justified in saying: for a while she is trying her utmost not to be saved. But the Lord does not leave her alone. He finishes what he has begun. Jesus said to her, You were right when you said, A husband I have not. Note that Jesus lays all the emphasis on the word husband, placing it first in the sentence, whereas in the woman's speech it had been the last word. (This, at least, is true in the Greek, which is of some significance. The fact that some manuscripts have the same order of words in both cases is probably due to harmonistic corruption). The woman is living with a man. She has a paramour; not a husband, not even in a loosely legal sense. Jesus continues, &for five husbands you have had, but the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have stated correctly. How the Lord, in this one sentence lays bare her entire past and present life (cf. 4:29)! If even among the Jews many people followed the laxer school of Hillel in interpreting the divorce-regulation of Deut. 24:1, so that as a result a husband would divorce his wife if she did not exactly please him, it is easy to see that among the Samaritans conditions touching marriage and divorce were not any better. This woman had had five husbands. (It is, of course, possible that one or two had died.) Jerome makes mention of a woman who had had no less than twenty-two husbands! There is nothing new under the sun. How did Jesus know all this? (See p. 191.) In his conversation with this woman the Lord had indicated that she should obtain a saving knowledge of a. the gift of God; i.e., the living water; and b. the Giver of this gift (see 4:10). By exposing her sin Jesus is preparing her heart for the knowledge and reception of the gift (4:16–18). By revealing and laying bare her entire immoral present and past life he is revealing the character of the Giver (4:17, 18). He manifests himself as One who according to his divine nature is the Omniscient One! Thus he also answers the question of 4:12. 19. The woman said to him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. The woman does not deny the remarks of Jesus concerning her immoral life. In fact, by calling him a prophet (which to her meant one who can read secrets) she really admits her guilt! It is clear from 4:29 that this stranger's résumé of her evil conduct shocked her beyond words. Though she did not see in him the Messiah, nevertheless, such penetrating knowledge makes her think of the coming Messiah who will know and will declare everything. 20. She continues: Our fathers worshiped on this mountain (perhaps pointing to Gerizim), but you say that the place where one must worship is in Jerusalem. Some commentators see in this remark the (implied) question of one who is seeking information on a matter in which she was really interested. Others look upon it as an artful and clever device to divert the conversation from a very painful topic to one of a much more innocent character. The following, as we see it, must be borne in mind: a. When Scripture does not reveal inner motives, it is generally best not to speak with the air of certainty. One must often be satisfied with probability. b. A probable answer or solution will be one which does justice to the requirement of consistent character portrayal. On this score the theory that the woman, by means of her remark about the proper place of worship, was trying abruptly to break off and change the subject merits consideration, for this is exactly what she had tried once before (4:17). Nothing is more common than for sinners to make an attempt to change the subject in order to avoid painful reminders of sinful conduct. c. Nevertheless, why should it be considered impossible that both classes of commentators are correct, except, of course, in so far as an interpreter of the one class definitely rejects the solution favored by the other class? In fact, does not this appear to be the most plausible? Here, as it seems probable to us, we see a woman who in her anxiety to drop a painful subject proposes a question about which she has heard much and in which she has developed a certain interest. This interest has been stimulated by the stranger at the well, who has shocked her to the very depths of her being. The Holy Spirit is working in her heart. Though she does not cherish the idea of dwelling any longer on the subject of her immoral life, she is beginning even now to regret her condition. But where will she go and what must she do? Must she worship on Gerizim or at Jerusalem? (See what has been said, in our explanation of 4:4, 5, 9. about Gerizim and the worship at that place.) Our fathers (Gen. 12:7; 33:20) had erected altars at Shechem on or near Gerizim's slopes. And the Samaritan Pentateuch substitutes Gerizim for Ebal in Deut. 27:4. The Jews, on the other hand, placed great stress on Jerusalem as the one, central place of worship.^[96] Who was right? is the implied question. 21. Jesus answers that not where one worships matters but the attitude of heart and mind and the obedience to God's truth regarding the object and method of worship is what matters. It is not the where but the how and the what that is all-important. Jesus said to her, Believe me. He said this in order to emphasize the startling character of the declaration which he is about to make. The expression the hour is coming, is found also in 4:23; 5:25, 28; 16:2, 25, 32. When the Lord continues, when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father, he predicts that God's elect from every tribe and nation will serve him (Zeph. 2:11; Mal. 1:11). The clause may be paraphrased thus: the hour is coming when neither exclusively in this mountain nor exclusively in Jerusalem will you worship the one and only Father (through Jesus Christ) of the Church Universal. That is his answer with respect to the where (which already contains a hint with respect to the how and the what). 22. With respect to the what the Lord continues, You (Samaritans) worship what you do not know i.e., the creature of your own imagination, having rejected the prophetical and poetical books of the Old Testament; we (Jews) worship what we know i.e., God as revealed to us in the entire Old Testament, for salvation is from ([Greek]) the Jews. Literally he says the salvation; i.e., that specific rescue from the guilt, pollution, and punishment of sin, and that sum-total of every spiritual endowment, which God grants to his people on the basis of the redemptive work of his Son. That this salvation proceeds from the Jews is clear from Ps. 147:19, 20; Isa. 2:3; Amos 3:2; Mic. 4:1, 2; Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:3–5; 9:18. 23. Finally, anent the how and the what Jesus states what is found in 4:23, 24. He introduces this great saying by employing an expression that is also found in 5:25, The hour is coming yea, has already arrived!. In the mind of our Lord the perfected state of the future is foreshadowed in the present. The present is the future in embryo. Thus, the kingdom of heaven is both future and present. This holds also with respect to everlasting life. It is true that the worship of the Father in spirit and truth will not reach perfection until the great day of the consummation of all things; but even now the religion of the old dispensation, which attached so much importance to stipulated seasons, places, and outward observances, is beginning to vanish. Very soon the veil of the temple will be rent in two from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51), and with it the last remnant of the validity of ceremonial worship will cease to exist. & when the genuine worshipers (i.e., those deserving of the name) will worship the Father in spirit and truth. The verb will worship (fut. indicative of [Greek]) in the Fourth Gospel never means merely will respect; see also 4:20, 21, 22, 24; 9:38; 12:20. The final phase in spirit and truth has been interpreted variously. The context should decide. Jesus has been emphasizing two things: a. worship which is worth the name is not hampered by physical considerations; e.g., whether one prays at this place or at that place (4:21); and b. such worship operates in the realm of truth: clear and definite knowledge of God derived from his special revelation (4:22). In such a setting, it would seem to us, worshiping in spirit and truth can only mean a. rendering such homage to God that the entire heart enters into the act, and b. doing this in full harmony with the truth of God as revealed in his Word. Such worship, therefore, will not only be spiritual instead of physical, inward instead of outward, but it will also be directed to the true God as set forth in Scripture and as displayed in the work of redemption. As some see it, a humble, spiritual attitude means little. According to others, truth or doctrinal soundness is of no importance. Both are one-sided, unbalanced, and therefore wrong. Genuine worshipers worship in spirit and truth! For such are the very people whom the Father is seeking as his worshipers, not in the sense that there are individuals who have made themselves such worshipers, and that the Father is, as it were, searching for them; but in the sense that he keeps on intensely yearning for his elect in order that he may make them such worshipers. His seeking is saving (Luke 19:10). It is ever God who takes the initiative in the work of salvation; it is never man (cf. 3:16; 6:37, 39, 44, 65; 15:16). 24. The necessity for distinctly spiritual worship is rooted in the very being of God: God is Spirit. In the original ([Greek] A [Greek]) the subject, God, stands last and is preceded by the article. The predicate, Spirit, is the first word of the sentence, and is not preceded by the article. (Cf. our remarks on the grammatical construction of the third clause of 1:1.) The predicate is placed first for the sake of emphasis: completely spiritual in his essence is God! He is not a stone-deity or tree-deity, neither is he a mountain-deity so that he has to be worshiped on this or that specific mountain; e.g., Gerizim! He is an independent, incorporeal, personal Being. Hence, those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Genuine worshipers not only will worship the Father in spirit and truth; they must do so. Jesus places his own must over against that of the woman (cf. 4:24 with 4:20). 25. The thoughts of the woman have been directed toward the expectation of the coming Messiah. The stranger's penetrating knowledge about her own life (4:17, 18; cf. 4:29) and his deep insight into the essence of God and of all true worship (4:21–24) remind her of certain traditions which, on the basis of Deut. 18:15, 18, had been transmitted to the people of Samaria. Not that she in any way recognized this stranger as being the Messiah. Far from it; but by what he had said he made her think of the Messiah. Hence, we are not surprised to read, The woman said, I know that Messiah is coming, the One who is called Christ (an addition by John, the author, for the sake of his readers in Asia Minor); whenever he arrives, he will declare everything to us. The fact that among the Samaritans, too, there was a Messianic expectation (note that the woman even employs the tern Messiah as a proper name without preceding article) is clear from this passage, from Acts 8:9, and from Josephus, Antiquities XVIII, iv, 1. Nevertheless, as to time of fulfilment the hope in the woman's heart was rather vague. She says, Whenever he arrives; it may be tomorrow, but it may also be several years from now. The fact which should be emphasized, however, is this: she now hopes! She is beginning to yearn for Messiah, the One who will tell her just what to do for her own sinful condition; nay more, the One who will openly declare (cf. 16:13, 14, 15) everything, not only to her but also to her people. 26. And now the supreme moment of Messianic self-disclosure has arrived. Jesus said to her, I, the One who is talking to you, am he. This is the greatest surprise of all! But this is also the only solution to all the problems and the only answer to all the questions that have arisen in this woman's heart. Did this woman accept Jesus as her Lord? If so, why is this not stated in so many words? Anent these questions we refer to what has already been said in our explanation of 4:7–10. When the further question is asked, How is it that Jesus disclosed himself to her as the Christ and not to everyone with whom he came into contact? we answer that it was well-pleasing in the sight of the Father to hide this great fact from the wise and understanding but to reveal it to this predestined child of his (Matt. 11:25, 26). Was it safe for Jesus to reveal himself as the Messiah? In this connection it must be borne in mind that, as far as we know, Jesus performed no miracles in Samaria. Such deeds of power at times resulted in the perversion of the concept of the Messianic office (cf. 6:15). Also, after a stay of only two days (4:40) he again proceeded on his way toward Galilee, so that there was hardly sufficient time in which the declaration, I am Messiah could have aroused opposition from the side of the authorities, bringing about a premature crisis Synthesis of 4:1–26 See the Outline on p. 68. The Son of God revealing himself to ever-widening circles: to Samaria: the conversation with the Samaritan Woman. In order to prevent a premature crisis Jesus left Judea for Galilee. He had to go through Samairia. He reached Sychar, located in this province, and sat down, weary and thirsty, at Jacob's Spring or Well. Here he engaged in a conversation with an immoral Samaritan woman. He asked her for a drink, spoke to her about the living water which he himself was able to supply, told her that this living water would not only quench thirst but would even prevent its recurrence, revealed to her the secrets of her own immoral life, showed her the character of true worship, and finally disclosed himself to her as the Messiah. The woman's heart rebelled against the disclosure of her sinful state and she tried to change the subject. It seems at first as if the woman is in control of the conversation and as if the Lord allows himself to be sidetracked. However, without realizing it, the woman is being led to the goal established by the Lord himself. Is this woman, in her attempt to evade the real issue, a symbol of the sinner as he is by nature? Is the manner in which Christ addresses her an example for us to follow in working with the lost? This section shows a progressive series of surprises. Little by little Jesus reveals who he is; and, in complete correspondence with this gradually ascending self-disclosure, the woman's confession also advances, so that she sees in this stranger first a Jew; then, a prophet, finally, the Christ. 4:27–42 27 And at that moment his disciples came, and were amazed that^[97] he was talking with a woman. Yet no one said, What do you desire (of her)? or, Why are you talking with her? 28 So the woman left her water jar and went back to town, and she said to the people. 29 Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. He is not, perhaps, the Christ, is he? 30 They went out of the town and were coming to him. 31 In the meantime his disciples kept urging him, saying, Rabbi, eat. 32 But he said to them, I have food to eat of which you have no knowledge. 33 The disciples then were saying to each other, Surely, no one has brought him food? 34 Jesus said to them, My food is to^[98] do the will of the One who sent me, and to accomplish his work. 35 Are you not saying, There are yet four months; then comes the harvest? I say to you. Look, lift up your eyes and scan the fields that^[99] they are white for harvesting. 36 Already the reaper receives wages and gathers fruit for everlasting life, in order that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together. 37 For in this is real the proverb,^[100] One is the sower, and another the reaper. 38 I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor. 39 Now many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the word of the woman who testified, He told me all I ever did. 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they kept urging him to remain with them. And he remained there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 And they were saying to the woman, It is no longer because of your talk that we believe, for we ourselves have heard, and we know that this is really the Savior of the world. 4:27. And at that moment his disciples came. Note: at that moment! The disciples had finished their business in Sychar and naturally returned to the well. Jesus had just made his great declaration, reaching a climax in a manner that was wholly natural and unforced. Yet, the divine providence is such that at that exact moment not earlier, so that the conversation with the woman would have been interrupted; nor later, so that the disciples would have missed this great event (their Lord condescending to a Samaritan woman) with all its missionary implications the disciples arrived! This is a glorious manifestation and illustration of the operation of God's providence for the furtherance of his kingdom. They came and were amazed (kept on wondering) that he was talking with a woman. Was he not a rabbi? Then how could he ignore the rabbinical rule: Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no not with his own wife? The disciples were receiving a lesson in the true emancipation of womanhood. Though they continued to wonder at what they saw and heard, their reverence for their master was so great that no one said, What do you desire (of her)? The answer, had it been given, would have been, To receive from her physical water. Nor did any one ask, Why are you talking with her? The answer, had it been given, would have been, To give her living water. 28. So the woman left her water jar and went back to town, and she said to the people. The wonderful news which the woman had just received (and which she just had to tell others), as well as the arrival of the disciples, caused her to go back to town. She left her water jar at the well. Very generally this is interpreted to mean that in her excitement because of the strange happenings she forgot her pitcher as she hurried back to tell everybody the news. According to many, the story of the woman's water jar is as follows: a. To the well comes this woman equipped with a pitcher to draw water. Before she draws it, a tired traveler we know that it was Jesus asks her for a drink. b. The conversation continues, in which she becomes so interested that the water jar remains empty. c. Having heard the stranger's great declaration, she rushes off, forgetting all about the jar. More natural, however and also more in keeping with the correct translation of the parenthetical clause of verse 9 is the following construction: a. To the well comes this woman equipped with a pitcher to draw water. She draws water, filling her pitcher. Viewing the filled jar, a total stranger, whom she recognizes to be a Jew and who is sitting by the well, asks her for a drink. b. Knowing that it is not customary for Jews to use vessels together with Samaritans, she does not immediately offer the requested gift, but asks the stranger to explain his strange request. An increasingly interesting and revealing conversation develops. c. Having heard the stranger's great declaration, and being now fully convinced that genuine worship is of an entirely spiritual nature and that accordingly there can be no basic objection to the idea of Jews and Samaritans drinking from the same pitcher, she purposely leaves the jar at the well, so that Jesus may quench his physical thirst, and so that he may know that she has taken to heart the lesson anent the nature of true religion. Afterward, having led a multitude of people to the well, she can retrieve her pitcher. In this connection we should remember that 4:28 does not say she forgot (Phil. 3:13), but she left ([Greek], first aorist active indicative of [Greek]) her water jar. Exactly the same form of this verb was used earlier, in this same chapter (4:3): the Lord &left Judea (A [Greek] &[Greek] ). He did not forget Judea but he purposely left it. So here also: she did not forget her water jar but she purposely left it, left it there for him to use. 29. In Sychar this woman, having gathered a crowd, exclaims, Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Here she reveals the wisdom of Philip when he spoke to Nathaniel (1:46). Though we have no reason to doubt that in her own heart she is already convinced that Jesus is, indeed, the Christ, she very wisely formulates her question in such a manner that the people will have to arrive at their own answer. She said, He is not, perhaps, the Christ, is he? 30. They went out of the town and were coming to him. The crowd rushed off immediately (aorist tense) and is pictured in the act of proceeding toward Jesus (imperfect tense). In verse 35 the disciples are told to lift up their eyes and see these people as they are approaching the well. In verse 40 they have arrived. 31. In the meantime his disciples kept urging him, saying, Rabbi, eat. Genuine concern for the physical needs of Jesus finally overcame the disciples amazement. So, in the meantime i.e., from the woman's departure to the arrival of the Samaritans his disciples kept urging him, saying, Rabbi, eat. (On the term Rabbi see 1:38, footnote 44.) As these men saw it, it was time to eat. Besides, Jesus must be hungry by now. Hence, let him eat. 32. But the Lord replied, I have food to eat of which you have no knowledge. In the original of verse 32 the term translated food is [Greek]; while in verse 34 it is [Greek]. John uses the two terms apparently with very little difference in meaning. In its primary sense the first one signifies eatingI Cor. 8:4: Concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols ; and from this it develops into a synonym for food, just as in our English vernacular we speak of good eating or eats. The second terms means food, victual(s), anything that is eaten, and in that sense meatI Cor. 6:13: Meats for the belly . 33. In verse 34 Jesus himself explains the character of this food; see on that verse. It is spiritual nourishment. Because the disciples had not been present during the conversation with the woman, they had no knowledge of this mysterious food to which the Lord referred. As so often in this Gospel see on 2:19 the disciples, just like the Samaritan woman (4:11, 15), interpret his words literally. They are pictured as asking each other, Surely, no one has brought him food? It is hard for them to imagine that in the land of the Samaritans anyone could have brought food to Jesus! 34. Jesus said to them, My food that which imparts satisfaction to me and in which my soul delights is to do the will of my Sender i.e., the Father (5:36) (see also 3:34) and to accomplish his work. i.e., to bring this work to its predestined goal; to fulfil and finish it. In the night of the Supper, a few hours before his death on the cross, Jesus, using a participle of the same verb, said, I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished ([Greek]) the work which thou hast given me to do (17:4). The nature of that work is indicated in 17:4, 6 (see in Vol. II). A verb ultimately derived from the same root is used in 19:28, 30, spoken when Jesus bowed his head and gave up his spirit: [Greek], i.e., It is finished. 35. Are you not saying, There are yet four months; then comes the harvest. The disciples were saying this. The harvest in this region being in April (or early May), it was now December (or early January). For, this is probably not a proverb indicating the usual time-interval between seedtime and harvest. Aside from the fact that four months would be incorrect (for the interval is actually longer), and that no such proverb or anything resembling it has been found anywhere, the adverb yet would seem to be hardly fitting. In a proverb one would expect simply: There are four months between seedtime and harvest, or simply, There are four months; then comes the harvest, but not, There are yet four months; then comes the harvest. The words which introduce the chronological indication Are you not saying prove nothing either way. The disciples had been observing the month-old verdure, and they had just now been saying, &yet four more months; then comes the harvest. In the mind of Jesus there is a close relationship though also a contrast (see on 4:36, 37) between the physical and the spiritual harvest. In the verses which follow, the Lord bases his remarks upon this relationship. We should bear in mind that by this time the procession of Samaritans (4:30) was becoming plainly visible as coming across the fields it approached the well. Pointing at this harvest of faith (4:39) Jesus says to his disciples, Look, lift up your eyes, and scan ([Greek]; see on 1:14 footnote 33) the fields, that they are white for harvesting (4:35). Though the grain-harvest may still be four months off, the soul-harvest is ripe for the plucking even now! When Jesus tells the disciples to ponder the spectacle of the approaching Samaritans, and to consider them to be fields ready for harvesting, does this not clearly imply that he is sending out his disciples to gather this harvest?^[101] 36. The word already ([Greek]) belongs to verse 35, not to verse 36, where it would be redundant. Already not four months from now as is true with respect to the physical harvest the reaper receives wages, a reward; and gathers fruit for everlasting life, he is gathering fruit destined for everlasting life. (For meaning of everlasting life see on 1:4 and 3:16.) Thus, the sower and the reaper rejoice together. Generally there is a considerable interval between sowing and reaping. But in this case hardly any time had elapsed between the sowing of the seed and the reaping of the harvest. Hence, in order that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together. Christ, the Sower, and the disciples, as reapers, rejoice together. The prophecy of Amos 9:13is fulfilled: Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and the hills shall melt. 37, 38. The disciples, therefore, as reapers, will be able to rejoice in a spiritual crop which they themselves have not planted. For, the rule in the realm of the spiritual is that the sower and the reaper are two different persons. Hence, Jesus continues: For in this the proverb is real attains its most striking illustration. In the realm of the natural the proverb One is the sower and another the reaper often corresponds to the actual facts of life; e.g., a man may reap where he has not sown (Deut. 6:11; Josh. 24:13), or a sower may never experience the joy of reaping (Deut. 28:30; Job 31:8; Mic. 6:15): someone else gathers in the harvest. But in the realm of the spiritual it is the usual thing that one man reaps where another has sown. Each kingdom-worker is at the same time reaper (of that which has been sown by others) and sower (of seed which brings forth a harvest that will be gathered by others). Hence, both sower and reaper rejoice in this divine arrangement: there will always be a harvest to reap. I sent you to reap, says Jesus. The question has been asked, What act of commissioning does this sentence indicate? It cannot refer to what is recorded in (Mark 3:13 19nor to the contents of Mark 6:6 13Matt. 9:35 11:1), for the events there described had not yet taken place. Besides, in these passages the disciples are charged to sow rather than to reap. It is also open to doubt whether Jesus has in mind 4:2 which refers to the work of the disciples in Judea. Far more in harmony with the present context, it would seem to us, is the thought that Jesus referred to the commissioning that is so clearly implied in 4:35. (See comments on 4:35.) I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor. Right here in Samaria the Lord had just now commissioned his disciples to reap that for which they had not labored. Others had labored among these Samaritans, and now the disciples have been commissioned to enter into (i.e., to gather the fruits of) their labor. But who were these others who had toiled (worked with much effort)? At this point many introduce Moses, the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, etc. More definitely in harmony with the historical facts and with the immediate context is the inference that the Lord here refers to himself think of the labor of love which he had performed here at the well, as recorded in 4:1–26 and the Samaritan woman, whose preparatory labor is recorded in 4:29, 39. Both Jesus and the Samaritan woman had been laboring among these Samaritans: Jesus indirectly, via the Samaritan woman; she, in turn, directly, among her neighbors. Into this labor the disciples now entered. 39. The story begun in 4:28, 29 is now continued. Now many of the people of Sychar believed on him because of the word of the woman, who testified, He told me all that I ever did. i.e., they were deeply impressed by the mysterious powers of one who was able to reveal a person's past. 40. They were, moreover, friendly to Jesus, not hostile. In fact, they were so eager to meet this stranger personally, in order to see for themselves, that they came to him. They were also hospitable toward Jesus and kept on urging him to remain with them. Jesus did not evangelize the province of Samaria. In harmony with the will of his heavenly Father (4:4) he remained there two days only, and he limited his work to one small village. Therefore, nothing in this account conflicts in any way with the order issued to the disciples in (Matt. 10:5. And that order, it must be borne in mind, was of an entirely temporary character. It was set aside and supplanted by the great commissionMatt. 28:18–20). Much fruitful labor was carried on in the city and province of Samaria at a later time (Acts 8). 41. And many more believed because of his word. The attitude of the Samaritans at the well contrasts sharply with those other Samaritan villagers who later refused to receive him because he was on his way to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51 56). Nevertheless, we need not suppose that the faith of all these people of Sychar who went out to see Jesus was saving faith. With some it probably remained on the level of 2:23. (See comments on 2:23.) With others, we may safely assume, it rose to the highest level after they had heard the word of Jesus himself. Also, the number of those who accepted him because of his own word was far larger than the number of those who had believed on him as a result of the woman's testimony. 42. And they were saying. That far larger group of believers now address the woman in these words: It is no longer because of your talk that we believe, for we ourselves have heard, and we know that this is really the Savior of the world. Note in this connection: (1) The talk (! [Greek]) of the woman is here (in 4:42) contrasted with the word (A [Greek], 4:41) of Christ. However, in 4:39 the woman's testimony (for [Greek] and [Greek] see on 1:7) is called her word ([Greek]). (2) What these Samaritans say involves a principle that has validity for all time: personal contact with Christ is necessary to make faith complete. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER V 5:1–18 5 1 After these things there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now in Jerusalem by the sheep-gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Bethzatha, which has five porticoes. 3 In these lay a crowd of invalids, blind, lame, shriveled up. 5 Now there was a certain man there who had been afflicted with his illness for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw this man lying there, and when he knew that he had been in that condition for a long time, he said to him, Do you want to get well? 7 The sick man answered him, Sir, I have no one to^[109] put me into the pool when the water is disturbed; and while I am coming, another steps down ahead of me. 8 Jesus said to him, Get up, pick up your mat and walk. 9 All at once the man was healed, and he picked up his mat and was walking. That day was sabbath. 10 So the Jews were saying to the healed man, It is sabbath; it is against the law for you to carry your mat. 11 But he answered them, The man who healed me, it was he who said to me, Pick up your mat and walk. 12 They asked him, Who is the man that said to you, Pick up (your mat) and walk? 13 Now the healed man did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped out of the crowd that was in that place. 14 After these things Jesus came across him in the temple, and said to him, See here, you have been healed. No longer continue in sin, or something worse may happen to you. ^[110] 15 The man went back and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. 16 And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the sabbath. 17 But he answered them, My Father is working until now, and I too am working. 18 So for this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, because not only did he break the sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 5:1. The phrase after these things ([Greek], which occurs in 3:22; 5:1, 14; 6:1; 7:1; 13:7; 19:38; and 21:1) does not necessarily indicate a long time afterward (in 19:38 that cannot even be the meaning). It is, however, distinguished from the expression after this ([Greek], which is found in 2:12; 11:7, 11; 19:28 and in all these passages refers to events that occurred shortly afterward) in being more indefinite. It simply gives no hint with respect to the length of the period which elapsed since the events took place that were last recorded. Hence, we do not know just when the great miracle on which our attention is fixed in this chapter occurred. We do know that it was when there was a feast of the Jews; but this indication, too, is rather indefinite. To which feast does the author refer? In discussing this question the following Table of Jewish Festivals which require consideration in this connection may be helpful. The names of the months are, of course, approximate; i.e., they do not correspond exactly to those of the Jewish religious calendar. The period covered extends from Christ's baptism to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. MARCH APRIL MAY OCTOBER DECEMBER During the Year 26 a.d. Dedication During the Year 27 a.d. Purim Passover 2:13, 23 Pentecost Tabernacles Dedication cf. 4:35 During the Year 28 a.d. Purim Passover 5:1? Pentecost Tabernacles Dedication During the Year 29 a.d. Purim Passover 6:4 Pentecost Tabernacles 7:2, 37 Dedication 10:22, 23 During the Year 30 a.d. Purim Passover 12:1; 13:1; 19:14 Pentecost Acts 2:1 By glancing at this Table it is immediately obvious that the feast indicated in 5:1 cannot belong to the year 26 a.d. or even to the year 27 a.d., for 4:35 already carried us to December of 27 a.d. It has been suggested that the Passover mentioned in 6:4 is that of 28 a.d., and that, accordingly, the feast of 5:1 is Purim of that year. Against this view we present the following objections: (1) Having left Judea for the reason stated in 4:1–3, 43, 44, Jesus would not have returned to that region so soon afterward unless it would be for the purpose of attending one of the three pilgrim feasts. (2) Purim was not a pilgrim feast. It was celebrated in the local synagogues where for that occasion the book of Esther was read amid great joy. (3) The Passover mentioned in 6:4 carries us to the close of the Great Galilean Ministry. Now if that Passover occurred in 28 a.d. this entire lengthy ministry, during which so very many events occurred, would be crowded into a period of four months. This will never do. Now if the feast of 5:1 was not Purim of 28 a.d., and if (as is clear from 6:1: after these things) it cannot be the Passover of 6:4, then the latter must be dated in the year 29 a.d. We arrive at the conclusion, therefore, that the feast of 5:1, if it was one of the three Jewish pilgrim feasts,^[111] must have been either Passover or Pentecost or Tabernacles of the year 28 a.d. Of these three the term feast of the Jews (5:1) is used elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel to indicate either Passover (6:4) or feast of Tabernacles (7:2). In both cases, moreover, the original has the definite article preceding the noun feast. Accordingly, the omission of that article here in 5:1 according to the best textual evidence, does not decide the question either way. We conclude, therefore, by stating as our opinion that this unnamed feast a. was one of the three pilgrim feasts; b. must be dated in the year 28 a.d.; and c. was, in all probability, either Passover or feast of Tabernacles (without ruling out the possibility that it was Pentecost). In favor of the Passover two additional arguments are sometimes presented: 1. this is supported by the tradition of Ireneus, and 2. this was the only feast which the Israelites were required to attend. However, the evidence is not entirely conclusive. We read that it was Jesus who attended the feast: And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Nothing is said in this entire chapter with reference to his disciples. But this does not prove that they did not accompany him. It is possible that here as elsewhere (e.g., in 3:22 cf. 4:2) the entire group went up, though the name of the leader alone is mentioned. (Anent the expression he went up to Jerusalem see 2:13.) 2. Now in Jerusalem by the sheep-gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Bethzatha, which has five porticoes. Not far from the sheep-gate (St. Stephen's?), probably called thus because through it many sheep were led for the purpose of being sacrificed in the near-by temple-court, there was a pool. Popularly, this pool is known as Bethesda (house of mercy), but the reading Bethzatha (Aramaic: house of the olive-tree?) has better textual attestation. After much guess-work with respect to the identity of this pool, its site has finally been established to the satisfaction of most scholars. The pool (or, in reality, the reservoir which formed it) was laid bare in the year 1888 in connection with the repair of the church of St. Anne, in n.e. Jerusalem. A faded fresco on the wall pictures an angel troubling the water. It appears, therefore, that by the early church this pool was viewed as Bethzatha. In the time of our Lord it had five porticos or covered colonnades where the sick could rest, protected from inclement weather.^[112] 3. Now in these five porticoes or wards lay a crowd of invalids of every description; particularly, blind, lame, and shriveled up; i.e., withered or paralyzed (Mark 3:3; Luke 6:6). Apparently the sick man whom Jesus cured was one of these withered ones. It is worthy of note that not only cripples and paralytics but also blind people sought healing at this pool. Did any blind person ever receive his sight at the Pool of Bethzatha, or was it thus, that the benefit which the lame man received caused the blind man to imagine that for him too there might be a cure? After 5:3 of the A.R.V., the A.V. has the following: Verse 3 b: &waiting for the moving of the water. Verse 4: For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water; whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. None of the best and most ancient manuscripts have these words which, accordingly, have not been retained in the A.R.V.^[113] On the other hand, Tertullian (about 145 220 a.d.) already shows that he knows this passage; for he states: An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill health used to watch for him; for whoever was the first to descend into these waters, after his washing ceased to complain (On Baptism V). The following, it would seem to us, is a reasonable position with respect to the entire story and particularly with reference to the words that are omitted in the best ancient manuscripts and also in the A.R.V.: (1) It is probably much more difficult to explain how it came about that these words were omitted from all the best manuscripts if they were really a part of the original text than to account for the manner in which they may have crept into the text (e.g., as a marginal gloss which was intended as an explanation of the disturbance of the water, mentioned in 4:7, and which ascribed this troubling to the periodic visit of an angel). (2) On the basis of the text as it is found in the best manuscripts and in the A.R.V. (hence; with 4:3b and 4 omitted) there is no necessity to believe that the agitation that occurred in the water was actually due to any supernatural cause. Also, the idea that whoever, after such a disturbance, was the first man to step into the pool was healed is not presented here as being necessarily the belief of the author of the Fourth Gospel nor as the teaching of the Holy Spirit but as the implied opinion of the sick man (4:7b). (3) On the other hand, it is certainly true that the possibility of supernatural, angelic activity must not be ruled out. It should never be forgotten that an interpolation from the margin into the text may be correct. In the days of our Lord's earthly ministry angels come into prominence again and again, and unusual powers and energies play an important role. (4) It must be stressed, however, that the miracle which occurs here when this sick man is cured is ascribed not to any medicinal virtue inherent in this particular pool, nor to any angelic activity, but to the power and the love of Jesus! In fact, when the Lord heals this man he does not even make any use of the pool (II Kings 5:10, 14). And it is on this miracle that we should place all the emphasis; not on the question whether or not miracles were constantly taking place at this pool. 5. Now there was a certain man there, i.e., among the invalids there was one man who more than any other attracted the attention of Jesus. He was the man who had been afflicted with his illness for thirty-eight years. This, of course, does not mean that he had been here at this pool for that length of time. The reason why John has selected this miracle for inclusion in his Gospel has already been stated (see pp. 33–35). 6. When Jesus saw this man lying there, and when he knew that he had been in that condition for a long time. Jesus saw this man; undoubtedly he looked upon him with an eye of sympathy (Mark 8:3; 10:21), probing his very soul. The Lord knew that the invalid had been in that lamentable condition for a long time. Where did Jesus obtain this knowledge? There are three possibilities, none of which should be ruled out in this connection: (1) Someone may have given him this information in a perfectly natural and human manner. In that case we should translate, And when he was informed.& (2) The Father may have revealed it to him. (3) Christ's divine nature may have imparted this knowledge to his human nature in a manner which we do not understand. Knowing, then, that this man had been in this condition for a long time, Jesus addressed him. He said to him, Do you want to get well? Does this question imply that the soul of this man had actually descended to that morbid state where he had lost the very will to be cured? Whether or not this was the case, in all probability these words were spoken in order to bring him to an open acknowledgment of his deep misery and of his inability to deliver himself from it; so that, in turn, this confession might cause the miraculous recovery to stand out in bolder relief. The question of Jesus also contains a promise of help. 7. The sick man answered him, Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is disturbed; and while I am coming, another steps down ahead of me. It seems that the rule at this pool was, Everyone for himself, No one had ever helped this invalid whose power of locomotion, due to his physical affliction, was very limited. He was never able to proceed fast enough: someone always stepped down into the pool ahead of him. And if, in this connection, it be remarked that today matters are different there would be someone to help: an attendant or a nurse, it should not be forgotten that such improved present-day conditions, wherever they occur, can be largely traced back to the influence of the loving and sympathetic heart of Christ, as revealed in Scripture, including the present chapter. As has already been remarked, the cause of the water's disturbance may have been supernatural or natural. If natural, then it would seem that the sudden bubbling up was caused by an intermittent spring by which the pool was fed. In general it may be stated that it is never uncommon for people, afflicted with various illnesses, to gather around mineral springs. Think of the springs around Tiberias or, in our own country, of the waters of Hot Springs, Arkansas, which long before the Spaniards arrived were already being credited with healing virtues. 8. When the sick man complained, in utter hopelessness, that someone always stepped down into the pool ahead of him, did the light of sympathy and encouragement that was shining in the eyes of the Lord revive hope to some extent, especially in view of the question which Jesus had asked: Do you want to get well? Did it occur to the invalid that, perhaps at the next disturbance of the water-surface, this stranger might be willing to put him into the pool? What a welcome surprise he received when suddenly the Healer addresses him in never-to-be-forgotten words: Jesus said to him, Get up, pick up your mat, and walk.^[114] What a challenge this was to a man who had just now confessed his own complete inability! The mat to which Jesus refers ([Greek], cf. the Latin grabatus) was a camp-bed, pallet, pad, or thin mattress. The man was told to pick this up and to start walking. 9a. All at once the man was healed. He obeyed and was healed all at once ([Greek]). The very fact that the author of the Fourth Gospel, in contrast with Mark, seldom uses the expression all at once, straightway, or instantly (also in 6:21 and 18:27; for [Greek] see 13:30, 32; 19:34) indicates that he wishes to place special stress on this sudden and complete character of the cure. Once more the glory of the Son of God stands revealed. This recovery is neither gradual nor partial; nor, we may well add, was the sickness faked (as some, nevertheless, have supposed). All so-called faith-healers should make a close study of this wonderful account. At the word of Jesus new strength and vigor surged through this man's whole body; and he picked up his mat and was walking! 9b, 10. That day was sabbath. So the Jews were saying to the healed man. The day on which Jesus healed this man was a sabbath. So a controversy develops between Jesus and the Jews (for the specific meaning of this term in the Fourth Gospel see on 1:19). The Pharisees had superimposed upon the law of God their own hair-splitting distinctions and rabbinical restrictions. This was true particularly with reference to the sabbath, as has been shown in connection with 3:1. Instead of looking upon it as a day of special consecration unto works of gratitude for the salvation which God had given, they viewed it as a day of cessation from all (common) work with a view to the salvation which man must merit. For them the sabbath meant idleness; for Christ it meant work. Nevertheless, for them it constituted hardship; for him, rest. As they saw it, man was made for the sabbath; as he knew it, the sabbath was made for man. Hence, the Jews said to the healed man, It is sabbath; it is against the law for you to carry your mat. They referred, undoubtedly, to Ex. 20:10and more specifically to Jer. 17:19 27( Thus said Jehovah, Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day.& ) and to Neh. 13:15( In those days saw I in Judah some men treading winepresses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses therewith; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals ). In these passages the reference is, however, clearly to that type of burden-bearing which was connected with the performance of ordinary labor for gain, with trading and marketing. By forbidding a cured man to pick up his mat as if that were comparable to a burden which he was carrying to the marketplace in order to sell it at a profit! they were making a caricature of the law of God. 11. The reply of the cured one was to the point. He answered them, The man who healed me, it was he who said to me, Pick up your mat and walk. His reasoning was as follows: one who performs so glorious a deed instantaneously granting complete recovery to a shriveled up individual whose body had been in that atrophied condition for thirty-eight years! has a right even on the sabbath to tell that healed person what to do. 12. They asked him, Who is the man (i.e., the fellow, in a tone of derision) that said to you, Pick up and walk? They do not ask, Who healed you? They are not at all interested in this man's glorious recovery. They are interested only in their hair-splitting man-made regulations. In their great zeal for the maintenance of the latter they even forget to see the utterly ridiculous character of their complaint: they do not seem to realize that, after all, it was only a mat (see p. 192) that the man was carrying. Hence, they omit even this word. As they saw it, the sin which the man was committing was this, a. that he had picked up something, anything, it hardly mattered what it was, and b. that he was walking away with it! They are logical, however, when they attempt to trace the awful deed to the one who had commanded it to be done. 13. Now the healed man did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped out of the crowd that was in that place. The healed man had not learned the identity of his Benefactor, for immediately after performing the miracle Jesus had slipped away from the crowd of sabbath-sick-visitors. Was it in order to avoid a public demonstration that Jesus had slipped away? Or, perhaps, in order that he might face the religious leaders themselves rather than their followers? Or, as others have thought, in order that he might give this healed person an opportunity to be strengthened in his convictions by being compelled to express them without help from anyone? Whatever may have been the reason or combination of reasons, the fact remains that the healed man was unable to point out who it was that had changed his sadness to gladness. 14. After these things Jesus came across him in the temple, and said to him, See here, you have been healed. No longer continue in sin, or something worse may happen to you. On the phrase after these things see on 5:1. Jesus came across the healed man in the temple; probably in the court of the Gentiles. Whether this meeting occurred the same day or the next day or still later cannot be established from the text. Neither is there anything in the text or context that indicates the purpose for which the healed man had gone to the temple. There were many reasons strictly or not so strictly religious why Jews, in great numbers, would enter the house of God and spend a while there. Hence, it is not at all certain that the man's presence in the temple at this particular occasion was in order to bring a thank-offering to God for his recovery. On the other hand, the reason why Jesus continued to work with him would seem to be far more obvious. In the entire account of the healing of this man (5:1–13) nothing at all was said with respect to a change in his spiritual condition. His body had been healed. So it is no wonder that the Healer now restores the soul. Jesus, accordingly, addresses him in these words, See here, you have been healed. No longer continue in sin, or something worse may happen to you. In our interpretation of this passage we disagree with those commentators and there are many! who draw the conclusion that the Lord meant to say, More than thirty-eight years ago you committed a sin. As a result, you became physically deformed and paralyzed. Now I warn you not to sin again, or something worse may happen to you. On the contrary, the present tense of the verb ([Greek] ), so that we translate, No longer continue in sin, rather shows that Jesus is referring not to what supposedly happened more than thirty-eight years ago but to the present condition of the man.^[115] Right now he was in the state of being unreconciled with God. Jesus knew this. Hence, he warns him not to continue in this condition. Otherwise there is in store for him something worse than the physical illness from which so recently he had been delivered. Is it not probable that by something worse Jesus meant to indicate eternal punishment? From this it is clear that the account does not contain a single word with reference to the cause of the man's physical illness. This explanation also harmonizes with the words of Christ in 9:3. 15. With gratitude in his heart the man went back and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. However, we note an interesting difference between the question of the Jewish religious leaders, and the answer given by the man. They had asked, Who is the man that said to you, Pick up and walk? But he answered, It is Jesus who healed me. He places the emphasis where it belongs; namely, on the healing, in which the Jews had shown so little interest. 16. So intense is the anger of the Jewish authorities when their attention is fixed upon Jesus that they determine in their hearts to persecute him even unto death. And for this reason the Jews were persecuting. The verb refers to continued hostile activity. It became more and more definite and determined until it finally nailed Christ to the cross. On the progressive character of this persecution see p. 236. The reason for the hatred is stated in these words: because he was doing these things (healing the man and telling him to pick up and walk) on the sabbath. 17. Did the Jews at this moment begin to address Jesus personally, accusing him of violating the sabbath? Or did the Lord, reading their hearts, address them first? Either way, in defence Jesus points out that in performing this work of mercy on the sabbath he had acted in conformity with the example of his own Father (note my Father; and see on 1:14, the nature of Christ's sonship) and in conformity with the mandate which he had received from him. Do the Jews really mean to say that the essence of the sabbath is idleness, and that all work on that day is wrong? But then would they not be accusing God himself of sabbath-violation? If up to this very moment the Father of Jesus is carrying on the work of preservation and redemption, how should not the Son, who stands in the closest possible relation to him (5:19–23), do the same? In the final analysis, Father and Son are engaged in one task. Hence, we read: But he answered them, My Father is working until now, and I too am working. 18. So, for this reason ([Greek], just as in 4:16) the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; i.e., they were already determined to bring him to death because not only did he break the Sabbath, (in their estimation he was a sabbath-violator), but now this determination became even more intense, active, and energetic; the added reason being: but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. By the words, he also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God, the author once more brings into clear view the purpose of his Gospel. That purpose was to strengthen believers so that they might continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might continue to have life in his name (20:30, 31). In addition to his stand with respect to the sabbath it was his claim of being equal with God that nailed Christ to the cross. When the Jewish authorities heard Jesus call God my (own) Father, they did not do what many moderns have done. They did not try to tone down the character of Christ's sonship. They immediately understood that Jesus claimed for himself deity in the highest possible sense of that term. That claim was either the most wicked blasphemy, to be punished with death; or else, it was the most glorious truth, to be accepted by faith. The very character of the sign which Jesus had just now performed should have caused these religious leaders to adopt the latter alternative. Instead, they chose the former. Synthesis of 5:1–18 See the Outline on p. 68. The Son of God Rejected in Judea, as a Result of Healing the Man at Bethzatha on the Sabbath, and of Claiming Equality with God. For fully eight months Jesus had been carrying on his teaching and healing ministry in Jerusalem and Judea. Then, after a stay of only two days in Samaria, he had entered Galilee. Here, too, he had already performed many miracles, one of them being the cure of the courtier's son, a very remarkable sign, especially in view of the fact that it was performed at a distance of about sixteen miles from the abode of the sick child. The Great Galilean Ministry had already been in progress for at least four months. During the course of this ministry the Lord was fulfilling the prophecy of Isa. 9:1, In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulum and the land of Naphtali; but in the latter time hath he made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. Galilee was full of excitement and enthusiasm, but not of true, saving faith. Now it was during the course of this work in the northern province that Jesus decided to attend one of the three pilgrim feasts in Jerusalem. This was during the year 28 a.d. In Jerusalem he visited the pool of Bethzatha, where he healed a man who had been in his paralytic condition for thirty-eight years. It was on the sabbath that Jesus said to this sick man, Get up, pick up your mat, and walk. The man obeyed and instantly received complete physical recovery. Spiritually also the Lord provided for him, by warning him as he met him in the temple, No longer continue to sin, or something worse may happen to you. When the Jewish authorities saw the man carrying his mat on the sabbath, in obedience to Christ's command, they criticized both him and his Benefactor. Jesus, however, answered, My Father is working until now, and I too am working. The religious leaders at Jerusalem therefore instigated a plot to put Jesus to death, and this for two reasons: a. sabbath-violation, b. blasphemy (making himself equal with God). 5:19–30 19 Jesus answered and said to them, I most solemnly assure you, the Son can do nothing whatever of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and has shown him all that he himself is doing, and greater works than these will he show him, in order that you may be amazed. 21 For even as the Father raises the dead and imparts life to them, so also the Son imparts life to whom he wills. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 I most solemnly assure you,^[116] he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has everlasting life, and does not come into condemnation, but has passed out of death into life. 25 I most solemnly assure you,^[116] the hour is coming yea, has already arrived! when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted to the Son also to have life in himself, 27 and he gave him authority to function as Judge, because he is the Son of man. 28 Stop being surprised about this, for^[117] the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and will come out: those who have done good, for the resurrection of life, and those who have practised evil, for the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can do nothing whatever of myself; as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 5:19. Instead of in any way seeking to moderate his earlier statement (verse 17) which had aroused the anger of the Jews, Jesus strengthens it by means of a. the majestic introductory formula I most solemnly assure you (see on 1:5) and b. the rest of the contents of verses 19 23. The passage under discussion may be paraphrased as follows. Do you Jews accuse me of transgressing the Father's sabbath-ordinance and of blaspheming his name by claiming equality with him? The charge is absurd, for in that case the will of the Son would be separate (not merely distinct) from the will of the Father and would even oppose the latter. But as a matter of fact the Son can do nothing whatever ([Greek] &[Greek] &[Greek]) of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing; for here, indeed, is the perfect pattern of that which is so often seen on earth; namely, that whatever he (the Father) does that the Son does likewise (here, indeed, there is flawless correspondence). 20, 21. I have a right to say this, for ([Greek]), being myself the Son, I know that the Father loves ([Greek]; see comments on 21:15–17) the Son, and has shown him all that he himself is (constantly) doing in working out his eternal plan of redemption. The performance of miracles e.g., the healing of this man at the Pool also belongs to the working out of this eternal plan; and greater works than these wonders of healing the sick will he (the Father) show him (the Son) namely, bringing to life those who are dead, and pronouncing judgment with reference to all in order that you, already astonished because of the miracle at the Pool, may really be amazed. For even as the Father raises the dead and imparts life to them (both to those spiritually dead, and to those physically dead, the latter in the day of judgment) so also the Son, for he is equally sovereign, imparts life to whom he wills. 22, 23. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that is, the Father never acts alone (in separation from the Son) in pronouncing judgment, but has committed all judgment to the Son (both for the present, in the sense of 3:18b, 19; and with respect to the future, in the sense of Matt. 25:31ff). Thus, the Father always works through the Son, in order that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father; that is, in order that those two persons who are equal in essence (5:17, 18) and in works (5:19–22) may also be equal in honor. You unbelieving Jews, who have determined in your hearts to put the Son to death (5:18) should not imagine that you can honor the Father: he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 30. Quickening the dead and pronouncing judgment were the two greater works which the Father had assigned to the Son (see verses 20b, 21, 22 above). As the terms to judge and judgment are used in verses 24, 27, 29, we refer to our explanation of 3:17–19 for further comment. In the present paragraph we are told: a. How the Son performs this work at present in the spiritual sphere (verses 24, 25); and c. How he is going to accomplish this task in the future in the physical realm (verses 28, 29). Between these two passages there is one which shows b. How it is to be explained that the Son is able to carry out this double assignment (quickening the dead and pronouncing judgment) in the present and in the future, and this in both spheres (verses 26, 27). d. The closing passage (verse 30), on the basis of a, b, and c, reaffirms the Son's perfect unity with the One who sent him. Subdivisions a. and c. (verses 24, 25 and verses 28, 29) are clearly distinguished by the words the hour is coming, yea, has already arrived of verse 25, and the words the hour is coming of verse 28. The first passage, accordingly, deals with the first resurrection; namely, that of the soul; the second subdivision describes the second resurrection; namely, that of the body. We meet exactly the same sequence of events in another work by the same author (John); namely, in the book of Revelation, where the former is discussed in 20:4–6; the latter in 20:11 ff.^[118] Note the parallel: Fourth Gospel Revelation A. First Resurrection A. First Resurrection I most solemnly assure you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has everlasting life &has passed out of death into life. I most solemnly assure you, the hour is coming yea, has already arrived! when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. &and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded &and such as worshiped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.& This is the first resurrection. & and (he) does not come into condemnation. (For the solemn introductory formula see on 1:51.) Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection: over these the second death has no power. B. Second Resurrection (unto judgment) B. Second Resurrection (unto judgment) Stop being surprised about this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out: those who have done good, for the resurrection of life, and those who have practised evil, for the resurrection of condemnation. And I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it.& And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works: And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.& And if any was not found in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. On the basis of this comparison a few conclusions are warranted: 1. Though it is often maintained that the Fourth Gospel contains no teaching with reference to the last things, this is not true, as the present paragraph shows. See also 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48; 14:3, 28; 15:18 ff.; 16:1 ff.; 16:19 ff.^[119] 2. The first resurrection has nothing to do with the body; it concerns the soul. As soon as the word of Christ is accepted by faith one has everlasting life (on this see 1:4; 3:16) and has passed out of death into life; and what else is this but the first resurrection, which, though beginning here on earth, culminates in the life of the soul with Christ in heaven? In the passage from Revelation it is especially the latter phase of this first resurrection which receives the emphasis. 3. One who takes part in the first resurrection (i.e., one who has embraced Christ by a living faith) need not fear the coming day of judgment. In the language of the Fourth Gospel he does not come into condemnation ([Greek] ); in the language of Revelation over these the second death (in which the sentence of condemnation is executed) has no power. 4. The second resurrection is physical in character.^[120] It pertains to the great day of the consummation of all things. It is universal: all will be raised: both believers and unbelievers. 5. Neither the Fourth Gospel nor Revelation teaches that a period of a thousand years will intervene between the physical resurrection of believers and the physical resurrection of unbelievers: the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out. And I saw the dead, the great and the small &books were opened and another book was opened.& And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them. It is all as general as possible. Calvin is right when he remarks that here in John's Gospel (5:28) the expression all who are in the tombs will come out certainly does not imply that those who were devoured by wild beasts or were drowned or burned to death are excluded from the number of those who will arise. When that great hour arrives all arise and all are judged! See also Matt. 25:46; Acts 24:15; II Cor. 5:10; II Thess. 1:7–10. No time-difference is indicated anywhere, not in John's writings, nor in Paul's.I Cor. 15:22, 23; I Thess. 4:13 18teach nothing of the kind, as we have pointed out elsewhere. ^[121] 6. Although as concerns time there is but one, universal physical resurrection, nevertheless, as concerns quality or character we may, indeed, speak of two future resurrections. (Dan. 12:2.) In other words, the one, universal resurrection has two phases, as is taught clearly both in the Fourth Gospel and in the Apocalypse. There is a resurrection of life, on the one hand (qualitative genitive: this resurrection is in harmony with the character of everlasting life; hence, is glorious, etc.), and a resurrection of condemnation, on the other hand (same genitive: this resurrection is in harmony with the idea of condemnation; hence, is unto shame and derision). Believers are raised in order to reign forever and ever with Christ, as to both body and soul (heretofore only as to the soul); unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire. In addition to these remarks which are based on a comparison between the Gospel and the Revelation of John, the following points with reference to John 5:24 30require attention: With respect to a. (verses 24, 25): Spiritual quickening does not occur apart from the word. Nevertheless, the mere hearing of the word is not enough; it must be accepted by faith: he who hears my word and believes. This faith must have as its object Jesus as the Son of God: believes him who sent me. Such a one has everlasting life. The idea that a sinner is by nature dead, so that when the great change takes place he actually passes out of death into life, is found not only here but also in Luke 15:32; Eph. 2:1; 5:14. Regeneration and conversion are basic changes, radical transformations. They are not to be confused with moral improvements whereby, for example, a drunkard renounces the use of liquor. Of course, when the entire personality is regenerated, the morals too are changed. The expression the hour is coming, yea has already arrived refers to this entire new dispensation, which when Jesus spoke these words was both present and future. The Lord is thinking about the hosts of converts that will be drawn out of the darkness into the light, and out of death into life, from the realm of both Jew and Gentile until the day of his second coming. The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. With respect to b. (verses 26, 27): For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted to the Son also to have life in himself, and he gave him authority to function as judge, because he is the Son of man. Just as the Father is self-sufficient, having within himself eternal life, so also the Son has been given to have this life (inherent) in himself; and this explains the fact (note [Greek]) that he is able to grant everlasting life to his elect. In passages of this nature it must be borne in mind that our Lord's mediatorial sonship in which he carries out his task on earth rests upon his eternal, intra-trinitarian sonship. When Jesus spoke these words, the Jews must have asked, Whence does this man derive the right to utter such language? Is he actually going to judge? Jesus points out that this authority to judge (as well as the power to impart life) has been given to him because he is the Son of man. Moreover, the two ideas judging and Son of man always go together in Scripture. (On the title Son of man and its connection with the judgment see our comments on 12:34.) Many commentators suggest that the absence of the article before Son of man here in 5:27 (so that we have [Greek] ) is very significant. On the basis of this absence a host of interpretations of this verse have been offered; especially these two: a. The authority to function as judge had to be given to Jesus because it is as man, and not as God, that he performs this task. b. The authority to function as judge of men was given to him because he too is a man, thoroughly acquainted, therefore, with human thoughts, words, and actions. In order to be a good judge one must share the nature of those who are to be judged. But with all due respect for the ability of those commentators who base their whole exegesis of this passage on the omission of the article, we cannot go along with them in their conclusions. It is, indeed, very doubtful whether the absence of the article should be pressed. It is a well-known fact that official titles have a tendency to lose the article. It would, indeed, be very strange if in this one instance the title had a different meaning than it does in all the other cases. Besides, as was pointed out, the idea that the right to judge was given to him as (the) Son of man, in the messianic meaning of the term, renders excellent sense. It is an eminently scriptural thought, whereas this cannot be said with the same emphasis with respect to either of the other interpretations. With respect to c. (verses 28, 29): The idea of judgment (condemnation and acquittal; with consequent retribution and remuneration) did not take the Jews by surprise. However, what did cause them to be filled with amazement was the claim of Jesus (verses 22 and 27) a claim utterly preposterous and intolerable, as they saw it that he himself had received the right to judge, and that men were being judged and were going to be judged on the basis of their attitude to him. Therefore Jesus says, Stop being surprised about this, for (what I have affirmed is true, as will be shown by the fact that) the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out.& The statement, all who are in the tombs will hear his voice would seem to indicate that instead of being in any sense secret or silent, the second coming is going to be public and audible (as well as visible). Cf. I Cor. 15:52.^[122] Note also that both in the spiritual and in the physical realm the voice of Christ is creative. If it were not, the dead would not be able to hear it! For further comments on this passage (verses 28, 29) we refer to what has already been said on pp. 199–202. With respect to d. (verse 30): In this verse Jesus sums up the entire argument. He has arrived at the conclusion which was already stated at the beginning (see verse 19), but is now emphasized by the use of the pronoun, first person singular; namely that the Jews have no right to judge and condemn him as if what he had done to this man at the Pool on the sabbath (or, in general, as if whatever act he performed) were something for which he alone and not he and the Father was responsible. Says he, I can do nothing of myself. The Jews must know that in criticizing the Son of God they are opposing God himself. The Son as Mediator has received definite information (as to standards of judgment) from the Father. Moreover, inasmuch as his Mediatorial sonship rests upon his eternal sonship, it is clear that he himself desires to do the wholly righteous will of the Father, with whom he is united in essence: as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me ([Greek]; little if any difference between [Greek] and [Greek] in John's usage; see also on 1:6 and 3:34). Synthesis of 5:19–30 See the Outline on p. 68. The Son of God Rejected in Judea, as a Result of Healing the Man at Bathzatha on the Sabbath, and of Claiming Equality with God (continued). In this section Jesus sets forth his claims with respect to his relation to the Father. He does this in answer to the unbelief and hatred of the Jews who are determined to put him to death. The Lord's defence may be summarized as follows: 1. In attacking me, the Son, you are attacking the Father himself, for the Son does what he sees the Father doing; he judges as the Father judges. He cannot do otherwise. Neither does he desire to do otherwise. 2. Are you amazed because of this act of healing a sick man? This was, indeed, a great work, but greater works will follow: imparting life to those who are dead (yes, both to the spiritually dead and, at the last day, to those physically dead) and judging all men (both now and at the Return in glory). 3. Do you question how it is possible for me a. to impart life and b. to pronounce and execute judgment? I can do the former because the Father has granted me to have life in myself (just as he also has life in himself); and the latter, in my capacity as Son of man. 4. The proper reaction to my words and works is not base unbelief and hatred, nor even the attitude of mind that fails to rise above amazement, but faith which honors the Son even as it honors the Father. 5. Those who exercise this faith do not come into condemnation but have even now passed out of death into life. In the great day of judgment they together with all the dead will also arise physically. But though all will be raised, there will be a great difference in the quality or character of their resurrection: those who have done good will come out of their tombs for the resurrection of life; those who have practised evil, for the resurrection of condemnation. Implication: Therefore, embrace by faith the Son of God! Cf. purpose of the Gospel (20:30, 31). 5:31–47 31 If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true.^[123] 32 It is another who testifies concerning me, and I know that the testimony which he bears concerning me is true. 33 You, on your part, have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 But I, on my part, do not accept (mere) human testimony, but I say these things in order that you may be saved. 35 He was the lamp burning and shining. And you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 But I have testimony that surpasses that of John, for the works which the Father has given me to^[124] accomplish, these very works in which I am engaged testify concerning me that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me, he himself has testified concerning me. But his voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; 38 and you do not have his word abiding within you, because in the One whom he sent, in him you do not believe. 39 You are searching the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have everlasting life, and yet it is they that testify concerning me. 40 But you do not want to come to me in order that^[125] you may have life. 41 Praise from men I do not accept, 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father's name, but you do not accept me. If another comes in his own name, him you will accept.^[126] 44 How can you believe, you who accept praise from one another, while the praise that comes from the only God you do not seek? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, since he wrote about me.^[127] 47 But if his writings you do not believe, how will you believe my words? ^[128] 5:31. Jesus has made majestic claims. But who is he to make them? It does not surprise us, therefore, that in the present paragraph the claims are supported by testimonies regarding himself. The Lord begins by saying, If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true. Commentators agree, of course, that these words cannot be taken literally, as if he meant that what he said with reference to himself was not true to fact. If that were the correct interpretation, Jesus would cease to be the sinless One. Other attempts to explain these words are as follows: 1. The meaning is, If I should be testifying concerning myself, my testimony would not be true. Objection: a glance at the form of these words in the original immediately shows that this cannot be correct, for we do not have a contrary-to-fact conditional sentence here, but one that belongs to group III B 1. 2. What Jesus means is, If I present lone, unsupported testimony concerning myself, my testimony is not true. But if that be the meaning here, then why should we not give the same interpretation to the same words in 8:14, Even though I do testify concerning myself, my testimony is true? Jesus says nothing about lone, unsupported testimony. 3. The word true has a different meaning here. The sense of the passage is, If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not admissible in a court of law (Matt. 18:16; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19). But this reasoning would imply that in 8:14 Jesus states that such testimony regarding oneself is admissible in a law-court. Hence, we would have a flat contradiction. The true solution, as we see it, will be found when we realize that Jesus is speaking the language of the people, the vernacular. One of the characteristics of this type of discourse is that it is marked by figures of speech, abbreviated expressions, allusions, overtones, implications which the hearers will immediately catch, etc. We should never lose sight of the fact that those to whom these words were addressed not only heard the actual words, but also saw our Lord's eyes, and took notice of his tone of voice and of the words on which he placed the accent. Bearing all this in mind, we believe that from a certain point of view the situation in which our Lord finds himself as he utters these words can be compared with that of someone who today is addressing a group of people who are not too friendly toward the speaker. Let us say that the latter is an enthusiastic Republican and that he is talking to a group of Democrats. He might address them as follows, If I tell you that Mr. E. (Republican candidate for President) is the best man this country could ever elect as President, then, of course, I'm a liar. The hearers would then immediately interpret his words to mean this: If I tell you that Mr. E is the best man the country could ever elect as President, then, of course, I'm a liar in your estimation. The same, as we see it, holds with respect to our present passage (5:31). Jesus simply means, If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true in your estimation. In other words, You will then immediately raise the objection, You are testifying concerning yourself; hence, your testimony is not true. This interpretation is certainly supported by the fact that this very thing happened a little later, as indicated in 8:12, 13. There Jesus is recorded as testifying concerning himself, and saying, I am the light of the world. Immediately the Pharisees shout their objection, You are testifying concerning yourself; your testimony is not true. 32, 33. Jesus continues, It is another who testifies concerning me, and I know that the testimony which he bears concerning me is true. Without in any way admitting that his own testimony with reference to himself would not be reliable, Jesus now introduces another witness, who is constantly bearing witness to him. Jesus by virtue of the fact that he is himself the Son of God knows that the testimony of this other one is true. He does not say, however, who this other witness is. We know from verses 36, 37 that the reference is to the Father. Meanwhile the Jews, who did not know, are guessing, wondering whom Jesus has in mind. Is he referring, perhaps, to John the Baptist? Perceiving what is going on in the minds of his audience, Jesus continues, You, on your part, have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. The reference is to the testimony of John which is found in 1:19–28, given to a delegation that had been sent to him. (See explanation on 1:19–28.) The Baptist's testimony to the truth, however, is found not only in that paragraph but also in 1:29–36 (see explanation), and in 3:22–36 (see explanation). In brief it amounted to this: I (John) am not the Christ; Jesus is the Christ; he is the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world; it is upon him that I saw the Spirit descending and remaining; he is the Bridegroom; he is the One who came from above and is above all; he speaks the words of God, and is himself the Son of God. 34. Why did Jesus mention this testimony of the Baptist? Was it because he needed it for himself? No! After all, he says, I, on my part, do not accept (mere) human testimony. So it was not at all his intention, on his own behalf and in his own defence, to appeal to the testimony of man and to rest his claim upon it. On the contrary, he said these things because this testimony regarding him was true, and in order that they might accept it, take it to heart, and be saved. Says Jesus, I say these things in order that you may be saved. 35. The Lord continues, He (John) was the lamp burning and shining. While Jesus calls himself the light ([Greek] ), he calls John, the lamp (A [Greek]). A lamp must be lit, and its wick must be fed with oil; moreover, it illumines a very limited space. Though we believe that the choice of the word was intentional, nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the contrast between lamp and light is the idea which predominates in the mind of the Lord. After all, Jesus himself is also a lamp (Rev. 21:23). He is the lamp of the new Jerusalem. The emphasis in 5:35 is rather on the fact that the Baptist, as lamp, was burning and shining (for the latter term see on 1:5), so that, as a result, it attracted people! The context clearly shows that it was this characteristic of the lamp (rather than its contrast with Christ, the light, though this contrast is not excluded) which Jesus wishes to stress; for he continues, &and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. That was the point: just as a lamp attracts moths, so the Baptist attracted crowds of people. Did not even Herod Antipas hear him gladly (Mk. 6:20); that is, for a while? When Jesus says, He was a lamp &you were willing to rejoice, he is evidently referring, by implication, to the fact that the Baptist had been removed from the public scene, and was now in prison! The main purpose of his remark was, however, to point out that though thrill-seekers had been willing enough to rejoice for a while in the light of the Baptist's lamp; they had not been willing to accept his testimony regarding Christ unto salvation. 36. Nevertheless, the remark of Jesus It is another who testifies concerning me (verse 32) did not have reference to John the Baptist. This is very clear from what follows, as Jesus continues, But I have testimony that surpasses that of John, for the works which the Father has given me to accomplish ([Greek]; for this see on 4:34) these very works in which I am engaged testify concerning me that the Father has sent me. The Father's own testimony by means of the works of Christ certainly surpasses the indirect testimony given by John the Baptist. (On references to John the Baptist in this Gospel see pp. 32, 33.) The works in which Jesus is engaged are his miracles, including the healing of the man at the Pool. These works, to be sure, do not of themselves produce faith. They are never as important as are the words of our Lord. Nevertheless, they must not be ignored. They should serve to strengthen faith. Also, they have evidential value, for there was truth in the remark of Nicodemus, No one can do these signs which you do unless God is with him. These signs were a seal of the Father's approval; specifically, of the fact that the Father had commissioned him ([Greek], see on 1:6; 3:34; cf. 5:30). 37. Jesus continues, And the Father who sent me, he himself has testified concerning me. There had been the voice from heaven at baptism (Mark 1:11) to which the Baptist alludes in 1:34. Then, there is also the witness of the Father in the hearts of believers (I John 5:9, 10). Nevertheless, here in this passage (5:37), as is clearly indicated by the immediately following context, it is especially the Father's testimony in the Old Testament Scriptures that is meant. The Father has testified; that is, though he bore witness in the past, this testimony has validity for all time to come: it is there to stay. Jesus adds a word of sharp rebuke, however. Says he, But his voice you have never heard; his form you have never seen. The voice of God is, of course, the Christ himself (5:19; 14:19, 24); the form of God, too, is the ChristII Cor. 4:4, [Greek] likeness, image [Greek]; here in John 5:37the term used is [Greek] external form . The hostile Jews have failed to see in Jesus the voice and the form of God. They have failed through unbelief. 38. That the reference in verse 37 is distinctly to the hostile attitude of the hearers is evident from the following verses (38 40). Jesus does not deny that in a sense the Jews have the word of God. What he does say is that they do not have this word in their hearts as an abiding possession, the reason being that they had not placed their confidence in the One commissioned unto his Messianic task by the Father you do not have his word abiding in you, because in the One whom he sent, in him, you do not believe. They were not able to see, because the veil of unbelief was lying upon the eyes of their hearts (II Cor. 3:15). On the One whom he sent see 3:34; cf. 1:6. What follows in verse 39 is very closely connected with this. 39. Says Jesus, You are searching the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have everlasting life, and yet it is they that testify concerning me. Having read all the arguments of those who insist that the verb [Greek] must be read as an imperative, so that with the A.V. we must read Search the Scriptures, we cannot agree. We take the verb as a present indicative of continued action. Reasons: a. This, as has been shown, is entirely in line with the preceding verse (you have the word, but you do not have it in your heart; so here: you search the scriptures, but you do not find the Christ in them); b. The imperative Search the Scriptures forms a strange introduction to the clause because you think. If the imperative is intended, we would have expected, because you have or because you will obtain everlasting life by searching. On the other hand, the sentence, You are searching the Scriptures because you think that in them you have everlasting life, makes excellent sense. c. The succeeding context also clearly indicates that it is not at all the intention of Jesus to tell his opponents that their sin consists in this, that they do not search the Scriptures. On the contrary, he desires to rivet their attention upon this important truth: Though you have the books of Moses and though you have even set your hope on them, nevertheless, they will not profit you, will rather testify against you because you do not see me in them (see verses 45, 46). Jesus does not deny that in the Old Testament Scriptures men have everlasting life (for this see on 3:16). If the Jews think of their sacred writings as being potentially means of grace, they are right. What the Lord wishes to impress upon them, however, is this: You fail to see me revealed in these scriptures, and yet it is they that testify concerning me. This same truth the Christ in all the Scriptures!, which unlocks the mysteries of the Old Testament (as well as the New), and apart from which the Bible remains a closed book, is also emphasized in the following passages: Lk. 24:32, 44; John 5:46; Acts 3:18, 24; 7:52; 10:43; 13:29; 26:22; 28:23; and I Pet. 1:10. 40. Back of this blindness is the unwilling heart: You do not want to come to me in order that you may have life. In the light of this passage such expressions as you have never heard, you have never seen, you do not believe (5:37, 38) must be regarded as examples of litotes. The real meaning is: in your hardness of heart you have basely rejected the Son of God. 41, 42. What was the reason for the clash between Jesus and the Jews? Their answer to this question would probably have been, He is irked because we criticized him for breaking the sabbath and for implying that he is equal with God; if we had only praised him because of what he did to the man at the Pool, he would have been satisfied. Jesus, who knew them thoroughly and was able to read their very hearts, answers by saying, Praise from men I do not accept. He does not seek it, and is not even willing to receive as valid the praise of unbelievers. Then Jesus gives his own answer to the question respecting the reason for his controversy with the Jews. The real reason is not his yearning for praise but their lack of love toward God. Says the Lord, I know you (how did he know them? see on 5:6) that you do not have the love of God (that is the love for God, objective genitive, as the following context clearly shows) within you. Had there been this love in their hearts, they would, of course, have accepted the Father's testimony concerning his Son. 43. It was easy for Jesus to prove that his statement You do not love God, was true. The proof consisted in this: I have come in my Father's name, but you do not accept me. Though he had come in the name of the Father i.e., not only at his behest, but definitely to reveal him by word and deed yet they had not accepted him. Here is another instance of litotes. They had stubbornly rejected him, and this in spite of all the powerful testimonies enumerated in 5:31–40. If another comes in his own name, him you will accept. This prophecy was fulfilled over and over again. One false Messiah was Theudas; and another, Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:36, 37). Then came Barkochba (132 135 a.d.), whom such a distinguished rabbi as Akiba called The Star of Jacob (Num. 24:17). There have been several scores of others since their days. The last one will be the antichrist himself (II Thess. 2:8–10). All of these present themselves without proper credentials: they come in their own name. Yet people yield their all to them. They lead many astray. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER VI 6:1–21 6 1 After these things Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. 2 And a vast crowd was following him, because they were viewing the signs which he was performing upon the sick. 3 So Jesus went up the hill, and there he was sitting with his disciples. 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was approaching. 5 So when Jesus lifted up his eyes and observed that a vast crowd was coming toward him, he said to Philip, How are we to buy bread-cakes that^[130] these may eat? 6 This he was saying to test him; for he himself knew what he was about to do. 7 Philip answered him, Bread-cakes for two hundred denarii would not be sufficient for them so that each might get a little something. 8 One of the disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to him, 9 There is a young lad here who has five barley-cakes and two fishes, but what are these for so many? 10 Jesus said, Make the people sit down. Now there was plenty of grass in that place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. 11 Jesus, therefore, took the bread-cakes, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them among those that were seated; similarly the fishes as much as they wanted. 12 Now when they had eaten their fill, he said to his disciples, Pick up the pieces that are left, in order that nothing be wasted. 13 So they picked them up, and from the five barley-cakes they filled twelve baskets with pieces that were left over by those who had partaken of the food. 14 So when the people saw the sign which he had done, they were saying, This is really the prophet who is to come into the world. 15 Now when Jesus knew that they were about to come and take him by force in order that they might make him king, he went away again to the hill by himself. 16 And when evening fell, his disciples went down to the sea, 17 and having embarked in a boat, they were proceeding across the sea toward Capernaum. Now it was already dark,^[131] and Jesus had not yet come to them. 18 And the sea was getting rough, as a strong wind was blowing. 19 Now when they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking upon the sea and approaching the boat, and they were frightened. 20 But he said to them, It is I, stop being frightened. 21 Then they were willing to take him aboard, and all at once the boat was at the land where they were going. 6:1. The story opens with the familiar phrase After these things. This has been explained in connection with 5:1. The miracle recorded in this paragraph occurred six months to a year after the events of chapter 5. It took place, in all probability, in April of the year 29 a.d.; see on 5:1. This was a year before Christ's death. The Gospel of John seems to take for granted that the readers are familiar with the contents of the Great Galilean Ministry as found in the Synoptics (Matt. 4:12 15:20; Mark 1:14 7:23; and Luke 4:14 9:17). Having recorded the miracle which occurred at the very opening of this ministry (4:43–54), the evangelist now proceeds at once to the one which marked its close. The miracle of the feeding of the five thousand is recorded in all four Gospels (Matt. 14:13–23; Mark 6:30 46; Luke 9:10 17; John 6:1 15). John's purpose in telling the story is clearly to set forth the majesty of Christ (cf. 20:30, 31). In doing this he furnishes certain details which are not found in the other accounts. Also, he draws a striking parallel between chapters 5 and 6: in the former he has shown how Jesus was rejected in Judea; in the latter he will now indicate how he was rejected in Galilee (compare especially 5:18 with 6:66). The account of this double rejection is necessary in order to furnish a background for the next few chapters, in the sense that it causes the tender love of the Savior to stand out sharply against the background of human ingratitude. The present chapter also reveals, more clearly perhaps that any other portion of Scripture, the kind of Messiah the people wanted; namely, one who would be able and willing to provide for their physical needs. When it seemed to them that Jesus would actually fulfil this expectation, they were anxious to lead him in triumph to Jerusalem, if need be by force, in order to crown him king. But as soon as it was made clear to them that their hero was not at all what they had imagined him to be, but a spiritual Messiah, who had come to save people from the guilt, pollution, and misery of sin, they turned their backs upon him and walked no longer with him. Hence, one and the same chapter pictures Jesus, first of all, at the very zenith of his popularity; then, suddenly, proceeding with rapid strides toward the nadir of public scorn. But in the midst of the fickle multitude his glory stands revealed, especially in this respect: that, though he knew these people so thoroughly, he was, nevertheless, willing to lavish his kindness upon them! We are told that Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. Luke 9:10informs us that the place of its occurrence was in the general vicinity of Bethsaida. Although there is no certainty with respect to the question whether there was more than one city by that name near the Sea of Galilee (see also explanation of 1:44) nevertheless, having studied the arguments on both sides, we feel inclined to answer in the affirmative. Our reasoning is as follows: 1. According to the Synoptics, before crossing the sea of Galilee Jesus had been laboring in the western part of the country, in and around Capernaum, Nazareth, etc. Also, as we have seen, the miracle recorded in the fifth chapter of John took place west of the Jordan (in Jerusalem, at the Pool). For both of these reasons it would seem that the expression Jesus went to the other side of the sea could have only one intelligible meaning for those who had read the Gospel-stories up to this point; namely, that he now crossed over to the east (or north-east) of the sea. And that is exactly where Bethsaida Julias was located, just south-east of the point where the Jordan River, coming from the north, flows into the sea of Galilee. 2. After the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand the disciples recrossed the sea. Their boat was now headed toward Capernaum (6:17), but according to Mk. 6:45it was proceeding toward Bethsaida. Certainly, the explanation which lies ready at hand is that this was another Bethsaida, situated somewhere in the vicinity of Capernaum. 3. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that this Bethsaida (Mark 6:45) was located in the plain of Gennesaret (Mark 6:53), which stretches north-west from the sea of Galilee.^[132] 4. The very fact that when the home-town of Philip (also of Andrew and Peter, 1:44) is mentioned (12:21) it is called Bethsaida of Galilee may point in the direction of a distinction between that Bethsaida and another Bethsaida which was not in Galilee; namely, Bethsaida Julias, a town which had been recently rebuilt by Philip the tetrarch, and had been named after the beautiful but profligate daughter of Emperor Augustus. 5. The argument which is sometimes advanced against the supposition that there were two Bethsaidas is this: the existence of two towns of the same name on the same lake must be considered unlikely. But is not this the answer: a. there were many identically named towns and villages in biblical Palestine, and some of them were not far apart; and b. in view of the abundance of fish in the sea of Galilee it would almost seem strange if only one coast-town were named House of Fish (i.e., Bethsaida). Jesus then crossed the Sea of Galilee and stepped ashore in the vicinity of Bethsaida Julias. The Sea of Galilee is here designated also by one of its other names. It had many names: Sea of Chinnereth (Num. 34:11; Deut. 3:17; Josh. 13:27; 19:35), Sea of Chinneroth (Josh. 12:3; I Kings 15:20), Lake of Gennesaret (Luke 5:1), and Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1). The latter name, which in modified form is used to this very day, was derived from the city (Tiberias) which was founded on its western shores by Herod Antipas in the year 22 a.d. Probably the readers in Asia Minor were better acquainted with that name than with any of the others. Therefore the explanation which is the Sea of Tiberias is added to the older designation. The reason why Jesus, together with his disciples, crossed the sea is told in Mark 6:30 32and Matt. 14:12, 13: the disciples had just returned from a missionary tour, and needed rest and an opportunity to be alone with Jesus. On the busy, western shores especially, in Capernaum there was no opportunity for leisure. Then also, the shocking intelligence of the Baptist's cruel death had just reached Jesus. This, too, required reflection and quiet meditation. 2. And a vast crowd was following him, because they were viewing the signs which he was performing upon the sick. In picturesque language note the three imperfects the crowds that followed Jesus while he labored in Galilee are here described: they were following him because they were viewing the signs which he was performing upon the sick. From (Matt. 14:13Mark 6:33; Luke 9:11) we learn that the people, noticing that Jesus had gone on board a boat and was heading for Bethsaida Julias, ran around the lake, from the various towns and villages, in order to be with him once more. Not that they were interested in a Savior from sin, but they were definitely impressed by a Worker of miracles. Now these miracles were in reality signs (see on 2:11) but this was not understood by the crowds. 3. So while the people were walking around the lake, Jesus was crossing it.^[133] He reached the lonely region near Bethsaida Julias. Here Jesus went up (into) the hill ([Greek] ). Here A.V. has into a mountain, A.R.V.: into the mountain. But if the term mountain be used for any height 2000 ft. or more above sea-level, and any lower conspicuous elevation be called a hill, then we cannot speak of a mountain in this vicinity. It is not necessary, however, nor even advisable, to use the plural as if a hilly region or chain were indicated. A little study of the territory around Bethsaida Julias will make this clear. On the north-eastern shore of the sea, about a mile south of the town, there is a little plain of rich silt soil. As it was Spring-time when Jesus and his disciples landed here, we are not surprised to read that there was plenty of green grass here. A hill actually rises up just behind this plain, so that all the requirements of the account as found in the Gospels are fully met. Accordingly, when the evangelist writes that Jesus went up (into) the hill, those acquainted with the surroundings would know exactly what hill was indicated; those unacquainted could easily guess that there was a hill behind a level stretch of territory along the sea-shore. Here, then, we can picture Jesus. He had ascended the slope of the hill for a certain distance, and there he was sitting with his disciples. From the Synoptics the readers in Asia Minor (and elsewhere) have learned that by this time the Lord has twelve disciples. Some of them are named in this very chapter: Philip (6:5, 6). Andrew (6:8), Simon Peter (6:68), and Judas Iscariot (6:71). Their reactions to the work and the words of Jesus are recorded. What the Lord did was for them a test, revealing what was in their heart. 4. Now the Passover was approaching. It is here called the feast of the Jews, a name given to the feast of Tabernacles in 7:2. The nearness of Passover is probably added to explain 6:15. Passover was a reminder of the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. Hence, it was especially on this day that the thoughts of the Jews revolved about the question, When shall we be delivered from the bondage of Rome? 5. From his elevated position it was easy for Jesus to see from afar the approach of a great multitude. So when Jesus lifted up his eyes and observed ([Greek], just as he had done when the vast crowd of Samaritans approached him, see 4:35) that a vast crowd was coming toward him, the Lord, far from regarding them as a cause of unwelcome disturbance, started out down the slope to meet them, for he was filled with compassion with respect to them (Matt. 14:14). He then said to Philip, How^[134] are we to buy bread-cakes that people may eat? In this connection note the following: 1. The reason why the Lord turned to Philip has not been revealed. Commentators make various guesses; such as, a. because Philip came from Bethsaida, was therefore well acquainted with the region, and could be expected to know where bread-cakes could be obtained (but here, to mention no other objections, the two Bethsaidas are probably being confused); b. because Philip was slow of understanding and more in need of being tested than the others (usually with a reference to 14:8, 9); c. because he was the matter-of-fact, coldly-calculating type of person; d. because he had just asked a question; or e. because he was standing closest to Jesus. We do not have the answer. There is nothing in the context that suggests why Jesus selected Philip as the man to whom the question was addressed. To be sure, Philip's faith needed to be proved (6:6), but was not this true also with respect to the faith of the other disciples? 2. For bread the original employs a term which should not be rendered loaves, as this English word has a meaning that is entirely foreign to the sense of the original. An [Greek] was flat and round, resembling a pan-cake rather than a loaf. At times the term simply means bread. 6. The reason for this question is given in the following words: This he was saying to test him; for he himself knew what he was about to do. The word used in the original may mean either to tempt (Jas. 1:13) or to test, to prove, to tryJas. 1:2: trials . Here, of course, the meaning is that the Lord wished to give Philip an opportunity to reveal whether he was moved with sympathy for these people, and whether he had taken to heart the lesson which the miracles as signs were intended to teach; namely, that they pointed to the majesty, power, and glory of the Lord, his ability and willingness to supply every need. The purpose of the question was not at all to obtain needed information regarding the places where bread might be obtained; nor was the question an indication that the Lord was at a loss what to do; for we read, He himself knew what he was about to do. 7. Philip sees the vast crowds, and immediately begins to calculate, forgetting entirely that the power of Jesus surpasses any possibility of calculation. He answered him, Bread-cakes for two hundred denarii (genitive of price) would not be sufficient for them so that each might get a little something. The silver denarius was, perhaps, the most used Roman coin in New Testament times. Literally the name denarius means containing ten. It was called thus in relation to the as, a bronze coin having the value of 1/10 denarius. However, when it is said, as is done in many commentaries, that the denarius is equal to 16 or 17 or even 20 American cents, and that Philip, who mentioned two hundred denarii, was therefore thinking of a total amount of $32, $34 or $40, this is misleading. The value of the dollar and of the humble penny is constantly fluctuating. It is therefore better to point out, on the basis of Scripture (Matt. 20:2, 9, 13), that a denarius represented the wages paid to a laborer for one day's work; hence two hundred denarii means the amount of remuneration which one man receives for two hundred days of work. This amount would not have bought enough bread so that each might have a little something ([Greek] ). Moreover, it is doubtful whether Judas, the treasurer, actually had as much as two hundred denarii in his bag! Philip had time to reflect on the answer which he had given, and (more important!) on the question that had been asked. Jesus began to speak to the multitude about the kingdom of God. Moreover, those who needed healing he healed (Luke 9:11). Nevertheless, in spite of these manifestations of power, it seems not to have occurred to Philip that the Lord who at Cana had manifested his ability to supply wine when it failed would be just as able at Bethsaida to furnish bread. 8, 9. And so the day wore on, until evening fell. By this time the people, who had been with Jesus several hours, had become hungry. What happened next is recorded in Mark 6:35 37: And when the day was now drawing to its close, his disciples came to him and said, This is a lonely place, and the day is drawing to its close; send the people away, so that they may go to the country and the villages round about and buy themselves something to eat. But he answered them, You give them something to eat. They answered, Shall we go and buy bread for two hundred denarii, and give it to them to eat? It is clear from this that the faith of the rest of the disciples was not any stronger than that of Philip. The power of Jesus seems not to have occurred to any of them. They all calculated, but failed to exercise faith. Mark informs us that Jesus asked the disciples: How many bread-cakes do you have? Go and see (Mark 6:38). The answerMark 6:38b; Matt. 14:17; Luke 9:13b was: five bread-cakes and two fishes. The author of the Fourth Gospel, himself an eye-witness, adds certain interesting details. We read, One of the disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter (see on 1:40) said to him, There is a young lad here who has five barley-cakes and two fishes, but what are these for so many? It is interesting to notice that not only here but also in 12:20–22 we find Philip and Andrew mentioned together. We know, of course, that they came from the same town, and that both were numbered among the six earliest disciples of our Lord (see on 1:41–43). Andrew, in answer to the question which Jesus had asked, points to a young lad, [Greek], not necessarily a very small child; diminutives in Greek as well as in other languages have a tendency to lose something of their original, diminutive force. Andrew informs the Lord that this boy has five cakes of barley bread and two fishes ([Greek] here and also in 21:9–13, not [Greek] as in the Synoptics), the latter to cover the bread as a relish, or to be eaten with it as a side-dish. Many sermons have been preached about this lad. With reference to him information has been supplied of which we find no hint in Scripture nor anywhere else; e.g., that this boy had been sent on an errand, and was returning to his mother with the bread-cakes and the fishes which she had ordered; or, that he was on an outing, had taken his lunch along, and that Andrew must have used some very persuasive language to deprive this boy of his lunch; or (not much better) that this boy was simply carrying on his usual business as a vender of refreshments (just like today!). It has not pleased the Lord to supply any additional information. The light is focussed on the Lord, not on the lad. Suffice it to know that Jesus was willing to make use of this boy. The fact that barley-bread was considered in certain circles to be the poor man's bread, and that Josephus even speaks of a certain barley-cake as being too vile for man's consumption, ^[135] has little or nothing to do with the present story. A cake of barley-bread is good, wholesome food. Food eaten by the poor is not necessarily poor food! When Andrew thinks of the five bread-cakes only five! and the two fishes only two!, of the vast and hungry crowd, but not of Jesus and his power and love, he exclaims, What are these for so many? And as Andrew spoke so thought they all. 10. Without administering any verbal rebuke for their little faith, Jesus said, Make the people sit down. The command was easy to obey, as about this time of the year there was plenty of grass in that place, growing on the slopes of the hill. So the men sat down ([Greek], fell back; i.e., reclined against the hillside). For ease of counting and serving, the people sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties constituting a very charming picture, like so many garden-bedsMark 6:40in the original . One can readily visualize this multitude dressed in bright Oriental garments, reclining under the blue vault of heaven, upon the green grass, with the Sea of Galilee not very far away: a sapphire in a setting of emerald. Were they expecting a miracle to happen? And is that the reason why no one hesitated to obey the command to sit down in orderly fashion? Is it possible that the men were counted because there were many more men than women and children? At any rate, there were about five thousand men, besides the women and children. 11. With wonderful simplicity the miracle is now recorded: Jesus, therefore, took the bread-cakes, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them among those that were seated; similarly the fishes as much as they wanted. Note that the thanksgiving comes first, then the miracle, just as in 11:41, 42. (Deut. 8:10.) In this connection it is often said that Jesus must have used a customary table-prayer. This is barely possible; nevertheless, the best answer is that we just do not know. It must be borne in mind in this connection that our Lord's addresses delivered to the multitudes were always characterized by freshness and originality he never spoke like the scribes, merely copying the words of former rabbis. Is it probable, then, that when he addressed his Father in heaven he borrowed a formula-prayer? Jesus distributed the bread-cakes among those that were seated. Notice how John abbreviates here. He seems to take for granted that the readers have learned the further details from the other Gospels. From them (Mark 6:41; Matt. 14:19; Luke 9:16) we learn that after the Lord had given thanks, he took the bread-cakes and began to break off fragments (of edible size) which he then gave to the disciples, who carried them (in baskets collected here and there from the crowd?) to the people. With the fishes the procedure was somewhat similar. The point that is emphasized is that those present received as much as they wanted. Some even took more fragments than they were able to consume. Thus, with majestic simplicity, the miracle is related. Did the bread multiply in the hands of the Savior? Just at what point did the miracle occur? All we know is that a great miracle took place, a sign which was transformative in character. Just as Jesus at Cana did not simply create wine, but changed water into wine, so here he does not just create bread, but changes bread into more bread. This was entirely in line with the purpose of his coming to earth. He had come not to create but to transform, and in the process of this glorious work he shows his (and therefore also the Father's) amazing generosity: whenever he gives, he gives lavishly. 12. Nevertheless, infinite resources are no excuse for waste. Wastefulness is sinfulness. Besides, were there not others who needed something to eat; for example, that young lad, the disciples, the poor on the day of tomorrow; last but not least, Jesus himself? So we are not surprised to read, Now when they had eaten their fill, he said to his disciples, Pick up the pieces that are left, in order that nothing be wasted. Note: the pieces or fragments, not scraps or crumbs. 13. So they picked them up, and from the five barley-cakes they filled twelve baskets with pieces that were left over by those who had partaken of the food. The idea is that some people had taken too many pieces when they were being distributed by the disciples. These pieces are now collected. Not less than twelve stout wicker-baskets ([Greek]; contrast [Greek]) were needed, and these were actually filled with the left-overs. 14, 15. The miracle was not appreciated in its true character. Its lesson was not understood. Now when the people saw the sign (for the term sign see 2:11) which he had done, they were saying, This is really the prophet who is to come into the word. They identified Jesus with the prophet of (Deut. 18:15–18. So far so good. It is even possible (see p. 94) that in this prophet they saw the Messiah, for it must not be overlooked that to characterize this prophet they employ a phrase which elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel indicates the Christ; namely, the phrase, who is to come (or; who is coming) into the world (A [Greek]; see p. 79). But even if they viewed him as the Messiah, it was the earthly, political Messiah of Pharisaic hope whom they imagined to see in him, as is clear from verse 15: Now when Jesus knew that they were about to come and take him by force in order that they might make him king, he went away again to the hill by himself. Filled with enthusiasm, the type of fervor which takes hold of a Jewish mob at the season of Passover, they were ready to proceed post-haste to Jerusalem, holding in their midst their strong man, who was able to effect cures and to provide bread and prosperity for everybody if he refused to come along of his own accord, they actually intended to kidnap him, thus forcing him to go with them in order that, arrived in the Holy City, they might crown him king, throwing off the yoke of the Romans and establishing the kingdom of God on earth. But he, whose kingdom is not of this world (18:36), went away again to the hillMatt. 14:14); i.e., he proceeded farther toward the top, in order that he might be by himself. But first, by the power of his word, he frustrated the design of the mob: he simply dismissed the vast throng, meanwhile ordering the disciples to go into a boat in order to row back to the other side of the sea of Galilee. 16 21. And when evening fell, the disciples went down to the sea, and having entered a boat, they were proceeding across the sea toward Capernaum. Now it was already dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. And the sea was getting rough, as a strong wind was blowing. The disciples, having been ordered by Jesus to go before him to the other side (Matt. 14:22) went down to the sea. The evangelist pictures them as, having embarked in a boat, they proceed across the sea in the direction of Capernaum, on the north-western shore. The idea of some that they waited a long time before starting out, expecting that Jesus would join them, is a plain contradiction of Matt. 14:22, and certainly does not follow from 6:17. The manner in which John uses the Greek tenses in verses 17 and 18 is very instructive.^[136] He employs the imperfects were proceeding ([Greek]) and was getting rough or was rising ([Greek]) to picture the condition, respectively, of the men in the boat and of the sea. But between these imperfects he makes use of the pluperfects (darkness) had come (to be) ([Greek]) and (Jesus) had not yet come ([Greek] ), to indicate what had (or had not yet) happened before the disciples had reached the opposite shore. Moreover, when the author says, Now darkness had already come, and Jesus had not yet come to them, he is writing from the point of view of one who himself had been in that boat and now, many years later, is writing the story. As he wrote, he knew, of course, that before the night was over and the opposite shore had been reached, the Lord had joined the little group; he is also aware of the fact that the readers know this from Mk. 6or Matt. 14. Hence, his words may be paraphrased as follows: Now it was already dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them; that coming of Jesus about which you have read in the other Gospels happened later during this same night. But even a long time before Jesus appeared upon the scene, the sea was getting rough (or: was rising), as a strong wind was blowing. From the ravines (deep and narrow valleys or gorges between the hills to the west) strong blasts of wind came rushing down, and suddenly struck the lake whose surface lies 682 ft. below the level of the Mediterranean. Soon the storm was increasing in intensity. The night deepened. Hour upon hour the disciples, used to the sea, were plying the oars. As they did so, they were facing Bethsaida Julias, while their boat faced (was headed in the direction of) Bethsaida of Galilee. They found themselves in a situation of real danger; that is, from the human point of view. Actually it was not so, as will become evident when two verses in Matthew 14are seen in their relation to each other. These verses form, as it were, a composite picture. Famous artists^[137] have painted Part I of this picture (Jesus alone in prayer) or Part II (the disciples in the midst of the storm), but what we should have is the one composite picture, just as Matthew shows it to us in the following words: And after be had sent the crowds away, he went up into the hills by himself to pray; and when evening fell, he was there alone. But the boat was now in the midst of the sea (or: many stadia distant from the land) beaten by the waves, for the wind was from the opposite direction (Matt. 14:23, 24). While the storm was raging, and the darkness enveloped the little group of men, they were, nevertheless, perfectly safe, for upon the hill the Lord was interceding for them. A beautiful picture, indeed, one which has many present-day applications. The disciples had been rowing now for several hours. They had left the eastern shores when darkness fell or very shortly afterward. And now it was 3:00 A. M. or laterMatt. 14:25: the fourth watch of the night; hence, between 3:00 and 6:00 A. M. . So fierce was the storm that the boat had covered only twenty-five to thirty stadia. A stadium Isaiah 1/8 of a mile; hence, the meaning is that the boat had proceeded a distance of from 31/8 to 3½ miles; i.e., translated into our modern way of speaking about three or four miles. Now if the distance between the point from which they started to the place where they landed was fives miles, as seems probable, then it is clear that the disciples were now, indeed, in the midst of the sea (Mk. 6:47). Besides, the possibility must not be discounted that they were driven somewhat off their course by the violence of the wind or that they had attempted for a while to hug the shore. At any rate they still had a long way to go before reaching their destination. Now when they had rowed three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking upon the sea and approaching the boat, and they were frightened. Then suddenly it happened! Facing east (while their boat faced west) these rowers through the enshrouding darkness discerned the outlines of a form walking on top of the angry billows. The winds and the waves did not seem to bother this man-shaped form in the least. It was walking right into the gale, and walking so fast that it was gradually catching up with the boat, until for a moment it seemed as if it were going to pass on alongside of it. Thoroughly alarmed, the storm-weary disciples cried out, A ghost, a ghost! (Mark 6:48, 49). These details which are furnished by Matthew and Mark are omitted by John, who simply says, Now when they had rowed three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking upon the sea and approaching the boat, and they were frightened. The reason for this fear was that at first the men did not know that it was Jesus. But he said to them, It is I, stop being frightened ([Greek] present imperative). According to Matthew and Mark the words It is I were preceded by Take heart. In Matthew (14:28–31) the story of Peter's attempt to walk upon the waters to Jesus is told next. Returning now to the Fourth Gospel (6:21), when the disciples were convinced that what they saw was not a ghost but the Lord himself, they were willing to take him aboard, which they actually did. Then the wind ceased (Matt. 14:32). And all at once ([Greek]) the boat, which when Jesus went aboard was still a long way from shore, was at the land where they were going. This, too, is represented as a miracle. The One who had manifested his power over sickness (ch. 5) had absolute control over winds and waves. He proved himself to be the Son of God (Matt. 14:23). Synthesis of 6:1–21 See the Outline on p. 68. The Son of God Rejected in Galilee (the two miracles). The two sub-divisions are 6:1–15, which suggests the lines, Come, for the feast is spread &Come to the Living Bread, and 6:16–21, On the Stormy Sea He Speaks Peace to Me. Under the first theme we have: A. The Bankruptcy of Human Calculation The place (a plain about a mile south of Bethsaida Julias, north-east of the Sea of Galilee) was lonely. And the time? It was getting dark. Furthermore, there were more than five thousand mouths to feed. The disciples did not have enough money to buy even a little something for each person. And the young lad who appeared upon the scene had only five bread-cakes and two fishes! The situation, in brief, appeared hopeless; that is, on the basis of human calculation, apart from faith in the love and power of Christ. The disciples (not only Philip and Andrew, but all of them) were men of little faith. It seems that they had not yet sufficiently learned to know Jesus as the Son of God, whose resources are infinite. B. The All-Sufficiency of Divine Provision Jesus was never at a loss what to do. From the very beginning he knew just how he was going to provide. His heart was filled with love. Did this mob spoil his need for rest and quiet? Were they earthly-minded thrill-seekers? Did Jesus know that they were yearning for a political Messiah, and that they would reject the true Messiah? Of course, he knew! Nevertheless, he provided bread for them, as much as they wanted. When one studies this miracle, the question occurs: which virtue shines forth most gloriously: Christ's love or his power? For Old Testament stories which foreshadow this miracle we refer to Num. 11:13; I Kings 17:16, and II Kings 4:42. Although the miracle is told in all four Gospels, yet as John tells it, it is different: in his Gospel it is distinctly a sign (see on 1:11), and forms the introduction to Christ's Discourse on The Bread of Life. It is foolish to try to explain what happened here. One of the most absurd examples is this: Jesus and the disciples had taken some food with them, and they started to share this with others who had none. When the people saw this, each man who had taken something with him from home, ashamed of his own selfishness, began to do the same. Hence, there was enough for all. This miracle-story should be accepted by faith. If one does not believe it, however, let him not try to explain it away. Let him be honest and say, I do not believe it. The miracle on the sea is really four miracles in one: a. Jesus walks upon the sea (without suspending the laws of gravity, he controls them in the interest of the kingdom); b. he causes Peter to walk upon the sea (but this story is not found in the Fourth Gospel); c. he reveals himself as master of the storm, for when he enters the boat the storm ceases (not in John); and d. he conquers even space, for when he enters the boat, it is on the shore all at once. The story as told by John may be divided into these three parts: A. The Disciples without Jesus B. The Disciples and the Unknown Jesus C. The Disciples and the Lord whom they know and who speaks peace to them. 6:22–40 22 The next day the crowd which had remained on the other side of the sea perceived that no other boat had been there except one, and that Jesus had not embarked with his disciples in that boat but his disciples had departed by themselves. 23 However, boats from Tiberias came near to the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there nor his disciples, they embarked in the boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 And when they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, Rabbi, when did you come here? 26 Jesus answered and said to them, I solemnly assure you, you seek me not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the bread-cakes and were filled. 27 No longer work for food that perishes, but work for food that endures for everlasting life, which food the Son of man will give you, for on him God the Father has set his seal. 28 So they said to him, What must we do in order that we may be working the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that^[138] you believe in him whom he has sent. 30 So they said to him, Then what are you doing as a sign, in order that we may see and believe you? What are you working? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, as it is written, Bread out of heaven he gave them to eat. 32 Jesus then said to them, I most solemnly assure you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread out of heaven, but it is my Father who is giving you the real bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world. 34 So they said to him, Lord, always give us this bread. 35 Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will in no way get hungry, and he who believes in me will in no way ever get thirsty. 36 But I said to you that^[139] although you have seen (me), yet you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and him who comes to me I will in no way cast out, 38 for I am come down from heaven, not in order to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 Now this is the will of him who sent me, that^[140] of all that he has given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up at the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that^[140] everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have everlasting life, and I myself will raise him up at the last day. 6:22, 23. Jesus and his disciples had landed on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee sometime between 3 and 6 A. M. It was now the next day that is, the morning after the feeding of the five thousand, which is the same as saying: the morning of the arrival of Christ and his disciples on the Plain of Gennesaret. You will recall the crowd which had remained on the other side of the sea. Those people who, having been dismissed by Jesus, had not yet returned to their homes but had remained overnight on the eastern shore, began to realize something. They perceived: a. That no other boat ([Greek] a diminutive; one might translate a little sea-going vessel hence, a boat) had been there (i.e., here at the landing-place south of Bethsaida Julias) except one; namely, the one with which the Lord and his disciples had come to this northeastern shore, and b. That Jesus had not embarked with his disciples in that boat, but his disciples had departed by themselves in that boat. Jesus had gone to the top of the hill to pray; and his disciples at his command, as we know from Matt. 14:22, had departed by themselves. So the people began to search for Jesus, thinking that he was still in the neighborhood of Bethsaida Julias. This is implied in 6:24 a. They discovered, however, that Jesus, too, had disappeared, however mysteriously. They drew the correct conclusion that he had gone back to the western (Capernaum) region; though, of course, with no other boat in sight to take him back, they could not figure out how he got back. Did he walk around the sea? But in that case would they not have seen him? They never thought for a moment that he might have walked across!^[141] The crowd wanted to be with Jesus. Besides, the people desired to return to their homes on the western shore. Of course, it was possible once again to walk the whole distance around the sea (as many, perhaps, had already done), about ten miles for those who lived in or near Capernaum. This, however, due to all the marshes north of the sea, and especially in view of the fact that just yesterday these same people had made that trip, was not easy. However, intelligence had reached the boat-owners in Tiberias^[142] (the capital-city on the south-western shore, south of the Plain of Gennesaret) to the effect that there was business for them across the sea: a large crowd of people was waiting to be carried across to their towns and villages. So we are not surprised to read: However, boats from Tiberias came near to the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks (the last words: after the Lord had given thanks, are added to show that this had not been an ordinary meal). 24. So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there nor his disciples, they embarked in the boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. We are not surprised to learn that these vessels brought their cargo of passengers to Capernaum; for a. this was Christ's headquarters during the Galilean Ministry; and b. this must have been centrally located as far as the passengers were concerned, the most convenient landing place for them. Arrived in Capernaum, the crowd started to search for Jesus. 6:25–27 25, 26. And when they found him on the other side of the sea &In view of what is known about the location of the Plain of Gennesaret and of the time when Jesus and his disciples had arrived there sometime between 3 and 6 A. M. it does not at all surprise us to read that these people actually found Jesus. We cannot see any good reason for assuming, with certain commentators, that Jesus could not have covered the distance from the place where he landed to Capernaum in such a brief span of time. There was ample time even if Jesus proceeded in ordinary fashion, without a further miracle, and even if it be taken for granted that the entire discourse from verse 28 on was delivered in the Synagogue at Capernaum (see 6:59). And there was ample time even for the events mentioned in Matt. 14:35, 36. Having found Jesus, these people, who have just been carried across the sea by boats whose owners lived in Tiberias, exclaimed to him, Rabbi (on this term see 1:38, footnote 44), when did you come here? The reason for their surprise has already been stated. Instead of answering their question, which might have strengthened them in their conception that Jesus was, first and most of all, a miracle-worker, powerful enough to lead a revolution and to provide prosperity for all, the Lord sharply reprimands them. The motive of their search for Jesus was all wrong. Says he, I solemnly assure you, you seek me not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the bread-cakes and were filled. (For the words of majesty which introduce this sentence see on 1:51.) What Jesus meant was that though these people had seen his miracles (especially the healing of the sick and the feeding of the five thousand, but, in a more general way, all the wonders which he had performed), they had not understood them in their quality as signs which pointed to him as the spiritual Messiah, the Son of God. (For the term sign, [Greek], see on 2:11.) The people's chief interest in Jesus was this, that they had eaten the bread-cakes which he had provided, and that thus their stomachs had been filled ([Greek]: and were filled, a word is selected which in its primary meaning refers to the kind of eating that is done by animals; e.g., when they eat grass: [Greek], from which this verb is derived). 27. There follows another beautiful mashal (see on 2:19): No longer work (or stop working, the verb is present imperative) for food that perishes, but work for food that endures for everlasting life, which food the Son of man will give you, for on him God the Father has set his seal. This veiled saying should be compared with the very similar one in 4:14; and the answer, especially that contained in verse 34, should be compared with the one in 4:15. The Jews did not understand Christ's saying about food (i.e., bread; see verses 31 35) any better than the Samaritan woman grasped his saying about water. Both gave a literal interpretation to his mashal, and both were wrong! In the light of the explanation which follows in verses 32 35 (cf. for the last clause also 5:31–37) we know that the saying has the following meaning: The Mashal Its Meaning No longer work for food that perishes, Stop yearning for bread-cakes and the like, as if physical food would ever be able to fill the void in your heart. Realize that this food perishes, has no abiding value. but work for food that endures for everlasting life, Instead, render to God the work of faith in the One whom God has sent, the real food, which produces and sustains everlasting life; which food the Son of man will give you, which food, I, the Son of man, will give; i.e., I will give myself for those among you who believe in me; for on him God the Father has set his seal. for, by means of the testimony of the Son himself, of John the Baptist, of the many works or signs, of the Father (directly), and of the Scriptures, God the Father has certified that I am the real Messiah, the Son of God. For the term [Greek] see on 4:32. For Son of man see on 12:34. For everlasting life see on 3:16. 28, 29. Of the true, spiritual meaning of the mashal the audience understands nothing. When Jesus mentions works, this term is immediately taken in its crassly literal sense, as indicating law-works which one performs in order to earn a place in the kingdom. The Pharisees weighed and counted such works. So they (the people) said to him, What must we do in order that we may be working the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent. (On Jesus as the One sent see 3:34; cf. 1:6.) But in this passage does not Jesus call the exercise of faith a work? And if it be a work which man must render, then is it true that man is saved by grace? Cf. Eph. 2:5, 8. We answer: a. The teaching of Christ as recorded in the Fourth Gospel, including chapter 6, leaves no room for doubt that salvation is entirely by grace. It is the work of God and of his Christ; it is a gift: 1:13, 17, 29; 3:3, 5, 16; 4:10, 14, 36, 42; 5:21; 6:27, 33, 37, 39, 44, 51, 55, 65; 8:12, 36; 10:7–9, 28, 29; 11:25, 51, 52; 14:2, 3, 6; 15:5; 17:2, 6, 9, 12, 24; and 18:9. b. But this does not exclude the idea that man must render to God the work of faith. An illustration will make this clear. The roots of a tall oak perform a well-nigh unbelievable amount of work in drawing water and minerals from the soil to serve as nourishment for the tree. Nevertheless, these roots do not themselves produce these necessities but receive them as a gift. Similarly, the work of faith is the work of receiving the gift of God. 30, 31. When Christ demanded faith in himself as the One sent by the Father, the Jews asked to see his credentials (Deut. 18:20–22). They said to him, Then what are you doing as a sign, in order that we may see and believe you? But had not Jesus performed many signs? And was not the multiplication of the bread-cakes on the preceding day a glorious sign? How is it possible that these people dare to say, What are you working? Verse 31 explains what they have in mind: Our (fore)fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, as it is written, Bread out of heaven he gave them to eat. The phrase out of heaven modifies the noun bread (as is clear from verse 32), not the verb he gave. The quotation is from (Ps. 78:24Neh. 9:15; Ex. 16:4, 15; and Ps. 105;40). In the Old Testament passages it is distinctly stated that it was Jehovah who had given this wonderful bread. Nevertheless it is true that the passage from Nehemiah mentions Moses in the preceding verse (Neh. 9:14); similarly Ex. 16. From the reply of Jesus it can be inferred that the Jews were reasoning in the following trend: If he is even greater than Moses, let him perform a sign that is greater than the one which Moses did when he gave us bread from heaven. To be sure, yesterday Jesus multiplied the bread-cakes. He had bread, and from it he made more bread. But he had something to begin with (five bread-cakes, two fishes); and besides, he gave us earthly bread, but Moses gave us bread straight out of heaven! 6:32–40 32, 33. Jesus said to them, I most solemnly assure you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread out of heaven, but it is my Father who is giving you the real bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world. After another solemn introduction (see on 1:51) Jesus in verses 32 and 33 annihilates the contrast which the Jews had drawn, and in its stead presents his own comparison. It is as follows: 1. Moses, as God's agent, merely gave directions to the people regarding the manner in which manna was to be collected, Ex. 16. 1. The Father in heaven is ever the real Giver. 2. Even if Moses be considered the giver, it remains true that he did not give the real bread out of heaven. The manna was a type; it was not the Antitype. 2. The Father is giving the real bread out of heaven. That real bread is Jesus, the Antitype. 3. What the manna provided, as it descended from the visible heaven, was nourishment ([Greek]). 3. What Jesus, the real bread of life, gives, is life ([Greek]). (For meaning of the term life see on 1:4; 3:16.) 34. In the spirit of 4:15 they (the Jews), totally blind with respect to the spiritual meaning of the words of Christ, said to him, Lord (for this see 1:38, footnote 44) always give us this bread, i.e., never fail to supply us with this wonderful, physical bread, which not only sustains but even imparts (physical) life. 35 38. Jesus explains his mysterious saying. He said to them, I (myself) am the bread of life; i.e., I am the One who both imparts and sustains life. According to the form of the sentence in the original, Jesus completely identifies himself with this bread of life; really, of the life ([Greek], qualitative genitive, referring not to any kind of life but to spiritual, everlasting life). It is through faith, i.e., through intimate union with him, assimilating him spiritually as physical bread is assimilated physically, that man attains to everlasting life. When Jesus continues, He who comes to me will in no way get hungry, and he who believes in me will in no way get thirsty, he is, of course, speaking about spiritual hunger and spiritual thirst. Note also that here believing in Jesus is defined as coming to him; i.e., coming as one who has nothing (but sin) and needs everything; turning to him as plants turn their green parts toward the sun. (On the meaning of believing see also 3:16, and note 83.) He who comes to Jesus with a believing heart will in no way get hungry nor ever get thirsty. This is, of course, another example of the figure of speech called litotes (affirmation produced by the denial of the opposite). The meaning is that such a person will receive complete and enduring spiritual satisfaction, perfect peace of soul. But the Jews have not accepted Jesus by a living faith. According to verse 30 they had asked to see a sign, and had stated that if their request were granted, they would believe in him. But Jesus, entirely in the spirit of verse 26, to which in all probability verse 36 refers, states, But I said to you that although you have seen (me), yet you do not believe. The Lord, therefore, clearly places the blame upon these unbelievers themselves as persons who are fully responsible for their actions. Does this mean, therefore, that he who does accept Jesus with a believing heart can give himself the credit for this excellent deed? By no means: salvation is ever by grace, and faith is ever the work of God in the heart of the sinner. Hence, immediately following a statement in which human responsibility is emphasized (verse 36) we have one in which divine predestination is stressed (verse 37): All that the Father gives me will come to me, and him who comes to me I will in no wise cast out. A person cannot be saved unless he comes to Jesus; he cannot come unless he is given (cf. especially 6:44). But all that is given, certainly comes. The expression all that (I John 5:4) views the elect as a unity; they are all one people. The clause, And him who comes to me I will in no way cast out, places the emphasis once more on human responsibility; as if to say, Let no one hesitate, saying, Perhaps I have not been given to the Son by the Father. Whoever comes is welcomed heartily (I will in no way cast him out is another example of litotes). Note that verse 37 also teaches: a. that in working out the plan of redemption, so that salvation is bestowed upon the elect individuals and upon the entire elect race, there is complete harmony and cooperation between the Father and the Son: those whom the Father gives, the Son welcomes; and b. that the work of redemption cannot be frustrated by the unbelief of the Jews of which mention was made in the preceding verse: there is an elect race; a remnant will most certainly be saved. The reason why it is so certain that the Son will not cast out those given to him by the Father is stated in verse 38: for I am come down from heaven, not in order to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. This cannot mean, of course, that the two wills ever clash; the contrary is explicitly taught in 4:34; 5:19; and 17:4. It does mean, however, that the Jewish unbelievers who have questioned the authority of Jesus must understand that whenever they oppose his will they are also opposing the will of the Father. 39, 40. That will is defined in the two closing verses of this paragraph: Now this is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have everlasting life, and I myself will raise him up at the last day. Here in verse 39 something is added to what was stated in the preceding verses with reference to the will of the Father which is carried out by the Son. There, by means of a litotes, it was stated that the latter would welcome those given to him by the Father; here it is added that he will guard them to the very end. Again we have a litotes: I should lose nothing. This addition is, indeed, very comforting. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is taught here in unmistakable terms; first negatively, then positively. The last day is the judgment day; see on 5:28, 29. The idea is: the elect will be kept and guarded to the very end. This doctrine is also taught in 10:28; Rom. 8:29, 30, 38; 11:29; Phil. 1:6; Heb. 6:17; II Tim. 2:19; I Pet. 1:4, 5; etc. In these and many other passages Scripture teaches a counsel that cannot be changed, a calling that cannot be revoked, an inheritance that cannot be defiled, a foundation that cannot be shaken; a seal that cannot be broken, and a life that cannot perish. The doctrine of the preservation (hence, perseverance) of the saints is surely implied in the very term everlasting life (on which see 3:16). A further definition of the will of the Father (which is at the same time a reason for the act of raising believers at the last day) is given in verse 40. Everyone who with the eye of faith sees in Jesus the Son of God, and who, accordingly, believes in him, has everlasting life. Jesus himself will raise him up at the last day. In this verse the matter which in the preceding verse was viewed from the point of view of divine predestination is described from the aspect of human responsibility (cf. the two clauses of 6:37). Note also that [Greek] of verse 39, where believers are viewed collectively, is here individualized, so that we have [Greek]. For the sense in which Jesus is the Son of God in the Fourth Gospel see on 1:14. Note also the very emphatic I myself. For Synthesis see p. 249. 6:41–59 41 So the Jews were murmuring about him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven, 42 And were saying, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it that he now says, I have come down out of heaven.? 43 Jesus answered and said to them, Stop murmuring among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns of him will come to me. 46 Not that^[143] anyone has seen the Father, except the One who comes from God, he has seen the Father. 47 I most solemnly assure you, he who believes has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, in order that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I myself am the living bread which came down out of heaven. If anyone eat of this bread he will live forever.^[144] And the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. ^[145] 52 The Jews, therefore, were wrangling among each other, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 So Jesus said to them, I most solemnly assure you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so also he who eats me, he, indeed, will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down out of heaven, not such as the fathers ate, and died. He who eats this bread will live forever. 59 These things he said in the synagogue, as he was teaching in Capernaum. 6:41. So the Jews were murmuring about him. For the contrast ordinary bread versus manna from heaven, which antithesis the Jews had proposed, Jesus had offered a far better one: bread (or manna) considered as a type versus the real bread, even I myself, the Antitype. People do not like to see their carefully constructed argument shattered so completely. So they were murmuring about him. The original has [Greek]. The verb is an imitative word. It does not necessarily carry a sinister implication. It could refer to mere speaking in whispers. However, in view of verses 42, 52, and of the prohibition in verse 43, it is probably better to see in this type of reaction a kind of dissatisfied grumbling or muttering, a speaking in low, sullen tones. In this connection it must not escape notice that it was the Jews who did the murmuring (see on 1:19). In the Fourth Gospel these are generally represented as being hostile to Jesus. According to some commentators the reference is here to Sanhedrin representatives from Jerusalem; this on the basis of Mark 3:22. But there is no intimation of this in the present context. Besides, verse 42 seems to indicate that these Jews belonged to Galilee, and were well acquainted with the family in whose midst Jesus had grown up. We do better therefore to think of such men as the leaders of the Capernaum synagogue and those who were of similar mind. What the Jews objected to most strenuously was the Lord's statement concerning himself (cf. the parallel in 5:17, 18). Hence, we read, because he said, I (myself) am the bread that came down from heaven. He himself, and not the vaunted manna of their forefathers, was the real bread, which both sustained and imparted life. (These glorified ancestors, by the way, had not always held this manna in such high esteem; cf. Numbers 11:6, But now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all save this manna to look upon! It is so easy to enclose the past in a halo.) Jesus is called the bread which came down out of heaven (A [Greek] ). Note that here the aorist participle is used, though Jesus himself in verse 33 had used the present when he had spoken about that which comes (or: is coming) down out of heaven as being the true bread of God. Some commentators make a point of it that Jesus subsequently accommodated himself to the phraseology employed by the Jews, for in verses 51 and 58 he also uses the aorist. However, it must not be forgotten that not the Jews but Jesus, in his conversation with Nicodemus (3:13) had been the first to use the aorist. As to the difference in meaning: a. the present (6:33, 50) indicates quality; showing that even during his sojourn on earth the Lord in many respects retains the character of One who belonged to the sphere of heaven: b. the aorist (3:13; 6:41, 51, 58) fixes the attention on the incarnation as such conceived as a single act; and c. the perfect (6:38, 42) pictures him as one whose act of humiliation performed in the past has abiding significance. 42. It is very clear from 6:42 that when Jesus spoke of himself in this fashion, the Jews did not interpret his language as referring only to his Messianic mission. They realized that the Lord denied that he was born like any other human being. Nowhere does Jesus say or imply that in reaching this conclusion they had misinterpreted his words. The inference is clear, therefore, that what Jesus taught here was the counterpart or complement of the doctrine of the virgin birth. One who is born of a virgin and who, accordingly, never had a human father (in the ordinary sense of the term), and is not a human person (though he has a human nature) must have come down out of heaven! The Synoptics and John are in beautiful harmony. (See also pp. 12, 13, 34.) And, of course, we are not surprised to find indirect reference to the doctrine of the virgin birth in a Gospel written by the great opponent of Cerinthus! (See p. 33.)^[146] And were saying. They raise a question. This question of the Jews, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? expects an affirmative answer. The question does not necessarily imply that Joseph was still alive. The words have a scornful ring. One could almost translate the first part as follows: Is not this fellow ([Greek]) Jesus.&? They regard Jesus as being guilty of base presumption, if not outright blasphemy. It is in this spirit that the next question is uttered: How is it that he now says, I have come down out of heaven? Their argument was: We have known him since the days of his childhood; his father, his mother, his family. Yet now that he is grown up, look what happens! He makes extravagant claims. Does he actually expect us to believe them? 43, 44. In view of the testimonies that had been given (see on 5:30–47) there was no excuse for this scornful attitude on the part of the Jews. If everything was not immediately clear, they could have asked questions in a polite and humble manner. The questions which they actually asked were wrong both in content and in spirit. Hence, Jesus does not enter into them. He realizes that this would have been useless. In a passage (verse 43, taken in its entirety) which again places side by side human responsibility and divine predestination, Jesus answered and said to them, Stop murmuring among yourselves. Here human responsibility is stressed. Then, taking up again one of his own main points (see 6:37), Jesus continues, No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. Here the emphasis is on the divine decree of predestination carried out in history. When Jesus refers to the divine drawing activity, he employs a term which clearly indicates that more than moral influence is indicated. The Father does not merely beckon or advise, he draws! This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ The Gospel According to John Commentary on Chapters 7 21 CHAPTER VII Outline of Chapters 7 10 Theme: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God During his Public Ministry Earnestly Exhorting Sinners to Repent, Bitterly Resisted 1 f 1. At the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem He exclaims, If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. His Enemies Regard Him as a Demon-possessed Pretender. 2. At This Same Feast (or immediately afterward) He Exhorts the Woman Taken in Adultery: Go and from now on sin no more; and the Multitudes: I am the light of the world. His Enemies Are Ready to Stone Him. 3. He Heals the Man Born Blind, to Whom in Love He Reveals Himself as the Son of Man. His Enemies Have Decided to Unsynagogue Those Who Accept Him. 4. He Reveals Himself as the Good Shepherd and also (at the Feast of Dedication) as the Christ, One with the Father. His Enemies Again Seek to Stone Him. 7:1–5 7 1 And after these things Jesus was going about in Galilee, for he did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill him. 2 Now the feast of the Jews, that of Tabernacles, drew near. 3 So his brothers said to him. Leave here and go to Judea, in order that your disciples also may view the works which you are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret when he seeks to be known to the public. If you do these things, show yourself to the world. [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] 5 For even his brothers did not believe in him. 7:1. And after these things.The events which occurred during the period April October of the year 29 a.d. are by John summarized in one verse: And after these things Jesus was going to Galilee, for he did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill him (7:1). In Matthew, Mark, and Luke we have the detailed account of the happenings which belong to this half year of Christ's ministry. We may call it the Retirement Ministry; see Mark, Chapters 7 9. John says that during these months Jesus was going about in Galilee.This is in harmony with the account as given in the Synoptics, which indicates that the Lord went from Capernaum in Galilee to the borders of Tyre and Sidon, traversing a large section of Galilee; then departing from Galilee in crossing over to Decapolis; went back again to Galilee (Dalmanutha); left it again for the region of Cesarea Philippi; and finally, covering another large stretch of Galilean territory, went on his way back to Capernaum. Here and there, however, it is not immediately clear whether these various journeys are described in chronological orderMk. 8:1: in those days . A glance at the map would seem to indicate that they are. What characterizes the period is that to a large extent Jesus withdrew himselfRetirementMinistry from the Capernaum multitudes, to be with his disciples. For he did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill him.Here is a continuation of the plot which was mentioned for the first time in 5:18; see Vol. I, p. 196. Now although the Lord had come from heaven for the very purpose of laying down his life, he knew that the exact moment when in accordance with the eternal counsel of God this must take place had not yet arrived. Hence, he remained in the northern regions of the country during this period. It is also true, of course, that a positive motive guided the steps of the Master: he wanted to reveal his glory unto the salvation of sinners in this northern territory, and he desired to avail himself of this opportunity of relative retirement to instruct his disciples with reference to his coming suffering. 2. Now the feast of the Jews, that of Tabernacles, drew near. But when October was finally approaching, a question must have occurred to the minds of those who knew Jesus; namely, was it his plan to go to Jerusalem in order to attend the very important pilgrim-feast of Tabernacles (Dwelling in Booths)? On this feast see (Lev. 23:33 44and Numbers 29. It was celebrated from the fifteenth to the twenty-first or twenty-second day of the seventh month, which approximates our October. It was a feast of thanksgiving for the vintage. But besides being a harvest-festival it was also a joyful commemoration of the divine guidance granted to the forefathers in their wilderness-journey. Following hard upon the day of Atonement, the idea of joy after redemption was naturally very prominent. In a decreased daily scale a special sacrifice of seventy bullocks was made. The temple-trumpets were blown on each day. There was the ceremony of the outpouring of water, drawn from Siloam, in commemorationof the refreshing stream which had come forth miraculously out of the rock at MeribahEx. 17:1–7), and (in anticipationof blessings both for Israel and for the world. There was the illumination of the inner court of the temple, where the light of the grand candelabra reminded one of the pillar of fire by night which had served as a guide through the desertNum. 14:14). There was a torch-parade. And above all, everywhere in and around Jerusalem, in the street, the square, and even on the roofs of the houses booths were erected. These leafy dwellings provided shelter for the pilgrims who came from every direction to attend this feast. But most of all they too were reminders of the wilderness-life of the ancestors (Lev. 23:43). It is rather generally assumed that John mentions this feast because he is about to report certain sayings of Jesus that were connected with its ceremonies (7:37; 8:12; 9:7). 3 5.When it appears that Jesus is not in a hurry to attend the feast, his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (or Jude), Matt. 13:55begin to criticize him. They view his present behavior as being inconsistent. On the one hand, so they reason, Jesus is aiming at a high public office. Yet, on the other hand, he remains behind in Galilee, while the public is already on its way to Jerusalem. So his brothers said to him, Leave here and go to Judea, in order that your disciples also may view the works which you are doing. For no one does anything in secret when he seeks to be known to the public. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.In Jerusalem Jesus will be in the limelight. His followers, having gathered in Jerusalem from every direction, will thus receive an opportunity to see his miracles. If Jesus is doing these mighty works, which fact as such these brothers do not call into question, then let him show himself to the world. Jesus must attain to glory and fame by means of a mighty demonstration of power. That is the way they see it. The reason why they see it that way is, as stated in verse 5, (For even his brothers did not believe in him.It is certain that they did not see in him the Messiah who was to prove himself as such by means of suffering and the cross! Their Messianic conception was, in a sense, similar to that of the crowd which had partaken of the bread-cakes (6:15). It was thoroughly earthly and materialistic. Strictly speaking, it does not even follow that these brothers took Jesus to be the Messiah in any sense whatever. The story merely shows that they were charging him with inconsistency, and that they, in common with so many others, harbored secular ideas with reference to the coming and office of the Messiah. After Christ's resurrection the attitude of these brothers changed completelyActs 1:14). 7:6–13 6 Jesus then said to them, For me the proper time is not yet here, but for you the time is always [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] 7 The world cannot hate you, but me it hates because I testify concerning it, that its works are wicked. 8 Go up to the feast yourselves. I am not yet going up to this feast, because for me the proper time has not yet [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] 9 Having said these things to them, he remained in Galilee. 10 But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but as it were in secret. 11 Now the Jews were looking for him at the feast, and were saying, Where is he? 12 And there was much murmuring about him among the crowds. Some were saying, He is a good man, but others were saying, No, on the contrary, he is leading the people astray. 13 Nevertheless, for fear of the Jews no one was speaking publicly about him. 7:6. Jesus then said to them, For me the proper time is not yet here, but for you the time is always suitable. Jesus speaks about the proper time ([Greek] in distinction from [Greek]; even in the Koine this distinction has not entirely vanished). He says that the proper moment has not yet arrived for him. However, the question may be asked: The proper moment to do what: to go up to the feast, or: to manifest himself to the world? The preceding context permits either interpretation. However, the succeeding context permits only oneexplanation. When Jesus says (verse 6b), &but for you the time is always suitable, he can only mean, You can go up to the feastat any time. Therefore, it is certainly very probable that also in verse 6a what he means is this: For me the proper time to go up to the feastis not yet here. This conclusion is also in harmony with verse 8 (second clause) where, regardless of the reading one adopts (whether [Greek] or [Greek]) Jesus speaks twice about going up to the feast. Hence, verse 6 definitely shows that for everydeed and action of the Lord (not only for his death on the cross) there is a definite moment, determined from all eternity in the plan of God. See also vol. I, p. 115. The will of Jesus being in complete accord with this eternal counsel of God, he naturally waits for the proper moment to arrive. For the brothers of Jesus there were no such considerations. They had no such conscious contact with the clock of God's eternal counsel. Besides, they were as yet unbelievers. Hence, Jesus says, &but for you the time is always suitable. When the further question is asked; namely, Why was it that Jesus delayed going up to the feast? the answer probably lies in this direction: had he gone up at once, with the firstcomers, there would have been ample time for the Sanhedrin to plan his arrest at this time,so as to put him to death now. But Jesus knew that his death as the Lamb of God must take place at the time of the next Passover, not during this feast of Tabernacles. Hence, he delays. 7.The brothers had said, Show yourself to the world. From theirpoint of view that is understandable, as Jesus also now says, The world cannot hate you, but me it hates.& The world(A [Greek]; see Vol. I, p. 79) is here the realm of evil, mankind alienated from the life of God, and manifesting open hostility to God and his Anointed. This world is represented by Jerusalem's religious hierarchy. Inasmuch as the brothers of Jesus at this time did not believe in him (7:5), the world, of course, could not hate them. Cf. 15:18, 19; 17:14. It hated the Christ; the reason being: because I testify concerning it, that its works are wicked.For that testimony see 2:14–16; 3:19, 20; 5:30–47. 8, 9.Jesus continues: Go up to the feast yourselves. I am not yet going up to this feast, because for me the proper time has not yet arrived(literally, has not yet become full: the lower compartment of the hourglass of God's providence is not yet filled). Jesus differs by a whole heaven from his brothers. In going up to the feast, their purpose, however religious it may be, is yet altogether worldly. So, let them go up by themselves. On going upto Jerusalem see Vol. I, p. 122. For the reason already stated, the proper time has not yet arrived for Jesus to go up. He will go, but not immediately. This explanation is very simple, and suits the entire context. However, a real difficulty has been created by reading not instead of not yet in verse 8. We are then confronted with this puzzle: Jesus says, I go not up unto this feast -2 _ftnref4 (A.R.V.); yet a little later he does go up (verse 10). Once having established this as the reading to be followed, all kinds of explanations are attempted. According to some, when Jesus said, I go not up, he meant, I am not going up in order to manifest myself as the Messiah. That I will do at a later feast. According to others, verse 8 must be interpreted on this fashion: I am not going up publicly,but secretly. These commentators appeal to verse 10. Still others believe that Jesus changed his mind or that the Father changed his mind for him. All of these unnatural explanations can be avoided by simply adopting for this verse the reading upon which the -2 _ftnref5 A.V.is based: I go not up yetunto this feast. The textual evidence is about [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] The context (verses 6, 9, 10) is certainly all in favor of the reading which has not yet ([Greek]) instead of not. Jesus has already indicated (verse 6) that the proper time to attend the feast has not yet arrived for him. Hence, having said these things he remaineda little while longer in Galilee.But after his brothers had gone up, he goes up also (verse 10). Into this context the reading not yet in verse 8 fits beautifully. Why create a difficulty when there is no need for one? There certainly are problems enough in exegesis without creating additional ones. 10.So Jesus remained in Galilee for a while. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but as it were in secret.Just how did Jesus go up to Jerusalem in secret?The answers vary. Some are of the opinion that this was the only possible way Jesus was able to go, because the roads were deserted by this time, seeing that the busy caravans of pilgrims, including the brothers of Jesus, had already arrived in the capital. But if the explanation is so altogether obvious, then why is the fact mentioned at all? Others are inclined to think that Jesus was accompanied only by his disciples, chose the less traveled roads, journeyed only or mainly by night, and did not publicly announce his departure from Galilee or his arrival in Jerusalem. Something on that order, no doubt, is what is meant by the statement that Jesus went up in secret. 11. Now the Jews,consisting mainly or exclusively of the religious leaders of Jerusalem who were hostile to Jesus, had been expecting him earlier. They were looking for him at the feast and were sayingagain and again, Where is he?Their intentions, in view of 5:18 and 7:25, cannot have been friendly. Yet 9:22 and 11:49–53 are still future. 12. And there was much murmuring about him among the crowds.Among the crowds which had been streaming into the city from every direction the opinion was definitely divided, just as it was in Galileemany,not all, had deserted him , though the present multitudes, coming not only from Galilee but from every section of the Holy Land and from all the countries of the Diaspora, were perhaps more evenly divided in their sentiments. Somepeople were saying, He is a good man,aiming to do good, morally upright, not a deceiver. Others,however, differed very sharply (note [Greek], [Greek]), and were saying, No, on the contrary, he is leading the people astray.Cf. Lk. 23:2, 5. They saw in Jesus a mere demagogue, a man to be shunned, a false prophet, one who was interested in getting the crowd or mob ([Greek] ) on his side, ingratiating himself with the multitudes for selfish purposes. 13. Nevertheless, for fear of the Jews, no one was speaking publicly about him.These contrasting opinions, however, were uttered in whispers. As long as the Sanhedrin had not yet pronounced an official verdict, no one dared to speak out openly. Cf. 9:22. No one dared to stick his neck out. Saying the wrong word in public might mean expulsion from the synagogue. Very powerful was the dreaded hierarchical machine in Jerusalem. It was fast becoming a curse for the religious life of Israel. There have been somewhat similar curses since that day. Great was the muttering and the mumbling among the crowds. The whereabouts and the character of Jesus were the center of interest. 7:14–24 14 Now when the feast was already half over, Jesus went up to the temple and started to teach. 15 The Jews therefore were amazed and said, How can this fellow know letters without an education? 16 So Jesus answered them, and said, My teaching is not mine but his who sent me. 17 If anyone is willing to do his will, he shall know concerning the teaching whether it is of God or whether I am (merely) expressing my own [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] 18 He who (merely) expresses his own views is seeking his own glory. He who seeks the glory of him who sent him, this one is truly reliable, and there is in him nothing false. 19 Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you seeking to kill me? 20 The crowd answered, You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you? 21 Jesus answered and said to them, Onedeed I did, and you are all amazed. 22 It is for that reason (that I say to you), Moses gave you the rite of circumcision not that it originated with Moses but with the fathers and on the sabbath you circumcize a person. 23 If a person receives circumcision on the sabbath in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry at me because I made a man completely well on the [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] 24 Stop judging superficially, but render just judgment. 7:14, 15. Now when the feast was already half over, Jesus went up to the temple and started to teach. All of a sudden Jesus appeared in the temple. The feast which lasted fully a week (Lev. 23:26) was already half over. With so many pilgrims present in Jerusalem, many of whom were sufficiently interested in Jesus and sympathetic toward him that harming him might have led to difficulties for those in charge, really adequatepreparations for his arrest were no longer possible. Clumsy, last-minute efforts in this direction led to nothing, as we shall see (7:32, 45 52). Jesus then, having found a convenient place for himself (perhaps in the court of the Gentiles?) sat down, as was the customary posture of those who taughtMatt. 5:1, 2; but cf. 7:37 . A crowd of listeners quickly gathered, whom he started to instruct. This time there was no miracle, as on the previous (recorded) occasion (chapter 5). But the people will soon discover that whatever the Lord does is amazing, his teaching as well as his miracles. Presently some of the hostile leaders joined the audience. They listened for a while. Then, startled by the character and contents of the words which they heard, these men, who were never ready to admit any true greatness on the part of the Lord, were able to contain themselves no longer. The Jews therefore were amazedabout his audacity. Their anger exploded in a vituperative exclamation concerning Jesus, and they saidto the crowd: How can this fellow know letters without an education?Jesus had never received instruction in any of the rabbinical schools. In present-day language, one might say that he had failed to receive his degree at an accredited institution. Therefore, whatever he said must be wrong! He did not know letterslettersof the alphabet, Gal. 6:11; b. an epistle,Acts 28:21; c. Scriptures,II Tim. 3:15; finally, as here, learning;however, Jewish learning was mainly focussed on the sacred writings and their interpretation . The implication was that Jesus was simply uttering his own private opinions about religious matters; and, therefore, that one should refuse to listen to him any longer. 16. (In his answer Jesus shows that the critics had failed completely to think of the possibility that the contents of his teaching might have been derived from another source, far superior to any Jewish seminary. As the criticssaw it, there were only two possibilities: either, Jesus must have been enrolled as a regular student in a rabbinical school; or else, he is simply spouting his own ideas. And whereas they knew that the first of these alternatives was definitely out, the second must be the truth. So Jesus answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.Not taught by man, nor self-taught, but instructed by God himself, that was his answer. On Jesus as the One sentby God see vol. I, pp. 142, 150, 208. Not only had he derived the contents of his teaching from his Father in heaven, but he had also been divinely commissioned to convey it to the people on earth. Let his enemies take note of this fact; namely, that in rejecting him and his message they are rejecting God himselfMatt. 10:40). 17, 18.Jesus then lays down a basic principle: he stipulates the qualifications which one should possess before he is able, in a measure, to evaluate Christ's teaching. Anyone who wishes to do this must a. have the proper disposition (verse 17); b. aim at the proper ideal (verse 18). He must have the proper disposition of heart and mind: If anyone is willing to do his will, he shall know concerning the teaching whether it is of God or whether I am (merely) expressing my own views.If there be no true desire to obey the will of God as expressed in his Word, true knowledge (both intellectual and experiential) will not be found. This introduces the interesting question: Just how are the various elements of Christian experience related to each other? In general it may be said that, according to the teaching of Christ and the apostles, knowledge(concerning Christ and the facts of redemption: implying, of course, a knowledge of misery) comes first. When we try to trace our love for God in Christ to its source, we discover that it resulted from the contemplation of the facts of the Gospel and from our interpretation of the significance of these facts. Nevertheless, we hasten to add: knowledge as such never produces love. It results in love when the Holy Spirit applies this knowledge to the heart; i.e., when he creates in the heart a response to the love of Christ, the knowledge of which is already present in the mind. Now this love, in turn, expresses itself in deeds of obedience: If you love me, you will keep my commandments. The fundamental relation between the three is, therefore: a. knowledge, b. love, c. obedience. Cf. John 17:26; 14:15. Yet, this representation is in need of qualification. Each of the elements (knowledge, love, obedience), once present in any slight degree, enriches, intensifies, deepens the others. There is a constant interaction, each influencing the other two. In fact, the three are so closely related that none is complete in and by itself alone. Thus, not only does knowledge, applied by the Holy Spirit, lead to love; but love, in turn, is the indispensable prerequisite of full-grown knowledge. Hence, at times we find the opposite order: instead of knowledge& love,we find love& knowledge. Cf. Eph. 3:17. Similarly, instead of the order according to which obedience is last (as in 14:15), we also find the order in which it is first. This, of course, is the way in which the sequence is expressed in the passage which we are now studying (7:17): If anyone is willing to do his will, he shall know concerning the teaching whether it is of God or whether I am (merely) expressing my own views. Here we have: 1. obedience (willingness to do God's will) and 2. knowledge. The only logical conclusion, in view of these various and (at first glance) seemingly (really) conflicting representations, is this: when we speak of knowledge, love and obedience,we are not thinking of three altogether separate experiences, but of one single, comprehensive experience in which the three are united in such a manner that each contributes its share, and all cooperate unto man's salvation and God's glory. This experience is personalin character. Hence, we can no longer speak of the primacy of the intellect or of the primacy of the emotions or of the primacy of the will, but of the primacy of the sovereign grace of God influencing and transforming the entire personality for the glory of God. Knowledge, therefore, will never be sanctified to the heart and lead to true discernment of the divine character and origin of Christ's teaching unless the willingness to do God's will is present first of all. When the latter is present, one will immediately perceive that the base charge of the Jews namely, that Jesus was merely expressing his own private opinions is utterly false. Now one who has the proper disposition (verse 17) will also aim at the proper ideal (verse 18): (He who (merely) expresses his own views is seeking his own glory. He who seeks the glory of him who sent him, this one is truly reliable, and there is in him nothing false.On this passage see 5:41–44. If this glory of God be the listener's ideal, he will also be able to detect whether it is the speaker's ideal. Would a self-appointed prophet do what Jesus is always doing (cf. 5:19; 7:16; 17:4); i.e., would he show in all his words and actions that he is seeking the glory of his Sender? Would not one who is merely uttering his own private opinions be doing the exact opposite; i.e., would he not seek his own glory? These words serve a double purpose: a. they show the utter groundlessness of the scoffing remark of the leaders, How can this fellow know letters without an education? and b. they expose the sin of these leaders. Theywere the very people who were always seeking to promote their own glory, even to such an extent that six months after this feast of Tabernacles their envy caused them to deliver up Jesus to be crucifiedMatt. 27:18). They just could not take it that there was such an interest in Jesus on the part of the crowds. Hence, while hewas the truly reliable ([Greek]) One, in whom there was no deceit of any kind, theywere the ones whose religion, in spite of all their outward show of zeal for the law, was nothing but a false pretense. 19. (Jesus exposes this hypocrisy even more thoroughly when he asks the rhetorical question: Did not Moses give you the law?Indeed, these very men were constantly boasting about being disciples of Moses (9:28), and sitting in Moses seatMatt. 23:2). They had received the Torah (the whole law: civil, ceremonial, moral, with emphasis on the latter as summarized in the Ten Commandments) through the mediation of Moses. Jesus continues: Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you seeking to kill me?The offended One is now taking the offensive. The double denunciation, aimed at the leaders, comes like a thunderbolt and a lightning flash. It shows that Jesus was at this very moment reading the hearts of these men. He knew that while they tried to pose as the guardians of the law of Moses, a law which is summarized in the one word love,they had hatred and murder in their hearts (cf. 5:18). But the terrible charge, the devastating accusation, is aimed not only (though especially) at the leaders. Jesus knows that the citizens of Jerusalem are going to join with them by and by, and so will others (7:30, 44), until finally, a half year from now, the entire mob, gathered in Jerusalem from everywhere, will shout, Let him be crucified. To be neutral with respect to Christ is not even possible. Hence, the question Why are you seeking to kill me? is, in a sense, meant for the entire audience. 20. The crowd answered, You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you? Nevertheless, among the assembled multitudes which consist of hostile leaders (Pharisees, scribes), pilgrims from everywhere, and citizens of Jerusalem (cf. verses 14, 20, 25, respectively, for the three classes) there are those who have no conscious desire at this present moment to put Jesus to death. We can imagine how they, consisting, no doubt, mostly of people who had come from afar, felt themselves aggrieved by the question of Jesus. While their cheeks are glowing with indignation, they burst out with the exclamation, You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you? They feel certain that an evil spirit must have taken possession of his mind, and must have made him insane. This crowd of pilgrims evidently did not know that the leaders at Jerusalem had already in their hearts planned to put him out of the way. People are usually slow to catch on to the plots of religious leaders for whom they have high respect. The story enacted here in Jerusalem has, on a smaller scale, been repeated many times in history. For example, a few leaders, holding high office, filled with envy, plot the ruin of this or that person. Very cleverly they lay their plans. Their plot succeeds. The people in general never realize what has happened. If the intended victim of the leaders envy would ever have told them in plain language, These leaders are plotting my ruin, they would have replied: Man, you have a demon or at least a persecution-complex! Nobody is trying to harm you in any way. 21 24.Jesus, however, proves his point. The plot to kill him had entered the hearts and minds of the leaders in connection with the healing of the man at the pool, as is definitely stated in 5:18. Jesus answered and said to them, Onedeed I did, and you are all amazed.To be sure, Jesus had also performed other deeds of healing in Jerusalem (2:23; 4:45); but this onedeed the cure of the paralytic at Bethzatha (5:1–18; see vol. I, pp. 187–197), performed on the sabbath, had been the immediate occasion for the plot against his life. The miracle itself, but especially the attendant circumstances (that it was done on the sabbath and that on the sabbath the man had been ordered to carry his mat), had caused general amazement. It must be borne in mind that neither here nor in verse 15 of this chapter does amazement necessarily imply approbation. Now in view of the fact that the reaction of the people had not been one of true, living faith but rather of adverse criticism (especially among the leaders), the Lord continues: It is for that reason that I say to [Greek] is probably elliptical [Greek]) -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] , (Moses gave you the rite of circumcision not that it originated with Moses but with the fathers and on the sabbath you circumcise a person.To show them the weakness of their criticism of his deed, as if it had been sabbath-violation, this circumcision-ordinance is here introduced. Though this rite became an ordinance for Israel by virtue of its inclusion in the Mosaic legislationLev. 12:1–3), yet it was practised long before Moses, in the days of the fathers who preceded him (Gen. 17:9–14, 23 27; 21:4). The Jews, in their zeal for the law of Moses, were prone to forget that certain important religious practices were in vogue long before his time; hence, Jesus adds the parenthetical clause. Now according to the law which governed this religious rite, a male child had to be circumcised (on the eighth dayafter its birth. The point which Jesus stresses is this: even if that eighth day happens to be a sabbath, the child is, nevertheless, circumcised. He continues, bringing home his argument in such a manner that its cogency is immediately clear: If a person receives circumcision on the sabbath in order that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry at me because I made a man completely well on the sabbath?If ceremonial cleansingof one memberof the body (the procreative member) is permitted on the sabbath, then would actual healingof the entire body(yes, of the entire man, body and soul) be forbidden on the sabbath, giving the people righteous cause for anger against the Healer? The argument is, of course, unanswerable. The sabbath was made for man; not man for the sabbathMk. 2:27). What the people (both the leaders and the rest) should do is this: they should calmly reflect on these matters. They should cease being so rash in their judgments. Hence, Jesus said, Stop judging [Greek]; literally: according to appearance), but render just judgment.Compare the somewhat similar thought expressed so beautifully in I Sam. 16:7b: For Jehovah sees not as man sees; for man looks on the outward appearance, but Jehovah looks on the heart. 7:25–29 25 Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore were saying, Is not this the man whom they are seeking to kill? 26 Now look! He is speaking openly, and they say nothing to him. Surely, the rulers have not really become convinced that he is the Christ, have they? 27 Yet we know where this man is from; but when the Christ comes, no one will know where he comes from. 28 So Jesus cried out, teaching in the temple and saying, So you know me; and you know where I am from! But I have not come of my own accord; on the contrary, he who sent me is the Real One, but him you do not know. 29 I do know him, because I am from his presence, and he sent me. 7:25–27.The reaction of the Sanhedrin-members has been recorded in 7:15; that of the crowd (mostly pilgrims) in 7:20. We now hear from the citizens of Jerusalem (7:25–27). These were better informed with respect to the real intentions of the leaders, who had their headquarters in their own city. Also, they were not as friendly to Jesus as were many of the pilgrims from afar. The Jerusalemites were greatly surprised about the fact that no one had tried to stop Jesus when he had flung his terrible accusations in the teeth of his opponents (verse 19), and, in addition, had charged them and their followers with most glaring inconsistency (verses 21 24). To be sure, there had been a momentary interruption, an ejaculation of anger (verse 20), but that was all. Jesus had been allowed to continue his revolutionary teaching. In this light we can understand the statement: Some of the people therefore said, Is not this the man whom they are seeking to kill? Now look! He is speaking [Greek] from [Greek] and [Greek]; hence, telling all, keeping back nothing, a term which in the form of [Greek] has a beautiful meaning in Heb. 4:16), and they(those in charge of the temple, its ritual, services, etc.) say nothing to him.A possibility flashes across their minds, but is almost immediately dismissed: Surely, the rulers have not really become convinced that he is the Christ, have they? Yet we know where this man is from; but when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from.The opinion of the rulers! That was the all-important thing, for these men had the right to cast dissenters out of the synagogue, a most terrible punishment (cf. 7:13; 7:48; 9:22; 9:34; and 12:42). But how can it be explained that, in the face of such dreadful accusations which Jesus had hurled against them, they allowed him to proceed as if nothing had happened? Could it be that they had really come to [Greek], actually become convinced) that he is the Christ? But no, that could not be. Hence, the question is cast in a form which expects a negative answer, even though the door of doubt is kept slightly ajar ([Greek] ). The idea of some to the effect that these people of Jerusalem are asking the question in the attitude of ridicule hardly seems to harmonize with the calm manner of discourse the weighing of arguments pro and con which appears in verse 27. The suggestion of the Jerusalemites that the rulers might have arrived at the conclusion that this was really the Christ vanishes before the objection that the place of origin of this man, Jesus, is well-known; but that the whence of the genuine Messiah would be unknown. Did not everybody know that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and that he was a son of Joseph and Mary! We find something similar in 6:42 and in 7:41, 42. Hence, the possibility that he might be the Christ was immediately ruled out. According to the present chapter of John's Gospel there were two opinions among the Jews regarding the origin of the expected Messiah: a. according to some, no one would know where he came from (7:27); b. according to others, he would be born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:3–5). The first of these ideas that Messiah would appear very suddenly, as if from nowhere seems to have been a piece of popular theology, probably based upon inferences from certain passages in the Apocryphaclearlystated in any of those books [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] The second idea (as the given references indicate) was correct, and was the official position of the Sanhedrin. On either score, however, since everybody knew where Jesus came from, namely, from Nazareth in Galilee, he could not be the true Messiah! 28.How thoroughly wrong they were! And how this woeful ignorance concerning his real origin must have pained the Lord! Stirred to the very depths of his being, Jesus cried [Greek]) this too belonged to his teaching in the temple: So, you know me, and you know where I am from!One can also read the exclamation as a question; thus: So you know me, and you know where I am from? Either way, the meaning is the same. Jesus ridicules the very idea that these biased, legalistic materialistic citizens of Jerusalem would actually knowhim and his origin! And when he now says So, you know me, and you know where I am from! he means, That is what you think! We do not accept the interpretation of those who exclude the idea of irony, and who believe that Jesus actually meant to say that these citizens of the capital knew him and his origin inasmuch as they knew that he came from Nazareth in Galilee. We cannot accept this, for the following reasons: a. In that case would not the Lord be hiding his realorigin (namely, that he came from heaven and was born, according to prophecy, in Bethlehem); and would he not, therefore, become partly responsible for the notion that he could not be the Christ? Besides, his childhood in Nazareth does not constitute a cogent argument either for or against his exalted character and origin. Hence, we cannot believe that Jesuswould in all seriousness bring up that subject. b. Jesus himself again and again declares, either explicitly or by implication, that the people do notknow him or his origin (8:19, 42, 43; see also 3:11; 5:18, 37, 38; 6:42, 60 62; 8:55–59; and cf. 14:9). Would he then say the very opposite here (7:28)? Also, notice that in the last clause of verse 28 Jesus tells these people that they do not know God. Is it logical then to suppose that he would say in the same verse: But you do actually know me? Cf. 8:19! c. Failure to see the sparkling, lively character of our Lord's conversation the notion, for example, that it would have been far below his dignity and glorious majesty ever to use irony or ridicule has led to mistakes in exegesis again and again. See what has been said about this in connection with 5:31; vol. I, pp. 205, 206. d. The fact that when Jesus spoke these words, he was deeply stirred, so that he cried out,harmonizes beautifully with the idea that what we have here is not a calm statement of fact but an exclamation of the character: So you know me, and you know where I am from! In the light of this stinging ridicule it is not too difficult to understand that the persons addressed were anxious to have Jesus arrested (7:30). e. Finally, we must bear in mind that the leaders and some of the Jerusalemites regarded Jesus as a deceiver, an impostor; as one who most certainly could not bethe Messiah (7:12, 27, 41, 42). Is it logical, then, to assume that Jesus would say to such people that they actually knew him and knew where he came from? With John Calvin (and many others: Godet, Weizsäcker, L�cke, Lenski) we believe, therefore, that Jesus here employs [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] These same people who were so certain that Jesus could not be the promised Messiah regarded him as a self-appointed prophet. Hence, in refutation Jesus says, But I have not come of my own accord; on the contrary, he who sent me is the Real One, and him you do not know.Instead of having come of his own accord, Jesus was the divinely commissioned One, having been sent by the Father, as is taught in many a passage of the Fourth Gospel (5:30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10). Moreover, the people must not think that the Sender is a mere figment of the imagination, a subjective notion; on the contrary, he is the Real One ([Greek]), but he is the very One whom the people do not know (cf. 8:19, 55), although they imagine that they know him very well. 29.Jesus continues: Ido know him, because I am from him(or: from his presence), and he sent me.There is some doubt about the correct reading, whether this be I am fromhim or I am withhim. However, the context clearly shows that the question that was in the minds of all was this: Who is Jesus, and where is he from? Thus in verse 27 and again in verse 28. Besides, the idea that Jesus is the One who came fromGod is rather common in John (1:14; 6:46; 16:27; 17:8). Of course, the One who came fromGod was at one timealways with (him. And because the Son was with the Father and came forth from him, he knows him thoroughlyMatt. 11:27). Let there be no doubt about this in the minds of the hearers. On the side of the Jerusalem critics there is conceit and error, all of this born of unbelief. Their syllogism was as follows: Major Premise: No one will know where the real Messiah comes from. Minor Premise: We know where Jesus comes from. Conclusion: Hence, Jesus cannot be the real Messiah. Given the major and the minor premise, the conclusion follows logically. But the major premise was false; the minor premise was false: the conclusion was false. Over against their delusions Jesus, who comes straight from God and was commissioned by him, proclaims the truth; namely, that he is, indeed, the Christ, and that he, he alone,knows the Father thoroughly. 7:30, 31 30 Therefore they were anxious to arrest him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. 31 But many of the people believed in him, and said, When the Christ comes, he surely will not do more signs than this man has done, will he? 7:30.Jesus had made the loftiest claims with respect to his own person and origin, had exposed to ridicule the pretended knowledge of the Jerusalemites, and had told them in blunt, unmistakable language that they did not even know God (7:28, 29)! So we are not surprised to read: Therefore they were [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 ([Greek] to arrest him.Why did they not carry out their wish? Did fear of those pilgrims who were favorably disposed to Jesus restrain them? Verse 31 seems to point in that direction (see also 7:12 a). The deeper reason for this failure to capture Jesus at this time is stated in words which have a familiar ring in the Fourth Gospel: But no one laid a hand on himMatt. 26:50) because his hour had not yet come.For this last clause see on 2:4. Though surrounded by danger the anger of these Jerusalemites, the hostile desire and power of the leaders, Jesus was in reality free from all danger, because it was not the will of God that he should die at this [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] 31. But many of the people ((no doubt, mostly pilgrims) believed in him.This does not necessarily indicate true, living faith, however. They probably were ready to accept Jesus as the political Messiah of their dreams. They based their attitude upon the miracles which they had seen or about which they had been hearing such glowing reports. Cf. 2:23; 4:45, 48; Acts 8:13. They expected that the Messiah at his coming would perform miraclesIs. 35:5, 6; Matt. 11:2–5) and that he would restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). In the light of what Jesus has all along been doing they are ready to accept him as being this kind of a Messiah. And they were saying, When the Christ comes, he surely will not do moregreater signs than this man has done, will he?A negative answer is expected. 7:32–36 32 The Pharisees heard the crowd mumbling these things about him; so the chief priests and Pharisees sent officers in order that they might arrest him. 33 So Jesus said, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go to him who sent me. 34 You will seek me, but you will not find me, and where I am you cannot come. 35 The Jews therefore said to one another, Where does this fellow intend to go, that we shall not find him? He surely does not intend to go to the Diaspora among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, does he? 36 What does he mean by saying, You will seek me, but you will not find me, and Where I am you cannot come? 7.32. The Pharisees heard the crowd mumbling these things about him; so the chief priests and Pharisees sent officers in order that they might arrest him. As the Pharisees saw it, things were beginning to look very serious. People were actually beginning to regard this impostor as the true Messiah. The mumbling of voices which expressed these sentiments had been heard. Intervention was necessary. It could not be delayed any longer. So these guardians of the law reveal their anxiety to the members of the priestly families (mostly Sadducees). Agreement is soon reached. Mutual archenemies Pharisees and Sadducees are entirely willing to unite in their common opposition to Jesus (Lk. 23:12; Acts 4:27). Whether an actual Sanhedrin-session was held at thistime (as in 7:45–52, and in 11:47) we do not know. The agreement may have been of a less formal character. At any rate, the opposition against Jesus reaches a new stage here: the sinister desire, expressed in 5:18, begins to be put into effect. The men who should have been most zealous in their defence of Christ and his kingdom actually send officers ([Greek]: under-rowers; hence, servants, officers) to arrest the Messiah! 33.But Jesus shows that the counsel of God must be carried out. So,with serenity and majesty, calm and unperturbed, Jesus said(addressing himself to the entire assembled multitude, but especially to the leaders who are present): Yet a little while I am with you, and then I go to him who sent me.Cf. 16:16–19. Jesus knows that he will be on earth a little while longer; i.e., one half year (from October of the year 29 to April of the year 30; from feast of Tabernacles to feast of Passover). He will then return to his Sender, having fully accomplished the task that had been entrusted to him. 34. (In a statement full of mystery the Lord continues: You will seek me, but you will not find me.Cf. 13:33–36. The Jewish nation, in its despair, will seek deliverance, but it will then be too late. Think of the despair of EsauGen. 27:30–38; Heb. 12:17); of the men regarding whom Amos writes his prophecy of woe: Behold, the days come, saith the Lord Jehovah, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of Jehovah. And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of Jehovah, and shall not find it (Am. 8:11, 12). Cf. also Prov. 1:24–28. Not finding him, they will die in their sins (8:21). When Jesus adds: And where I am you cannot come,he means this: I am going to the Father; but you have rejected the Father by rejecting me. Hence, where I am you cannot come. In the presence of the Father there is no room for those who have refused to accept the Son. The warning implied in these words is, of course, very clear. It is the warning of Ps. 95:8–11. Thus Jesus clearly showed that, regardless of whatever the Jews might be planning, he would die at the appointed time, and that in his death the divine purpose, far from being frustrated, would be carried out: by means of the cross he would attain unto the crown; he would reach the glory that awaited him in heaven after the accomplishment of his mediatorial task on earth. 35, 36.But as in all previous cases so also now: this significant mashal was given a crassly literal interpretation. From the reaction of the Jewsit appears immediately that they have failed to see in the words of Jesus a disclosure of their own dreadful state of sin and its inevitable consequences. Lightheartedly casting aside the implied warning, they therefore said to one another: Where does this fellow intend to go, that we shall not find him? He surely does not intend to go to the Diaspora among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, does he? What does he mean by saying, You will seek me, but you will not find me, and Where I am you cannot come? They were mocking. Was it the intention of Jesus, after his work in Judea had ended in disappointment, to go to the Dispersion (Acts 8:1, 4; Jas. 1:1) of the Jews among the Greeks? In various regions of the earth Jews were living among the Greeks and other heathen peoples (Acts 2:9 11). When the evangelist mentions (Greeks,he does not mean Greek-speaking JewsActs 6:1; 9:29) but people who belong to the Hellenic stock. Was the intention of Jesus to work among the scattered Jews, and when also this work issued in failure, then to labor among the Greeks themselves? They do not realize that what they are saying in derision contains a glorious prophecy. Indeed, the Greeks will take an interest in the Gospel (see 12:20). And the tidings of salvation will be spread throughout the earth, and the kingdom of the Lord will be established, and &the scoffers will seek &in vain! 7:37–39 37 Now on the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus was standing and cried out, saying, If any one thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 He who believes in me, as the scripture says, From within him shall flow rivers of living water. 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, which those were to receive who believed in him. For as yet the Spirit was not present, because Jesus was not yet glorified. 7:37–38. Now on the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus was standing and cried out, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture says, From within him shall flow rivers of living water. From midway the feast (7:14) the story now advances to its last day. It is not certain whether this last day indicates the seventh or the eighth day (i.e., whether it refers to the twenty-first or to the twenty-second of the seventh month). There were seven days of regular feasting which were characterized, among other things, by dwelling in booths, by bringing offerings on a diminishing scale (thirteenyoung bullocks; on the second day, twelveyoung bullocks; on the third day, eleven;etc.; see Num. 29:12–34), and by fetching water from the pool of Siloam. The eighth day was a day of rest, of solemn assembly or holy convocation. Although many commentators show preference for either the seventh or eighth day, on the basis of the available evidence it would seem to be the part of wisdom to leave this question undecided. In favor of the eighth day as being the one to which reference is made here in 7:37 the following arguments have been presented: 1. Not only do the Old Testament passages mention this eighth day, but during the intertestamentary period and afterward it became customary to speak of this feast as one of eightdays. Thus, II Macc. 10:6: And they kept (the feast) eight days with gladness, and Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the JewsIII, x, 4: And keep a festival for eight days. 2. The designation the last, the great day of the feast accords better with the eighth than with the seventh day; for the eighth day marked the close not only of the feast of Tabernacles but of the entire great cycle of annual, religious festivals. The LXX (Lev. 23:36) calls this day the [Greek], i.e., the finale or closing festival. 3. As the water-pouring ceremony took place on each of the seven regular feast-days but not on the eighth[this, however, is not admitted by all], this very lack which characterized that eighth day furnished a most fitting reason for Christ's exclamation, If any man thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Those who favor the opposite theory that 7:37 refers to the seventh day argue as follows: 1. It may be confidently assumed that the language of 7:37 is rooted in the soil of the Old Testament rather than in that of the Apocrypha and of Josephus. Now in the Old Testament the eighth day is always reckoned separately, while the feast itself is said to last (sevendays: You shall keep the feast of Jehovah seven daysLev. 23:39); And you shall keep a feast unto Jehovah seven days (Num. 29:2); And they kept the feast seven days (Neh. 8:18). The last day of the feast(7:37) is, therefore, the seventh day. 2. This was (the great dayof the feast. The seventh day was, indeed, great, for: a. On this one day there were seven processions around the altar; on preceding days only one per day. b. In these processions the priests chanted, O then, work now salvation, Jehovah! O Jehovah, send now prosperityPs. 118:25). Hence, the seventh day, when this passage was chanted so many times, is called the day of The Great Hosannah. 3. Not only was this the last day of the regular series of diminishing sacrifices, and the last day of drawing water from Siloam, but it was also the last day of dwelling in booths. On the afternoon of this day the booths were dismantled, and the feast ended. The holy convocation on the eighth day was not a part of the feast proper. The last day of the feast is, therefore the seventh day. What is far more important to remember in connection with the events of this day whether it be regarded as the seventh or as the eighth day of the feast is the fact that the Lord, far from turning himself away from the multitudes, many of whom in one way or another had rejected him, extended his gracious invitation: If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. Prophecy was being fulfilled in a most remarkable manner. About five and one half centuries earlier Haggai had been urging the returned remnant to resume the work of rebuilding the temple. In order to encourage those who deplored the insignificant look of the new building even in its very beginnings, this prophet was used as the vehicle for the utterance of the following message of Jehovah, a word full of comfort and cheer: Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations; and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory, saith Jehovah of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith Jehovah of hosts. The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, saith Jehovah of hosts; and in this place will I give peace, saith Jehovah of hosts (Hag. 2:6–9). This passage, which in its deepest implications is a glorious Messianic prophecy, must have been uttered not far away from the very placewhere Jesus stood now; i.e., more than five centuries later. The timewhen it was spoken is also most remarkable. Haggai delivered this message of encouragement in the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month. And when Jesus in a measure fulfilled this prophecy and sought to persuade the thirsty ones to come to himself and drink, it was again the seventh month, the twenty-first or twenty-second day of the month! Although it cannot be demonstrated with mathematical certainty, it must be regarded as very probable that the invitation uttered by Jesus (7:37) had some connection with the drawing of water from the pool of Siloam. On each of the seven feast-days a priest would fill a golden pitcher with water from this pool. Accompanied by a solemn procession, he would return to the temple and amid the sounding of trumpets and the shouting of rejoicing multitudes he would pour it through a funnel which led to the base of the altar of burntoffering. The people were in a jubilant mood. Not only did this ceremony remind them of the blessings granted to the forefathers in the wilderness (the water from the rock), but it also pointed forward to the spiritual bounties of the Messianic age. Their minds, hearts, and voices were occupied with such passages as Is. 12:3, Therefore with joy shall you draw water from the wells of salvation. In their right hand they held a branch of myrtle, a willow-twig, and a bough of the palm-tree; in the left, a citron or similar fruit. The desert-life of the ancestors passed in review. The festival resembled a historical pageant. And the citrons, though not intended for that purpose, came in handy when a worldly highpriest would try to improve upon the established ritual of the feast, as Alexander Janneus (104 78 b.c.) discovered to his dismay when he was pelted with them. Now it may have been immediately after the completion of the symbolic rite of water-pouring and the chanting of the familiar lines from Ps. 118, or else it may have been on the day when, according to many, no such ceremony took place, that the voice of Jesus was heard loud and clear: If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. It was as if he wanted to say, Do you not realize that this water points to me, and that all these reminders of the life of your fathers in the wilderness lose their most vital significance apart from me? At this point we should pay some attention to a departure from the usual translation of verses 37 and 38. In reality, this is a matter that concerns the punctuation of the Greek, and the supposedly wrong vocalization of the original Aramaic. That the words of 7:37, spoken by Jesus to a large gathering of Jews in the temple, were actually uttered in Aramaic is granted. This, of course, does not necessarily imply that what is given in our Greek New Testament rests upon a writtenAramaic original. Certain Aramaic scholars among whom we wish to mention especially C. F. Burney and C. C. [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] have assailed the passage as found in the Greek New Testament, and, by implication, the translations that are based upon it. Torrey speaks of the text as it has come down to us as being miserable nonsense. He refers to the absurd reading of our Greek version. For 7:37, 38 Torrey proposes the following: Whoever thirsts, let him come to me, and let him drink who believes on me. As the scripture says, Out of the midst of Her (i.e., Jerusalem) shall flow rivers of living water. We have carefully studied Torrey's argument, but we cannot agree. Our objections to it and our reasons for clinging to the Greek text are as follows: 1. In the original(though not in Torrey's English translation) the two subjects of this supposed parallelism are dissimilar in structure ([Greek] &A [Greek]). 2. It would seem to follow from Torrey's translation that whoever thirsts and who believes are synonymous. But according to 6:35 the believer is exactly the one who will in no way ever get thirsty. The believer is the person who has quenched his thirst by coming to Christ, the True Fountain. He is the one who has stilled his hunger by coming to Christ, the True Bread. 3. As to the latter part of verse 38, it is true that in the Old Testament the river of life is found in the city of God (Psalms 46:4) and issues forth out from under the threshold of its temple (Ezek. 47:1); but that in the Greek text of John 7:38these waters are pictured as flowing from the hearts of individual believers. However, is it not true that Old Testament passages are often given a slightly different application in the New? Besides, if these waters stream forth from the city of God, do they not necessarily issue from the hearts of individual believers? Do not the latter collectively constitute the true city of God? 4. That the Greek text which requires from within (him her ) is correct, so that the reference is to the individual believer, also agrees with the immediately following context, which is still speaking about those.& who believed in him. 5. The Greek text and the translation based upon it are in exact accord with 4:14: But whoever drinks the water that I shall give him will in no way be thirsty again forever, but the water that I shall give him will become within him a spring of water that keeps on bubbling up unto everlasting life. We have heard (4:14) about the spring of water within the believer's heart. We are now told (7:38) that from within him the rivers of living water flow forth. What could be more consistent? The Lord, in complete consistency with the very figure which he himself introduced previously, gives it a new application. For the reasons given we abide by the Greek text as it is. In a land where water is not always within reach and the heat can at times make one feel very uncomfortable, water is the one thing needful in the physical [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] It is, therefore, a fit symbol of salvation, everlasting life. Metaphorically speaking, in a sense all menare thirsty; i.e., by nature all lack the water of life. In another sense, those onlyare thirsty who have been regenerated and have received the inner call. As a result of the operation of God's sovereign grace within their hearts, these feel the need of the spiritual water. Though, accordingly, the well-meant invitation leaves all the listeners responsible, only those givento Jesus by the Father will actually come and drink. In the words let him come to me and drink, we have two imperatives which should be regarded as aoristic presents. When a person drinks of the Fountain, Christ, he never thirsts again (4:14; 6:35). This has been expressed beautifully in the following lines of the familiar hymn: I heard the voice of Jesus say, Behold, I freely give The living water, thirsty one, Stoop down and drink, and live. I came to Jesus, and I drank Of that life-giving stream! My thirst was quenched, my soul revived, And now I live in him. With this passage (7:37, 38) should be compared (Is. 55:1, 2; Rev. 22:17. The nominative absolute, so that we have in verse 38: He who believes in me& from within him is not at all unusual in the writings of JohnRev. 3:12, 21). Since these words were originally spoken in Aramaic, we can expect constructions of this nature. See vol. I, pp. 63, 64. Although there is not any Old Testament passage which is the exact equivalent of what is found here, it is certainly not difficult to discover the basic idea waters flowing forth from Zion (or from its citizens) as a blessing to others expressed in several passages: (Prov. 11:25; 18:4; Ezek. 47:1–12; Zech. 8:14. Particularly, the last two passages are very clear in this respect, and may have been in the mind of Jesus when he uttered the contents of John 7:38. There are also other passages which show certain similarities to this one. The resemblance may be in the presence of the river within Zion, or in the emphasis on the abundance of the waters, or in the connection that is established between the waters (as the symbol) and the Spirit (as the One signified): Ps. 46:4, 5; Is. 58:11Is. 55:1); and Is. 44:3. Taking all these passages together, the clause As the scripture says is entirely justified. The general idea of the passage is, of course, perfectly clear: not only do those who drink from the Fountain, Christ, receive lasting satisfaction for themselveseverlasting life, salvation full and free (the idea expressed in 4:14), but in addition, life in a bounteous manner communicates itself to others. The blessed one becomes, by God's sovereign grace, a channel of abundant blessings to others. The church proclaims the message of salvation to the world, so that the elect from every clime and nation are gathered in. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER VIII 7:53 8:11 Preliminary Comments 8 53 And they went each to his own house; 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again to the temple, and all the people came to him. And having seated himself, he began to teach them. 3 So the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and having set her in the midst, 4 they said to him, Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. So what do you say? 6 This they were saying to tempt him, in order that they might have some charge to bring against him. But Jesus bent down and wrote^[16] with his fingers on the ground. 7 And as they kept on questioning him, he stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. 8 And again he bent down and wrote^[16] on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and he was left behind alone, and the woman in the midst. 10 Jesus raised himself and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? 11 She said, No one, Lord. So Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you. Go and from now on sin no more. Much has been written with respect to the authenticity of this story. Is it to be considered a genuine part of the Fourth Gospel written (or at least dictated) by the apostle John? Also, regardless of whether John himself wrote it, does it belong in the Bible, or should it be removed from Scripture? In answer to the first question it should be clearly stated that the facts at our disposal do not enable us to declare definitely that the apostle himself wrote or dictated this account. As to the second, it is our conviction that these same facts indicate that no attempt should be made to remove this portion from Holy Writ. The facts, then, are as follows: 1. The story contains several words which do not occur elsewhere in any of John's writings. This, however, is not entirely decisive. 2. The oldest and best manuscripts (Aleph, A, B, L, N, W) do not have this story. It makes its first appearance in Codex Bezae. It is found in the later uncials (the so-called Koine text) and the cursives based upon them. Thus it found its way into the A.V. The A.R.V. has the story, but places it between brackets, and states in the margin: Most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53 8:11. Those which contain it vary much from each other. Some manuscripts place it at the close of the Fourth Gospel and some (the Ferrar cursives) after Luke 21:38. 3. Some of the old Latin witnesses (a, f, g) and also the Syriac sin., Syriac cur., Peshito, as well as the Sahidic (Upper Egypt), Armenian, and Gothic translations omit this portion. Moreover, the Greek expositors Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Nonnus, and Theophylact fail to comment on it. It is found here (i.e., between 7:52 and 8:12) in some Old Latin witnesses (b, c, e, ff, j), in the Vulgate, and in the Palestinian Syriac translation. Now, if there were no additional information with respect to this paragraph, the evidence in its favor would be very weak, indeed. We are not at all surprised that A. T. Robertson regards it as a marginal gloss which through a scribal error crept into the text.^[17] Lenski expresses himself in no uncertain language, regards it as spurious, and omits it completely from his exposition. E. J. Goodspeed considers it an anecdote which should be omitted. 4. However, the matter is not simple by any means. There are facts which point in the opposite direction: The story fits very well into the present context. It can be viewed as serving to prepare for and to elucidate the discourse of the Lord in 8:12 ff. Let it be borne in mind that this woman had been walking in moral darkness. It is probable that Jesus dispelled her darkness. So, we are not surprised to read in verse 12: I am the light of the world. 5. The Christ as pictured here (7:53 8:11) is entirely in character: as he is described here so he is also pictured elsewhere. Here is the Savior who came not to condemn but to save, and who actually did save such persons as the woman of Lk. 7, the Samaritan woman, publicans, sinners. Here the One who told the touching parable of the prodigal son is shown in the act of revealing his tender mercy to a prodigal daughter. And the scribes and Pharisees, too, are in character. These men who had shown very clearly that they cared more for their own sabbath-regulations than for the total recovery of the paralytic at the pool (ch. 5) reveal their utter lack of human consideration in the case of this woman. 6. Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, seems to have known this story and to have expounded it. Says Eusebius: The same writer (Papias) has expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains (Ecclesiastical History III, xxxix, 17). It would seem, therefore, that Papias already knew this story, that he regarded it of sufficient importance for exposition, but that he did not find it in John's Gospel. Was it never there, or had it been removed for certain reasons? 7. Augustine has stated definitely that certain individuals had removed from their codices the section regarding the adulteress, because they feared that women would appeal to this story as an excuse for their infidelity (De adulterinis conjugiis II, vii). Closely connected with this is the fact that asceticism played an important role in the sub-apostolic age. Hence, the suggestion that the section (7:53 8:11) was at one time actually part of John's Gospel but had been removed from it cannot be entirely dismissed. Our final conclusion, then, is this: though it cannot now be proved that this story formed an integral part of the Fourth Gospel, neither is it possible to establish the opposite with any degree of finality. We believe, moreover, that what is here recorded really took place, and contains nothing that is in conflict with the apostolic spirit. Hence, instead of removing this section from the Bible it should be retained and used for our benefit.^[18] Ministers should not be afraid to base sermons upon it! On the other hand, all the facts concerning the textual evidence should be made known! 7:53, 8:1. And they went each to his own house: but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. The men who had been sent to arrest Jesus had returned empty-handed. So the Sanhedrin-session adjourns and the members go home. The multitude in the temple also betake themselves to their dwellings. Jesus retires for the night to the Mount of Olives, perhaps to lodge in Gethsemane, or else at the hospitable abode of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus in Bethany (located just over the ridge, to the east of the mount). Cf. Luke 21:37; 22:39. Did Jesus withdraw from the city in order to avoid the danger of arrest, knowing that the appropriate time for his arrest and crucifixion had not yet arrived? 2. However that may be, early in the morning he came again to the temple. Whether this was the eighth day of the feast or the day after we do not know, as has been pointed out; see explanation of 7:37–39. As usual, all the people came to him. And having seated himself (contrast 7:37) he began to teach them. 3. So the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery. Presently some pharisaic scribes men who copied, interpreted, and taught the law enter and create a disturbance. They are bringing a woman who had been caught in the very act of adultery. From the use of the term [Greek] it may be inferred that she was a married woman. Her arrest may have been ordered by the temple-police. It is just possible that the men who brought her before Jesus belonged to the Sanhedrin, and that they were intending to take her before that official body to be sentenced. However, the story rather leaves the impression that these religious leaders are merely using this woman as a tool, and that they are not interested in bringing her before the Sanhedrin. So, as if they really thought that Jesus had authority to judge such cases, they push her through the crowd that had gathered around the Master until she is right in front of him. And having set her in the midst of the staring multitude, 4, 5. they said to him: Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act ([Greek]: literally, in the very act of thievery, but later on in the very act of any gross sin) of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. So what do you say? Note the following: 1. The feast of Tabernacles, as it was actually celebrated, was a gay festival. It is not surprising that immoral acts occurred when so many people were crowded together amid such hilarity and merry-making. 2. Many commentators argue that this cannot have been a married woman, because the law of Moses specifies death by stoning only in the case of a betrothed girl who is guilty of adulteryDeut. 22:23f. , but commands that the married woman who commits such a sin be put to death, without stating the manner in which this punishment is to be carried out (whether by stoning, strangulation, or in some other way). But over against this stands the fact that the term adultery points definitely to one who is already married. Besides, Ezek. 23:43, 44, 47seems to indicate that whatever may have been prescribed subsequently in the Talmud (death by strangulation for married women) it was the original intention of the Mosaic law that also married women who committed such acts of infidelity were to be stoned to death. 3. The question has been asked: What purpose did these scribes and Pharisees have in bringing this woman before Jesus and in asking him this question? Various answers have been suggested; such as: a. To bring him into the dilemma of showing disrespect either for the law of Moses or for the Roman law (if he would demand that this woman be stoned to death, while according to the Roman law the Jews were not permitted to execute anyone); b. to make him face the alternative of becoming either an enemy of the law of Moses (if he would advise that she be not stoned) or else an enemy of the common people whose defender he was reputed to be. But in the present instance the answer to the question is clearly stated in verse 6. 6. This they were saying to tempt him, in order that they might have some charge to bring against him. The verb [Greek] is here used in its evil sense (contrast 6:6), to lead into sin. Their purpose clearly was this: to cause Jesus to give an answer which would be in violation of the law of Moses; next, to place this as an official charge against him; then on the basis of this charge, to have him condemned by the Sanhedrin at an official session; and finally, by branding him as a transgressor, to destroy his influence with the people. This purpose may also explain why the man who was involved in this transgression was not brought before the Lord. For the fabrication of a charge against Jesus the arrest of one party was sufficient. In this connection it is not at all certain that the scribes and Pharisees actually meant to have this woman stoned. They were not primarily interested in her; they were simply using her case in order to get at Jesus, who was their real intended victim! And in order to carry out their diabolical purpose against him, they threw kindness and diffidence to the winds. The shame or fears of this woman, in being thus publicly exposed, meant nothing to them as long as their purpose was being achieved. Such were the religious leaders in Jerusalem! It is only when in our thoughts we enter somewhat into the tragically perverse condition of hearts so steeped in wickedness that we can appreciate the reaction of Jesus, which is now recorded: But Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. Jesus stooped down (Mark 1:7), bowing his head toward the ground. Then with his finger he wrote on the ground or traced figures in it. Various explanations have been given; as follows: a. Jesus wrote down the names and sins of the men who had brought this woman to him; b. Jesus wrote a word of warning that was aimed at these scribes and Pharisees; c. Jesus doodled, as one does when he is day-dreaming, showing that he simply was not interested in questions such as these, for his purpose in coming into the world was not to judge but to save (with this last clause we are, of course, in hearty agreement); d. Jesus was at a loss what to say; hence, he merely scribbled something in the sand. It has not pleased the Lord to reveal to us whether Jesus wrote certain words or traced figures; and if the former, what he wrote, for whom he wrote, or why he wrote. Nevertheless, if an explanation is to be attempted at all, it should be in thorough keeping with the context, which, as we have seen, pictured the depths of human depravity, the depravity not so much of this woman but rather of these self-righteous and wicked scribes and Pharisees, these men with murder in their hearts, willing to use this woman as a mere tool to carry out their sinister plot against Jesus. It is in keeping with this context that we believe there is much to say in favor of the explanation that Jesus was so thoroughly shocked by the brazen hardness of his enemies that for a long time he remained silent, simply scribbling figures or letters in the sand. This was a silence that spoke louder than words. It reminds one of Rev. 8:1.^[19] In both passages it is a symbol of horror. The silent scribbling in the sand, which both precedes and follows the words which Jesus spoke at this occasion, imparts to them a setting of majesty and awe. 7, 8. And as they kept questioning him, he stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. And again he bent down and wrote (or: traced figures or letters) on the ground. Unabashed by the first silence, the persecutors kept on pressing for an answer. We can imagine that their conversion was on this order, as they stood there, crowding the Lord: Well, what do you say &do you agree with Moses &what do you say &shall we stone her, as the law of Moses requires &or shall we release her &what do you say &what do you say? To add weight to his answer (cf. 7:37) Jesus arose. He then gave a reply such as only he was able to give. He did not make light of her sin. Neither did he either expressly or by implication abolish the seventh commandment. He did not even in so many words set aside the law which demanded the death-penalty for offences such as these. On the contrary, without in any way implying that he personally desired her death, he proceeded upon their presumed assumption, as if the law of Moses were to be literally applied in this given case which even they themselves, of course, did not really want; but then he showed them that they were not fit to execute the very law which ostensibly they were so eager to carry out! What caused his cheeks to burn with indignation was the fact that these men, intent upon committing the sin of murdering the very Messiah, posed as if they were shocked by the infinitely lesser (though still grievous) offence of this woman! Hence, he said: Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. The reference is to Deut. 17:7: The hand of the witnesses shall be the first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. These scribes and Pharisees were acting in the capacity of witnesses and accusers. Yet the sin of the accused was as nothing in comparison with their perverseness. 9. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and he was left behind alone, and the woman in the midst. One can almost see the accusers slink away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, until this entire crowd of scribes and Pharisees had melted away. Why did they withdraw? Was it because they had become ashamed of their own sinful condition? Or was it because they had been outgeneraled (and were now at a loss what to say or what to do), having completely failed to elicit from the lips of Jesus an answer which could form the basis of a charge against him? There is nothing in the context which suggests the former alternative. They had suffered a humiliating defeat, and the eldest among them were also the first to see this; hence, they were the first to disappear. The rest followed. The words, He was left behind alone, and the woman in the midst, have caused considerable difficulty. It has been asked: If he was left behind alone with this woman, how could she still be described as being in the midst? The simplest and truest answer is probably this: though the inner circle (consisting of scribes and Pharisees) had vanished, the outer circle (the multitude) was still present; hence, the woman is still in the midst of the crowd. 10. Jesus raised himself and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? Not as if Jesus did not know! But he wished to impress upon her the great favor he had bestowed upon her. Let her revolve this in her mind and let her give expression to it; namely, that the sentence of condemnation, though demanded by the law of Moses, had not been pronounced against her by anyone. 11. She said, No one, Lord. Jesus in a tone of gentle reassurance and earnest admonition said to her: Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more. In thorough conformity with 3:17 and (Luke 12:14Jesus did not cast this woman aside or condemn her as unfit for the kingdom. For adulterers and adulteresses there is, indeed, a place in that kingdom, if they discontinue to live in adulteryLuke 7:47). Synthesis of 7:53 8:11 See the Outline on p. 2. The Son of God Exhorting the Woman Taken in Adultery: Go and from now on sin no more. Though it cannot be proved that this story formed a part of the Fourth Gospel (as originally written by John), neither is it possible to establish the opposite. The story should be retained and used for our benefit. The members of the Sanhedrin, their attempt to arrest Jesus having failed, have gone home. The multitude has left the temple. Jesus has retired for the night to the Mt. of Olives. When early next morning he returns to the temple, all the people come to him and he teaches them. Pharisaic scribes cause an interruption. To Jesus they bring a woman caught in the act of adultery, and they ask him: In the law Moses commands to stone such. So what do you say? In order to undermine his influence with the people they are trying to expose him as an opponent of Moses. This readiness on their part to use even the most sordid means to carry out their wicked plot against him causes him to remain silent for a considerable length of time as, shocked beyond words, he scribbles figures or letters in the sand. He then says: Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. Sensing their defeat, they begin to slink away one by one, the eldest being the first to do so. The woman is left behind in the midst of the gathered multitude. With characteristic tenderness Jesus addresses her in these memorable words: Woman, has no one condemned you? Her negative answer is followed by his reassuring remark: Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more. 8:12–20 12 Again therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life. 13 In reply the Pharisees said to him, You are testifying concerning yourself; your testimony is not true. 14 Jesus answered and said to them, Even if I testify concerning myself, my testimony is certainly true, because I know where I came from and where I am going^[20]; but you do not know where I came from and where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. 16 Yet, even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for I am not alone but I and the One who sent me.^[21] 17 And in your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am the One who is bearing testimony concerning myself, and One bears testimony concerning me; namely, my Sender^[22], the Father. 19 They were saying therefore to him, Where is your Father? Jesus answered, You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also. ^[23] 20 These words he spoke in the Treasury as he was teaching in the temple. And no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet arrived. 8:12. Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them saying, I am the light of the world. According to many this is the continuation of 7:37–52. It must be granted that such a connection is, indeed, possible. One might reason as follows: he who according to 7:37, 38 represents himself as being living water for the thirsty one, reveals himself here (in 8:12) as light for those who sit in darkness. So rich and glorious is he that not a single name can describe him, and not a single metaphor can do justice to his greatness. He is life, light, bread, water, etc. Others, however, see a very close connection between the story of the adulteress (7:53 8:11) and the present paragraph (8:12 ff.). They reason that Jesus, by dispelling the moral darkness which reigned in the heart of this woman (if, indeed, it was dispelled!), gave an illustration of his work as the light of the world. We do not have sufficient information to make a definite choice between these alternatives. The decision would depend on the authenticity of 7:53 8:11, which has been discussed. Jesus is again addressing the people in the temple. To them he says, I am the light of the world. This is the second of the seven great I Am's. For the entire list see Vol. I, p. 37. This second I Am is similar in grammatical structure to the first (see our explanation of 6:35). Hence, also in this case subject and predicate (the latter preceded by the article) are interchangeable. Jesus is the light of the world; the light of the world is Jesus. He himself in person is that light. He no one else beside him is that light, for it is only in and through him that God's glorious attributes shine forth most brilliantly in the midst of the world. The meaning of Christ as light has been set forth in connection with 1:4 and 1:9. That Jesus represents himself (here in 8:12) as the light of the world indicates that in the midst of sin-laden mankind, exposed to the judgment and in need of salvation, mankind in all its phases (both Jew and Gentile, young and old, male and female, rich and poor, free and slave), he stands forth as the source of men's illumination regarding spiritual matters and of the everlasting salvation of God's children. To all who come within hearing he proclaims the Gospel of deliverance from sin and never-ending peace. On the concept world ([Greek]) see the explanation of 1:10.^[24] Jesus is the light of the world; i.e., to the ignorant he proclaims wisdom; to the impure, holiness; to those in sadness, gladness. Moreover, to those who by sovereign grace are drawn (6:44) to the light and follow its guidance he not only proclaims but actually imparts these blessings. But not all follow where the light leads. There is a separation, a parting of the ways, an absolute antithesis, as is clear from the words, He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life. Some follow the light; many do not. Many are called; few are chosen. To follow the light, Christ, means to trust and obey him. It means to believe in him and out of gratitude to keep his commandments. Man must follow where the light leads: he is not permitted to map out his own course through the desert of this life. In the wilderness the forefathers had followed the pillar of light. The symbolism of the feast of Tabernacles (now in progress or just ended) reminded the audience of this light which the ancestors had enjoyed as a guide. Those who had followed it and had not rebelled against its guidance had reached Canaan. The others had died in the desert. So it is here: the true followers not only will not walk in the darkness of moral and spiritual ignorance, of impurity, and of gloom, but will reach the land of light. Nay more: they will have the light! The Antitype is ever richer than the type. Physical light for example, that of the pillar of light in the desert or that of the candelabra in the Court of the Women imparts outward illumination. This light, Jesus Christ as the object of our faith, becomes our inner possession: we have him, and this abidingly; cf. 4:14. He is, moreover, the light of life ([Greek] ). In harmony with what was said in connection with 1:4b we regard this as a genitive of apposition: the light is itself the life, when the latter is made manifest.^[25] 13. Jesus had made a majestic claim. In reply, the Pharisees said to him, You are testifying concerning yourself; your testimony is not true. In connection with this verse and those that follow see our comments on 5:31. The Pharisees certainly cannot have meant, Though your testimony with reference to yourself may be true, it is not legally valid or acceptable. What they actually meant was this: When you call yourself the light of the world, you are just boasting. No one confirms your testimony with reference to yourself; hence, it cannot be true. 14. When Jesus answered and said to them, Even if I testify concerning myself, my testimony is certainly true, he is not in any way contradicting what he had said previously (see on 5:31). In corroboration of the true character of his own testimony, as contrasted with the false character of Pharisaic assertions, the Lord points to: a. his heavenly origin and destination (verse 14b); b. his intimate union with the Father (verses 15, 16); and c. the perfect agreement between his own testimony and that of the Father (verses 17, 18). With respect to a. Jesus says, &because I know where I came from and where I am going. What he means is this: I know myself. This knowledge, moreover, is not only immediate, intuitive, and reflective ([Greek]) but also complete: I know the facts about myself, where I came from (from heaven, from God) and where I am going (to heaven, to God). Hence when I say that I am the light of the world, this declaration is based upon my perfect self-consciousness and should, accordingly, be accepted. You, on the contrary, have no such knowledge respecting myself: but you do not know where I came from where I am going. Hence your denial of my testimony regarding myself is worthless. 15, 16. With respect to b. Jesus continues, You judge according to the flesh. I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for I am not alone but I and the One who sent me. Note that b. naturally follows a. What the Lord means is this: though you lack the necessary knowledge to judge, yet you are constantly judging me. You are doing this, moreover, according to earthly standards, according to external appearance (on [Greek] see the explanation of 1:14). So judged, I am not the light of the world but merely a countryman from Galilee, the son of Joseph. See the explanation of 6:42, 7:24, 41, 42, 52. On the other hand, I, though (because of my perfect knowledge of self and of others) able to judge, judge no one. See the explanation of 3:17–19. I did not come to judge but to save. Yet, even if judgment is rendered inevitable because of the hardness of men's hearts, so that though I came to save I still must judge some people, my judgment is true, genuine, the real thing ([Greek]), for, far from being contrary to the divine will, it is a judgment in which the Father and the Son unite. On I and the One who sent me see 3:34; 5:19, 30, 36, 37; cf. 1:6. It is not the judgment of a mere man, as you think, but of God. 17, 18. With respect to c. (the perfect agreement between his own testimony and that of his Father) Jesus continues, And in your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true. The reference is to such passages as Deut. 17:6( At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death ), cf. Num. 35:30. Your law, because you claim to regard it so highly. The reasoning is this: surely, if this rule holds with respect to me, it holds even more with respect to God. The argument is from the minor to the major. The testimony (! [Greek]; see the explanation of 1:6) of two witnesses was considered true, not merely legally on the table or valid (legally acceptable). That the translation true is correct here and that its meaning must not be toned down in any way follows also from the fact that, according to the law of Moses to which reference is made, when two such witnesses agreed, the man concerning whom they agreed had to be put to death! The testimony was regarded as entirely reliable, a proper basis for drastic action. Of course, the witnesses had be trustworthy persons, not false or unrighteous. This, too, was plainly stipulated in the law (Deut. 19:16–19). Surely, the Father and the Son are both reliable! Hence, their witness with respect of Jesus must be accepted. It is a testimony in which the two (Father and Son) each being a reliable witness completely agree. In our translation of verse 18 we have preserved the chiastic sentence-structure of the original. Note that the names of the two witnesses occur at the very beginning and at the very end of the sentence, to emphasize the independent character of each. Each, standing by himself, is thoroughly reliable (on this cf. verse 14, Even if I testify concerning myself, my testimony is certainly true ); both agreeing, the argument becomes doubly unanswerable. I am the One who is bearing testimony concerning myself, and One bears testimony concerning me; namely, my Sender, the Father. For the testimony of the Father concerning the Son see on 5:31–40. 19. The Jews, who had rejected the testimony of the Son, now also reject the testimony of the Father. In reply, they were saying to him, Where is your Father? These words were probably accompanied with a gesture of disdain. They clearly indicate that Christ's teaching with reference to the Father had fallen on deaf ears. The Pharisees were engaged in the most dangerous activity found among men: they were hardening their hearts! Such hardening results in total blindness and ignorance. Hence, Jesus answered, You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also. The one and only way to the Father is the Son; cf. 5:38; 14:7, 9; Matt. 11:27. 20. These words he spoke in the Treasury, as he was teaching in the temple. Against the wall in the Court of Women stood thirteen trumpet-shaped chests in which the people deposited their gifts for various causes. Hence, taking the part for the whole, this court was sometimes called the Treasury. Here Jesus was teaching, in the immediate proximity of the hall in which the Sanhedrin held (or: used to hold) its sessions. And, though it is possible that this august body, so thoroughly hostile to Jesus, could almost hear the echo of his voice, no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet arrive. On the meaning of these words see 7:30. 8:21–29 21 So he said again to them, I am going away, and you will seek me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going you cannot come. 22 The Jews, therefore, were saying, He is not going to kill himself, is he, since^[26] he says, Where I am going you cannot come? 23 So he was saying to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 Did I not say to you that^[27] you would die in your sins? For if you will not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins. ^[28] 25 In reply, they were saying to him, You, who are you? Jesus said to them, Exactly what I am telling you. 26 I have many things to say concerning you and to judge. But he who sent me is true, and whatsoever I have heard from him, these things I speak to the world. 27 They did not recognize that he spoke to them of the Father. 28 So Jesus said, When you will have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that of myself I do noting but speak thus as the Father taught me. 29 And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do the things that are pleasing to him. 8:21. So he said again to them, I am going away, and you will seek me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going you cannot come. Because of the derisive manner in which the Jews had treated the testimony of Jesus, he again announces their doom. He said again what he had declared earlier (see 7:33, 34). The words, Yet a little while I am with you, are now omitted, perhaps because this time no one is attempting to arrest him. The going away to which Jesus refers indicates his departure to the Father (see on 7:33, 34). When it is added, And you will seek me, to what does Jesus refer? To the seeking in repentance and faith? But this is excluded by the next clause. To the search for a deliverer in connection with the terrible events accompanying the destruction of Jerusalem in the year a.d. 70? It is probably better to interpret this seeking as that of despair at the moment of death. We adopt this interpretation in view of the words: but you will die in your sin. In their death they will experience no comfort and no peace of any kind, only dark despair. The One whom they have rejected will not be present to help them in their need. In their sin all their sins viewed collectively, but separately in verse 24 (sins) they will die. The wrath of God resting upon them, they will go to the place of everlasting perdition. They cannot go where Jesus is going; namely, to the Father. 22. The Jews, therefore, were saying, He is not going to kill himself, is he, since he says, Where I am going you cannot come? The Jews, stung by the announcement of their coming doom, act as if they have not even heard the words of Jesus with reference to themselves. They reflect only on the last clause in his remarks; i.e., on that which pertained to his plans with reference to himself: that he would soon take his departure to a place to which they could not come. Sneering, they ask, He is not going to kill himself, is he? As if by killing himself he would be going to a place where they (as they saw it) could not come! At a previous occasion (7:35, 36) when Jesus uttered similar words, they had ventured another guess, also uttered in mockery, He surely does not intend to go to the Diaspora among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, does he? The present taunting insinuation that he was possibly contemplating suicide (very prevalent in those days!) was, unbeknown to them, a bitter caricature of the truth; namely, that he was going to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28). 23, 24. So he was saying to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Did I not say to you that you would die in your sins? For if you will not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins. This reply of Jesus serves both as a continuation of verse 21, giving the reason (as if he had said, Where I am going you cannot come, for you are from below, I am from above ), and as a fitting response to the sneering question of the Jews (as if he had said, Your mockery indicates that you are from below, etc.). What Jesus means is that the thoughts and motives of these Jews were hell-inspired; this own, were heaven-inspired. Jesus then repeats the words of verse 21 ( You will die, etc.) with a slight change (see on that verse). This death in sins will be the result of not believing that I am he; literally, that I am ([Greek] ), the predicate must be supplied mentally, as in 4:26; 6:20; 9:9; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 9. Basic to the expression are passages such as Ex. 3:14; Deut. 32:39; Is. 43:10. The meaning is: that I am all that I claim to be; the One sent by the Father, the One who is from above, the Son of man, the only-begotten Son of God, equal with God, the One who has life in himself, the very essence of the scriptures, the bread of life, the light of the world, etc. The fact that rejection of the Son failure to believe in him and to obey him results in everlasting death is expressed not only here in 8:24 but also in 3:36 (see on that verse), which may be viewed as an explanation of 8:24. 25, 26. In reply, they were saying to him, You, who are you? Once again, as in verse 22, the Jews act as if they have not heard the remarks of Jesus with reference to themselves. Probably thinking that the best defence is an offense, they attack him with an expression of scorn and ridicule: You, who are you? Jesus said to them, Exactly what I am also telling you.^[29] I have many things to say concerning you and to judge. Clearly, Jesus is not going to be sidetracked. He answers their derisive question very pointedly and very briefly, and then immediately continues the attack upon them begun in verses 21, 23, and 24. Their question (You, who are you?) was not only wicked; it was also entirely uncalled for and superfluous, for Jesus had been telling them all the while who he was (see on verse 24) and he was engaged in doing that very thing now. Hence, he immediately shifts back to the attack, as if he wanted to say, I am not yet through with you. When Jesus says, I have yet many things to say concerning you and to judge, he implies that the utterances (note the verb [Greek] both here and in the preceding verse) of his mouth are judgments. Moreover, the verb used is also especially appropriate in such cases as this, where someone utters or speaks the mind (not of himself alone but also) of Another (here, the Father). It is clear from 8:15, 16 (cf. on 3:17, where the verb [Greek] is discussed) that when Jesus judges these men he condemns them. The Lord continues: But he who sent me is true. It has been argued by some that the conjunction [Greek] is here not adversative in meaning. It is, however, not at all necessary to depart from the more usual meaning of the word. What we have here and in so many other places is an instance of abbreviated style, an ellipsis, on which we have commented in another connection (see on 5:31). It is very difficult for us today to supply what was omitted. Perhaps the thought of verse 26 fully expressed might be reproduced in these words: I have many things to say concerning you and to judge. But, in spite of your vehemently uttered rejections and your manifestations of unbelief, what I shall say is true because he who sent me is true, and whatsoever I have heard from him, these things I speak to the world. On he who sent me, see 3:17, 34; 5:30, 36, 37; cf. 1:6. The Sender is, of course, the Father. The Sender is true in all his declarations and judgments, for he is true in his inner nature. Cf. on 3:33. And whatsoever I have heard from him, these things I speak to the world. In every word of Jesus the mind of the Father is expressed. Hence, when the Jews reject the One who now addresses them, they thereby reject the Father! The same (or a very similar) thought is expressed in 3:11; 5:19, 30, 32, 37; 7:16. What Jesus has heard (from all eternity) from the Father, these things he utters not only to the Jews but to Jew and Gentile alike; they are meant for all, for the entire world (on meaning of [Greek] see 1:10, footnote 26, here probably meaning number 5). 27. They did not recognize that he was speaking to them of the Father. Even though Jesus had frequently told the Jews in clear language that the Sender was the Father (cf. 5:36, 37; 8:18), yet this fact had failed to register. So blinding is the power of infidelity and prejudice! We do not know by what means they indicated this ignorance. Perhaps they showed it by raising an objection or asking a stupid question or staring vacantly. 28. So Jesus said, When you will have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that of myself I do nothing but speak thus as the Father taught me. The gist of the remark is certainly this: having nailed me to the cross (hence, having indirectly led me to the crown) the awful truth will dawn on you that I am in reality the One I have always claimed to be, and that in my words and works I reveal and represent the Father. For the meaning of the verb to lift up see on 3:14. For Son of man see on 12:34. By saying you will know ([Greek] fr. [Greek]) Jesus meant you will recognize or perceive. This verb occurs fifty-six times in John's Gospel, while its synonym ([Greek]) occurs eighty-four times in the same book. See further on 1:10, 31; 3:11. For the clause that I am he see on 8:24. For the meaning of the clause and that of myself I do nothing but speak thus as the Father taught me see on 8:26 (last clause) which expresses the same thought. The clause then you will know that I am he is not a prediction of salvation for the Jews. The knowledge here indicated is not a saving knowledge and does not refer to the conversion of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:36, 41). The present context does not allow that interpretation (see especially verses 21 and 24). What Jesus means is that having refused to accept him by faith and having nailed him to the cross (which, in turn, led to the crown), they would one day awaken to the terrifying realization that this One whom they despised was, nevertheless, whatever he claimed to be. Too late this truth would crash in upon them, in the hour of death and at the final judgment. 29. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do the things that are pleasing to him. He who sent me is, of course, the Father (5:36, 37; 8:18, 27) who is constantly indicated as the Sender; i.e., as the One who commissioned his Son to be the Mediator (see on 3:17, 34; cf. 1:6). In the two statements: a. he is with me, and b. I always do the things that are pleasing to him we have a beautiful expression of the close and intimate nature of the cooperation between the One who commissions and the One who is commissioned. See also on 3:11; 5:19, 30, 32, 37; 7:16; and 8:26. The absolute obedience of the Son, always doing what is pleasing to the Father, assures the continuation of the Father's love for him. He has not left me alone, has not rejected the Son or cast him off. Even Matt. 27:46cannot mean that the Father would reject him as a disobedient Son, for that is forever impossible. In that passage the Son is forsaken in a twofold sense: a. all alone he bears the burden of God's wrath against sin, no one shares his punishment; and b. while experiencing within himself that indescribable torture, he must forego the consoling sweetness of the Father's fellowship. Nevertheless, because of his voluntary acceptance of this eternal death the Father loves him all the more! We hasten to add that this spiritual closeness rests, of course, upon the ontological or trinitarian relationship between Father and Son. 8:30–38 30 While he was saying these things, many believed in him. 31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed in him, if you remain in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.^[30] 33 They answered him, Seed of Abraham are we, and to no one have we been enslaved ever. How is it that you say, You will become free? 34 Jesus answered them, I most solemnly assure you^[31], every one who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 Now the slave does not remain in the house permanently, but the son remains permanently. 36 If therefore the Son will make you free, you will be free indeed.^[32] 37 I know that you are the seed of Abraham, yet you are seeking to kill me, because my words find no room in you. 38 The things which I have seen at the Father's side I speak, and so also the things which you have heard at your Father's side you do. 8:30, 31a. While he was saying these things, many believed in him. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed in him & During the course of the discourse discussed in the preceding verses, now one, then another became convinced that Jesus was (at least to some extent) what he claimed to be, until those who reacted in this manner formed a considerable group. Was this conviction genuine faith? Was it merely a mental persuasion or was it also wholehearted personal surrender? This question, which has caused so much discussion and controversy among commentators, becomes even more acute when it is borne in mind that the verses which follow show a swift change from belief to violent hostility. Not only does Jesus encounter verbal opposition (verse 33) but even verbal abuse (verse 48: You are a Samaritan and have a demon; cf. 52). At last there is even an attempt to stone him (verse 59). The various views of commentators may be summarized as follows: (1) Verse 30 ([Greek], believed) refers to those who embraced Jesus by genuine faith. Verse 31 ([Greek], had believed) refers to those who had not made the full surrender of faith. Hence, the transition is between verses 30 and 31.^[33] (2) Verses 30, 31, and 32 refer to genuine believers, those who have experienced a real change of heart and life. The transition is between verses 32 and 33. The objectors in verse 33 (and the verses which follow) are the unbelieving Jews.^[34] (3) Verses 30 36 refer to genuine believers. The transition is between verses 36 and 37.^[35] (4) The entire section is an uninterrupted story: those who in verse 30 are described as having believed in him are the same as those who oppose him vehemently in the verses which follow. There is no transition from one group to another. The people who are described in verses 30 and 31 do not have genuine faith, as the subsequent verses also clearly indicate.^[36] In connection with the first three views the following is clear: a. All regard the people who are described in verse 30 as being genuine believers. b. All accept the theory that we are dealing here with two different groups, and that there is a transition (rather abrupt, it would seem) between the genuine believers of verse 30 and the genuine unbelievers who appear on the scene subsequently (whether at verse 31 or verse 33 or verse 37). But, as to a., there is nothing that compels us to view the men described in verse 30 as being genuine believers. The finite verb believed ([Greek]) followed by in him ([Greek] ) or in his name does not always indicate a change of heart. See on 2:23; 7:31; 12:42. See especially the context of 2:23 and 12:42. What is true is that the present participle ([Greek], [Greek]) in such cases always indicates genuine faith (3:16, 18, 36; 6:35, 40, 47; 7:38; 11:25, 26; 12:44, 46; 14:12; 17:20). See also on 3:16. But the present participle is not used here in 8:30. Hence, whether the faith here indicated is genuine or not will have to be indicated by the following verses (the context). As to b., no transition of any kind from one group of men to another sharply contrasted group is apparent to the ordinary reader of the Greek text or of the English translation. Thus, it is very difficult to see why the men indicated by the participle ([Greek] ) in verse 31 would have to be a completely different group than those to whom reference is made by the finite verb in verse 30. They believed while Jesus was still speaking; some of them perhaps after Jesus had spoken only a few minutes. They continued to believe (note force of the perfect participle) to the very end of the discourse (i.e., until Jesus again addresses them in verse 31). As to the transition beginning at verse 33 or at verse 37, neither of these verses indicates a transition from one group to another group. Verse 33 begins with the words, They answered him. Naturally, the they refers to the people addressed in verse 32. Verse 36 reads, If therefore the Son will make you free, you will be free indeed. Then verse 37 continues, I know that you are the seed of Abraham, yet you are seeking to kill me. The conclusion which one naturally draws in such cases is that the you of verse 36 indicates the same group as the you of verse 37. Otherwise the entire paragraph becomes unintelligible. We, accordingly, accept the view of Calvin and most other commentators (number 4 above) as being by far the most natural. All this does not mean that there is no transition. There is, indeed, a transition; but it is not from one group to a totally different group. The transition is from one attitude to another attitude within the same group of people. That transition is very clear. It is, in fact, a striking change. As soon as Jesus shows these people that mere mental acceptance (as to Jesus being the Messiah of their dreams, for instance) is not enough, but that they must surrender themselves to him as their personal Deliverer from bondage to Satan and to sin, they become furious and no longer believe in him in any sense. 31b, 32. If you remain in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. One abides in the word of Christ by making it the rule of one's life. In other words, obedience is the same thing as abiding in the word. This makes one a true disciple of Jesus and leads to genuine knowledge of the truth (God's special revelation which has its heart and center in the work of Christ). Such knowledge, born of revelation and experience, sets one free. For the meaning of the two most familiar Greek words for to know see on 1:10, 31; 3:11; 8:28. Jesus himself furnishes a commentary on the meaning of freedom. One is free when sin no longer rules over him, and when the word of Christ dominates his heart and life (see verses 34, 35, 37). One is free, therefore, not when he can do what he wishes to do but when he wishes to do and can do what he should do. See also on 7:17, 18 (discussion of the order of the elements in Christian experience). 33. They answered him, Seed of Abraham are we, and to no one have we been enslaved ever. How is it that you say, You will become free? The people who answer Jesus are the same as those who have just been addressed (see on 8:30, 31a). The attitude, however, changes. The word of Jesus, implying that spiritually they were not freemen but slaves, has shocked and angered them. They deeply resented his remark. In their pride of heart they exclaimed, Seed of Abraham are we, and to no one have we been enslaved ever. Obviously they are not thinking of their political condition when they say this. They surely could not conveniently forget their past bondage to Egypt, Babylonia, Medo-Persia, and Syria, nor their present bondage to Rome! Nor are they thinking about their social condition: many Jews had been slaves. Religiously, however, they deem themselves freemen, being seed (descendants) of Abraham, with whom God had made his covenant of grace (Gen. 17:7). Thus as a people or nation (the line of physical descent; see on 1:13) they enjoy a unique religious standing. Are they not an elect race, royal priesthood, holy nation, people for God's own possession (Ex. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 10:15; cf. I Pet. 2:9)? Amos 3:2(the first part of the verse) is ever before their mind, but they conveniently forget Amos 3:2(the last part of the verse)! Their line of reasoning is on this order: heathen are in bondage; they serve idols; but surely we are not in bondage. We are no heathen; we are not even Samaritans (cf. 8:48). How, then, is it that Jesus can say, You will become free? 34. Jesus answered them, I most solemnly assure you, every one who commits sin is a slave of sin. For the meaning of the words of solemn introduction see on 1:51. This is one of the most remarkable sayings ever uttered by our Lord. He immediately wipes out the distinction between Jew and Gentile with respect to their standing before God and his holy law. He says, Every one.& is a slave of sin. The subject is qualified by who commits sin (A [Greek] ); i.e., who is constantly doing sin; present continuative; one might render it: who lives in sin. One is reminded of the continuative force of the present in (I John 3:6. Such a sinner has not seen the Lord, and does not know him. John does not teach that a man is able to live without sinning; far from itI John 1:8). But the man who is constantly missing the mark of God's glory (Judg. 20:16), and delights in this is definitely a transgressor of God's law (I John 3:4). Such a man is here called a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16; 11:32; II Pet. 2:19). He is a slave, for he has been overcome and taken captive by his master, sin, and is unable to deliver himself from this bondage. He is as truly (nay, more truly) chained as is the prisoner with the iron band around his leg, the band that is fastened to a chain which is cemented into the wall of a dungeon. He cannot break the chain. On the contrary, every sin he commits draws it tighter, until at last it crushes him completely. That is the picture which Jesus draws here of sinners as they are by nature. Do the Jews regard themselves as free men? In reality they are slaves without any freedom at all. They are prisoners in chains. 35, 36. Now the slave does not remain in the house permanently, but the son remains permanently. If therefore the Son will make you free, you will be free indeed. Jesus has been picturing his enemies as slaves in chains, lacking all true freedom. Now changing the figure slightly he dwells upon another aspect of this condition of slavery: a slave may enjoy the privileges of his master's house for a while, but not forever. At any moment he may be dismissed or sold. The Jews, who pride themselves upon their descent from Abraham, must bear this in mind. The old dispensation with its special privileges for Israel has ended. Abraham's true children will remain in his household and enjoy its privileges permanently, but Abraham's slaves (Gal. 4:21–31) will be driven out. Only a son enjoys freedom. If therefore the Son of God see on 1:14 will make them free, they will be free indeed. The conditional sentence leaves the responsibility with them, but the action (that of making free) with him! The expression free, indeed probably refers to the fact that the freedom given by Christ is the only real freedom: a. It is freedom from slavery to sin, in contrast with the freedom of which the Jews were thinking (such as freedom from bondage to idols, freedom from the darkness of heathen polytheism). b. It is always freedom plus. When an accused man is declared not guilty, he is free. Likewise when a slave has been emancipated, he is free. But the judge or the emancipator does not, as a rule, adopt the freed individual as his own son. But when the Son makes one free, he will be free indeed, rejoicing in the glorious freedom of sonship. And how does the Son make one free? Answer; see 18:12; cf. Is. 53:5; II Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6, 7. 37. I know that you are the seed of Abraham. Jesus continues to address the same group of people as in the preceding verse (see on 8:30, 31a). He grants that they are in the physical sense the descendants of Abraham. But this relationship, which entailed so many advantages (Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5) only served to increase their responsibility (Amos 3:2). It made their present sinful attitude toward the Christ of God stand out all the more clearly, in all its heinousness. Hence, Jesus continues: yet you are seeking to kill me. The seed of Abraham seeking to kill the very One to whom Abraham looked forward with joyful anticipation (8:56)! That the Jews were actually bent on murdering Jesus is clear from the following passages: 5:18; 7:19, 25; cf. 7:30, 32, 45; 8:59. That in this plan to put Jesus to death a progressive development is noticeable in John's Gospel has been shown in vol. I, p. 12. When Jesus here emphasizes that the very seed of Abraham is seeking to kill him, he is beginning to show them that, after all, Abraham is not their father in the spiritual sense. Who then are the real children of Abraham? All true believers. See Rom. 4:11, 12; Gal. 3:7, 29. To be sure, Jesus does not state this in so many words; yet, this truth, proclaimed by Paul, is clearly implied in the words of the Lord. Why are the Jews seeking to kill Jesus? The answer is: because my word finds no room in you. Murder-plots occupy such a large space in the hearts of these Jews that there is no space ([Greek]; hence, here the verb [Greek]) left for the word of Jesus! We have here another instance of litotes. The real meaning is: you completely reject my word! 38. The things which I have seen at the Father's side I speak, and so also the things which you have heard at your father's side you do. The meaning is briefly this: a. There is a contrast between the (meaning my) Father and your father. My father and your father are not the same. My Father is the first person of the Trinity; yours is &&let them guess! By and by Jesus will tell them who is their real, spiritual father (see 8:44). b. There is a contrast between my relation to my Father, and your relation to your father. At my Father's side (for I was in his very presence from eternity; see also 1:14; 6:46; 7:29; 16:29; 17:8; and cf. 1:1) I not only heard but saw certain things; at your father's side (for you are very close to him) you have heard certain whisperings; e.g., the instigation to kill me. c. My emphasis (at present) is on uttering (the verb is [Greek]) what I have seen; I am the great Prophet, who came to reveal the Father's will. Your emphasis is on acting, on doing, without fully penetrating what this implies, whatever your father whispers into your ears. You have heard the whisperings of your father, and you are ready to act; I have actually seen the glory of my Father, and I am giving expression to that which I have seen. The sequel indicates, however, that the basic contrast is that between the (i.e., my) Father and your father. 8:39–59 39 They answered and said to him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus said to them, If you are Abraham's children, you are doing the works of Abraham.^[37] 40 But now you are seeking to kill me, a man who has been telling you the truth which I heard from God. This Abraham did not do. 41 You are doing the works of your father. They said to him, We were not born of fornication;^[38] one Father have we, even God. 42 Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came forth from and am come from God, for I do not come forth of myself, but he sent me.^[39] 43 Why do you not understand my utterances? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father, the devil, and you desire to carry out the wishes of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not take his stand in the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks of himself, for he is a liar, and the father of the lie. 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak the truth, why do you not believe me?^[40] 47 He who is of God hears God's utterances. You do not hear, because^[41] you are not of God. 48 The Jews answered and said to him, Are we not correct in saying, You are a Samaritan and have a demon? 49 Jesus answered, I do not have a demon; on the contrary, I am honoring my Father, but you are dishonoring me. 50 But I do not seek my own glory; there is One who does seek (it), and he judges. 51 I most solemnly assure you, if anyone keeps my word, he will certainly never see death. ^[42] 52 The Jews said to him, Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; yet you say, If anyone keeps my word, he will certainly never taste death. ^[43] 53 Surely, you are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets also died! Whom are you making yourself? 54 Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing.^[44] My Father, whom you call Our God, is the One who glorifies me; 55 yet you do not know him, but I do know him. And if I say, I do not know him, I will be a liar just like you.^[44] But I know him, and his word I keep. 56 Abraham, your father, was extremely happy that he was to see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced. 57 The Jews therefore said to him, You have not even (lived) fifty years, and have you seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said to them, I most solemnly assure you, before Abraham was born, I am. 59 So they picked up stones in order to hurl them at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. 8:39a. They answered and said to him, Our father is Abraham. The very fact that Jesus had not stated in clear language whom he had in mind when he said Your father angered these Jews. The implication (namely, that he meant the devil) was going to become clear, but was still veiled. However, whatever he means or implies they thrust aside by saying, Our father is Abraham. They mean, of course, Abraham is our father in every sense of the term, not only physically but also spiritually; hence, we are spiritually free and we have no need of being delivered from bondage. They regard themselves as the spiritual offspring of Abraham. 39b, 40. Jesus said to them, If you are Abraham's children, you are doing the works of Abraham. See also Note 30 above. Jesus, for the sake of the argument, assumes for a moment that the Jews are correct in calling Abraham their (spiritual) father. Now on that presupposition, says Jesus, you are doing the works of Abraham. It cannot be otherwise. Abraham's children do Abraham's works. Like Abraham of old they obey God's commands, fully trusting that God will make all things well; they welcome his messengers; and, last but not least, they rejoice in the day of Christ (see on 8:56). These were the works of Abraham.Gen. 12:1–4; 17:17; 18:1–8; ch. 22 . From the entire context (see especially verses 37 and 40), the tone of voice, the look in his eyes, the Jews can easily infer that Jesus is merely assuming, for the sake of the argument, that these people are Abraham's offspring and are therefore doing Abraham's works.^[45] Figures of speech, including irony, abound in the lively discourse which we find here and everywhere in the Gospels. See what has been said about this in connection with 5:31. Stripped of irony, the intent of the statement is, of course, this: If you were really Abraham's children,^[46] you would be doing the works of Abraham. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER IX 9:1–7 9 1 And as he was walking along, he saw a man blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin nor his parents, but (this happened) in order that the works of God should be displayed in [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] 4 We, while it is day, must work the works of him who sent me. Night is approaching when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. 6 Having said these things he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and daubed its mud on his eyes 7 and said to him, Go, wash in the pool Siloam (which, interpreted, means Sent). So he went away and washed and came (back) seeing. 9:1. And as he was walking along, he saw a man blind from his birth. As Jesus walked alongor passed by,he saw a man afflicted with congenital blindness. This was rather common among the ancients, just as it is even today among those who do not use the necessary precautionary measures in connection with [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] Neither the time nor the place of the event related in the present paragraph is recorded. There is, nevertheless, an interesting comparison between the man afflicted with congenital blindness and the one who was handicapped by congenital paralysis (Acts 3). Both were beggars (Acts 3:3). The latter was laid daily at the temple-gate called (Beautiful. In view of the fact that many of the devout passed in and out of this gate, it was a natural place for the objects of pity and charity. Now also the present paragraph (9:1–7) establishes a close connection between the temple (8:59) and this beggar who had been blind from his birth. Hence, some are of the opinion that Jesus in leaving the temple found this man sitting at one of the temple-gates, begging. Others, however, point to the fact that the blind man was cured on a sabbath (9:14), and they consider it improbable that the Jews would have tried to stone the Lord (8:59) on that sacred day. However, it is probably not wise to limit too rigidly the number of crimes which Jews, beside themselves with anger and jealousy, permitted themselves to commit on the sabbathMatt. 27:62–66). We simply do not know whether the events recorded in chapters 8 and 9:1–34 happened on the same day. But if the blind man was not cured on the day when Jesus escaped being stoned to death, the miracle must have taken place very soon afterward (perhaps, the next day). Incorrect is the view that it occurred at the feast of the Dedication (in December). The time of that feast is not reached until 10:22. We are not told how Jesus or his disciples discovered that this man had been blind from his birth,but this may have been a matter of common knowledge. See also on 5:6. 2. And his disciples asked him saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, sothat he was born blind?It appears from this verse that the disciples had accompanied their Master to Jerusalem. To them this blind man presents a theological puzzle. They probably reasoned somewhat as follows: Back of every physical affliction or defect lies a sin, generally the sin of the afflicted one. But how can this be true if the man is bornwith a defect? In that case he cannot have brought it upon himself through his own misconduct, can he? Is he being punished, then, for the sin of his parents? And if so, is this fair? But no, there is another possibility: the individual who was born with a defect may, after all, be the cause of his own misfortune; for he may have committed acts of sin while he was still in the womb! Weighing the two possibilities, the disciples ask the question, Rabbi for this term see on 1:38, who sinned, this man or his parents, sothat he was born blind? According to Scripture (and the apocrypha) physical afflictions (defects, hardships, suffering, accidents, sickness, death) can be traced to various moral causes; such as: (1) The sin of Adam, in whom all have fallen and are by nature guilty before God. This is implied in Rom. 5:12 21Gen. 3:17–19; Rom. 8:20–23; I Cor. 15:21, 22; Eph. 2:3; and the apocryphal book Ecclus. 25:24 . (2) The sins of the parentsEx. 20:5; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9; 28:32; Jer. 31:29; Ezek. 18:2. Cf. the apocryphal books Wisdom of Sol. 4:6; Ecclus. 41:5–7 . (3) One's own personal sins (Deut. 28:15–68; Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:4). Cause (1) is ever presupposed by and qualifies causes (2) and (3). Hence, no one ever has a right to charge God with injustice. The Jews, however, had a tendency to exaggerate the importance of (2) and (3) out of all proportion to revealed truth. They traced each particular sorrow to a particular sin. Thus the friends of Job traced his afflictions to the sin of cruelty to the widow and the fatherless (Job 4:7; 8:20; 11:6; 22:5–10); and in Jesus own day that kind of reasoning was still very prevalent (Lk. 13:2–5). That Jesus himself did not approve of this disproportionate emphasis is clear from the last-mentioned reference and is not contradicted by John 5:14(see on that verse). When the disciples mentioned as one of their alternatives that the man, though bornblind, was perhaps reaping the fruits of his ownsin, they were probably not thinking of metempsychosis (transmigration of souls), though this construction is placed upon their question by Calvin and Beza, nor of the purely spiritual pre-existence of the soulOn the Giants, III, 12 15; some would add Wisd. of Sol. 8:20; however, this passage does not necessarily imply that doctrine , but of the rabbinic (overemphasis upon the) idea that babies are able to sin in the womb. From (Gen. 25:22 26Ps. 58:3and Lk. 1:41–44) the rabbis concluded that in the womb Esau had tried to kill [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] The other alternative which occurred to the minds of these disciples was that this unfortunate individual was the victim of parental transgression, perhaps the sin of a dissolute father (as is at times actually the case, even today). 3 5. Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin nor his parents, but (this happened) in order that the works of God should be displayed in him.In this answer Jesus immediately rules out the man's personal sins and the sins of his parents as causes to which his blindness can be traced. If a cause must be mentioned, the sin of Adam, our representative head, would be the answer. However, Jesus is not even interested in this at the present time. For the backward look of the disciples he substitutes the forward look. They had asked, How did it come to be? He answers, It happened with a purpose; namely, that the works of God (miracles in which he shows his power and his love) should be displayed in him. Allthings even afflictions and calamities have as their ultimate purpose the glorification of God in Christ by means of the manifestation of his greatness (cf. 1:14; 5:19, 20). We, while it is day, must work the works of him who sent me(the textual evidence furnishes no adequate reason to depart from this reading). Night is approaching when no man can work.To the disciples a glance at this man suggested a theological puzzle. To Jesus a look in his direction presented a challenge, an opportunity for work. Theyreasoned: How did he get that way? Heanswered: What can we do for him? So there were two ways of looking at this man, and the latter was by far the better. Note the emphatic position of the pronoun we in the answer which Jesus gives: We,while it is day, must work the works of him who sent me. This we refers, of course, to Jesus himself and his disciples, the men who have just asked the question. For Jesus and for these followersallhis followers the rule holds: while it is day we must work the works of God. Essentially these works are one(cf. 5:17, 20; 14:12); they are kingdom-works, whose oneness is clearly evident from the phrase which Jesus uses in calling them the works of him who sent me. On sent see below, verse 7. This teaching of our Lord is very striking, especially in the present connection. It is as if he intends to say: When someone crosses your path, you can react in a threefold manner: (1) If he excites your envy, you can pelt him with brickbats. Just now (or very recently) the Jews had tried to do that with reference to Jesus (8:59). The history of the world and, sad to say, also to some extent of the visible church furnishes examples of this general attitude. Some people never do anything constructively. Their life, from day to day, is a constant attempt to annihilate the object of their jealousy. The Jews are still with us. The sanhedrin also (at least its spirit) has not completely disappeared. (2) If he arouses your desire for additional information, you can try to gratify your curiosityby asking questions about him, in order, perhaps, to solve a theological puzzle. The disciples were occupying themselves with that, as has just been shown (see on 9:2). Now curiosity has its legitimate place, and questions of a theological nature should be encouraged rather than discouraged. But there is a limit. One should not onlyask questions; one should alsoperform deeds of love! In fact, that is where the emphasis should rest. Hence, (3) You should love him and help him!That, says Jesus, as it were, must be ourattitude: We, while it is day, must work the works of him who sent me. The expression while it is day is explained in the very next verse by when I am in the world. When Jesus, having said It is finished, breathes his last, his dayis done, his work of rendering an atonement for sin has been accomplished. Though it is true that even after his resurrection there were appearances, he is not in the world any more as he was formerly. The same holds with respect to the disciple: for him too there is a divinely-appointed time; namely, his life-time here below. Let him make the most of his opportunities. The mandate is urgent, for Night (that is, death) is approaching when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.The particle which we have rendered as long as ([Greek]) here, as in most other instances, refers to a rather indefinite time-relationship (Jesus is not saying just how long he will be in the world). It would appear from the present context that in this case the best translation is not whenever, as if Jesus wanted to refer to more than one act of coming into (and being in) the world, an idea wholly foreign to the present paragraph. The rendering as long as is suggested by the parallel in verse 4 while. For the meaning of the solemn declaration I am the light of the world, see on 8:12. It is true that here in 9:5 the definite article does not precede the noun light,but it is very doubtful whether any special significance must be attached to this omission. If a designation of the character of our Lord begins to be thought of as a proper name or title, the article is not always felt to be necessary. There is a certain latitude of usage. It is clear that the saying I am the light of the world furnishes the key to the interpretation of what follows. The cure of the man born blind, about to be related, is an illustration of what Jesus is constantly doing in his capacity as the light of the world. 6. Having said these things he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and daubed its mud on his eyes.Just why the Lord chose this particular method we do not know. The answers usually given fail to satisfy; for example, that he did this in order to impress upon the man that the healing power came from Jesuswordof Jesus take care of this? ; or in order to make use of the healing qualities of saliva or of mud; or to make this blind man even more thoroughly blind (!) sothat he might appreciate the cure even more deeply; or to symbolize the fact that man was made from the dust of the earth; etc., etc. If an answer must be given, it may be said that the Lord probably used this method in order to induce the proper attitude of heart and mind; i.e., to bring about perfect obedience, that type of submission which carries out a seemingly arbitrary command. Cf. (Gen. 2:16, 17. According to this answer, the mud had nothing whatever to do with the physical cure; it had no medicinal qualities, not any more than did the waters of Jordan into which Elisha bade Naaman to plunge himself seven timesII Kings 5:10) in order to be healed of his leprosy. In both cases the command was a test of obedience. It must be borne in mind that heis at work here who calls himself the light of the world,and that in this particular case light is imparted not only to the body but also to the soul (9:35–38). 7. And (he) said to him, Go, wash in the pool [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] (which interpreted means Sent).This pool reminds one of the one at Bethzatha, but while the latter was located to the north-east of Jerusalem see on 5:2 the Siloam pool was just inside the south-east portion of the city-wall. King Hezekiah had built a tunnel to carry the water of the Gihon Spring (now Virgin's Fount), located outside the wall, in a south-south-westward direction to just within the wall. The purpose had been to guarantee a water-supply in case of a siege. The original name of the pool was probably Shiloah,a proper name derived from the Hebrew passive participle meaning sent or conducted, given to it because through its tunnel water wasiseven today conductedfrom the intermittently flowing fountain to the pool; cf. our word aqueduct. [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] Some commentators reject the idea that Jesus attached symbolical significance to the meaning of the name of this pool. Nevertheless, three facts should be borne in mind: (1) This miracle is certainly symbolical, picturing Jesus as the light of the world(8:12; 9:5). (2) In this Gospel Jesus constantly presents himself as the One who is sentby the Father (see on 3:17, 34; 5:36, 37; 6:57; 7:29; 8:18, 27, 29; etc.). Now the name of the pool is also Shiloah (changed to Siloam); i.e., Sent. Is it not very natural to connect the water of this spring and pool with the One who is the water of life (see 4:10; 7:37)? (3) The waters of Shiloah flow from the temple-hill and are even in the Old Testament regarded as symbolical of the spiritual blessings which issue forth from God's dwelling-place (Is. 8:6and cf. Ezek. 47:1). Accordingly, when the man is told to go and wash in the pool Siloam, though it is certainly true that this must be taken in the most literal sense sothat he was actually expected to wash his eyes in that literal pool, the deeper meaning is surely this: that for spiritual cleansing one must go to the true Siloam; i.e., to the One who was sentby the Father to save sinners. So he went away and washed and came (back) seeing.In spite of the strange character of the command, the man does not copy the example of Naaman. He does not protest but he immediately obeys. To the pool he goes and with his hand he dips up some water. With this he washes the mud off his eyes. (The passage in no way implies that he jumped into the pool or bathed. We are dealing here with a blind man, not with a leper.) His obedience is immediately rewarded: he came back seeing. 9:8–12 8 The neighbors, therefore, and those who had seen him before as a [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] were saying, Is not this the one who used to sit begging? 9 Some were [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] This is the one; others were saying, No, but he resembles him. He was saying,^[58] I am the one. 10 In reply, they were saying to him, How then were your eyes opened? 11 He answered, The man who is called Jesus made mud and daubed my eyes and said to me, Go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed and received (my) sight. 12 They said to him, Where is he? He said, I do not know. 9:8, 9.The man was now able to see everything: the sun, the sky, the houses, and most interesting of all the people. It does not surprise us that, in all likelihood, he went to his home. When the neighbors saw him, they were looking at a man who seemed to differ very much from the familiar mendicant, known to almost everybody. The miracle had produced a change in his entire appearance and bearing. The neighbors, therefore, and those who had seen him before as a beggar were saying, Is not this the one who used to sit begging? Some were saying, This is the one; others were saying, No, but he resembles him. He was saying, I am the one. At this point the story becomes very graphic. (Notice the many instances of the use of the imperfect tense: were saying. Cf. 7:11–13.) Opinions were divided. One would say, Is not this man the one who used to sit begging? An affirmative answer was expected, though there is in the question a tiny element of doubt borne of surprise. Another would answer with absolute certainty, This is the one. But a third person, unable to believe that one who was born blind could be cured, would again and again forcefully declare, No, but he resembles him. Perhaps the last speaker was somewhat deceived by the change that had taken place in the man's bearing and demeanor. The cured man put an end to the controversy by repeatedly declaring, I am the one. 10 12.The neighbors are no longer in doubt with reference to the identity of the man. It is altogether natural that in reply, they were saying to him, How then were your eyes opened? The man gives a slightly condensed account of what had happened (cf. this with verses 6, 7 above), a report which was true in every detail. He answered, The man who is called Jesus made mud and daubed my eyes and said to me, go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed and received my sight.He even mentions the name of his benefactor someone must have told him but apparently does not realize that this miracle-worker is the world's Redeemer. In his report of his own actions a word is used ([Greek]) which means I recovered my sight; but since this man had never enjoyed the blessing of sight, we may translate rather freely, I received (my) sight. The desire to see the man who had performed so great a miracle is altogether natural. They said to him, Where is he?(just like in 7:11). He answered, I do not know.In the nature of the case, he could not have known the whereabouts of Jesus. Remember also 8:59 in this connection. Just now and for good reasons Jesus was not showing himself to the public. 9:13–17 13 They brought to the Pharisees the man formerly blind. 14 Now the day when Jesus had made the mud and had opened his eyes was a sabbath. 15 Again, therefore, the Pharisees also were asking him how he had received (his) sight. So he said to them, Mud he put on my eyes and I washed and I see. 16 In reply, some of the Pharisees were saying, This man is not from God for he does not keep the sabbath. Others were saying, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them. 17 Then they again said to the blind man, What do you say about him, seeing that he opened your eyes? He said, He is a prophet. 9:13. They brought to the Pharisees the man formerly blind. The section 9:13–34 contains the record of the man's examination by the Pharisees. The first question which occurs is this: By whomwas this man examined: by a group of men meeting informally or by an official body in a formal examination? With respect to this question commentators are divided into two groups. On the one hand, there are those who defend a view which, barring minor variations, may be described as follows: The man is brought before a group of Pharisees, meeting informally,perhaps in the home of one of them. These religious leaders, angered by the fact that Jesus had again violated their sabbath-regulations and even more by his increasing influence among the people try to discredit the miracle. They suspect that a fraud has been perpetrated. When they do not succeed in persuading the man to admit his guilt and when they come out second best in the argument, their anger flares up. Thoroughly enraged by what they regard as the man's brazen impudence they throw him out of the house or hall. In support of their position (that the entire examination is informal and that no formal sentence of excommunication from the religious life of Israel is pronounced) these interpreters declare that the individual in question, a mere beggar, would have been considered too unimportant for any formal action, and also that the verb used in 9:34 is not the one employed in 9:22 ( would be unsynagogued; i.e., expelled from the synagogue). On the other hand, there are those who look upon this incident as far more formal. We believe that they are right. It is true, of course, that the evangelist is not describing a plenary session of the great Sanhedrin (cf. 9:13), but this does not mean that the meeting and the sentence which was carried out were of an informal nature. In all likelihood these Pharisees were acting under orders from the Sanhedrin and knew that in expelling the man they were acting in accordance with the decision of that body. Either they had received power to act in this particular case, or else, having been appointed to examine this man, they knew that their action with respect to him would subsequently be approved by the Sanhedrin. We regard the verb in 9:34 to be a synonym for the one used in 9:22. We base this conclusion upon the following grounds: (1) It is clear from 1:24 (see on that verse) that the Sanhedrin would at times delegate a group of Pharisees to examine matters touching those who by some of the people were regarded as the Messiah. If in that case, why not in this? Surely, the Pharisees would not only examine the alleged claimant but also those who by their stories of his miraculous deeds might seem to be in danger of bolstering that claim. (2) The fact that authority to act was sometimes given to a group of religious teachers seems to be borne out by the [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] Is it not possible that we are dealing here with the minor Sanhedrin or synagogue-court, of which there are said to have been two in Jerusalem? (3) According to 9:22 the Sanhedrin had agreed upon expulsion from the synagogue for those who confessed Jesus to be the Christ. According to 9:28 the group of Pharisees which examines this man regards him as a disciple of Jesus; hence, a candidate for expulsion. It is true that at this point the man had not yet actually confessed Jesus to be the Christ (see 9:38), but it does not seem probable that the enemies of Jesus, in their exasperation, would make generous allowance for this difference. The man, after all, had confessed Jesus to be a prophet (9:17), a genuine miracle-worker, in a sense altogether unique (9:32), and a person who performed his miracles because of the extraordinary favor and power of God which rested upon him (9:33). Accordingly, when 9:34 now states, And they cast him out, it is altogether natural to regard this as actual expulsion from the synagogue. What is recorded in 9:22, 28, 32, 33 has certainly prepared the reader to expect nothing less than excommunication for this man. (4) The manner in which this group of Pharisees summons individuals (9:18, 24), the legal formality of its method of inquiry (9:19), and also the extreme caution exercised by the parents (9:21, 22), a caution resulting from fear, pleads in favor of a formal meeting before a group of authorized representatives of the Sanhedrin. (5) The importance which 9:35 ascribes to his expulsion also points in the same general direction. For the reasons given we shall, therefore, in our exegesis proceed from this point of view. Who (brought this man to the Pharisees? Perhaps, the neighbors (see context, 9:8, 12). On the other hand, it is also possible that the third person plural active verb, followed by the object-pronoun should simply be regarded as the same in meaning as our third person singular passive verb preceded by the subject-pronoun, according to a familiar Aramaic style-characteristicDan. 4:25in English and in Hebrew. The reference in the Hebrew Bible is Dan. 4:22). In that case if we wish to retain the third person plural active construction, the pronoun they must be regarded as indefinite, like the German (manmenor French on). Whenwas he brought? Probably not on the sabbath but a little later. Whywas he brought before the Pharisees? Was it because he had violated the sabbath-regulations which were esteemed so highly by the religious authorities? That is possible, but nothing with reference to the sabbath is mentioned before the time of the judicial inquiry. From the connection between verses 13 and 14 it would seem as if the Pharisees themselves bring up this point. Another reason suggests itself: the Pharisees had been telling the people that Jesus was a deceiver. In fact, already the people were aware of the fact that a decision had been made by the Sanhedrin that anyone who should confess Jesus to be the Christ would be expelled from the synagogue (9:22). But what were the Pharisees going to say now? Did not this great miracle speak louder than any verdict of the Sanhedrin? Let the man in question be brought before the Pharisaic judges, so that they can hear the story from his own lips. Then will they still persist in their opinion about Jesus? Or has some fraud been committed which they are able to uncover and expose? We are not sure that the suggested reason was the real one. It would, nevertheless, furnish a very natural explanation. 14, 15a. Now the day when Jesus had made the mud and had opened his eyes was a sabbath.To make mud on the sabbath and on that day to cover a person's eyes with this mud was a violation of the regulations. Also, on the sabbath it was not permissible to practice the art of healing, except in cases of extreme emergency. With respect to the Pharisaic attitude toward the sabbath see on 3:1 and 5:9b 13. So the Phariseesallof them, however; see on 9:16 probably reason somewhat in the following trend: a. Even if he did not actually perform a miracle, Jesus has in any case violated the sabbath; hence, b. he is an open sinner; but, c. Godwould never enable open sinnersto effect a realcure; hence, d. this whole case looks very suspicious and requires thorough investigation. Is it a fraud perhaps? Cf. 9:18. Again, therefore, the Pharisees also were asking him how he (had) received his sight.Indeed, again,for this was not the first time the question had been asked. He had been bombarded with it. First it had come from the lips of the neighbors, who had voiced it again and again (9:10). And now alsothe Pharisees confront him with it. 15b. So he said to them, Mud he put on my eyes and I washed and I see.Already the man appears to be wary. He weighs his words. Note how the report of the miracle is becoming more and more concise; cf. verses 6, 7; then 11; then 15b. 16.The Battle of the Syllogismsfollows. It is continued to the end of the story. We have first: the syllogism of the predominant group of Pharisees (verse 16a); and next, the syllogism vaguely suggested by the question of the minority. This second syllogism is going to be used with telling force by the cured man himself (see on 9:31–33). Accordingly, we shall speak of Syllogism Aand Syllogism B. In reply, some of the Pharisees were saying, This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath.Here we have what we shall refer to as: Syllogism A Major Premise: All people who are from God keep the sabbath. Minor Premise: This man (Jesus) does not keep the sabbath. Conclusion: This man is not from God. On the surface this looks like excellent reasoning. As a syllogism its validity must be granted. But this does not mean that the conclusion is true. There may be no flaw in logic in deriving a conclusion from a major and a minor premise, but if either of these premises be contrary to fact, the conclusion is no longer legitimate. In the present case what these men mean in theirmajor premise is wrong. The Pharisees have identified their own trifling, hair-splitting sabbath-regulations with the law of God. Hence, their realmajor premise is, All people who are from God observe our sabbath-regulations. The minor premise is also wrong, and for the same reason: confusion of concepts. And because these premises are false, the conclusion is no longer dependable. Whether in itself it is true or false is still another matter. But we know that the statement which forms the conclusion is wholly false, the very opposite of the truth. Others were saying, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?Here we have: Syllogism B Unimproved Major Premise: Only people who are from God (or: who are not sinners) can open the eyes of those born blind (or: can do such signs). Minor Premise: This man, Jesus, has opened the eyes of one born blind (or: has done such a sign). Conclusion: This man is from God (or: this man is not a sinner). Note, however, that this syllogism is cast in the form of a question. At best,it is merely suggested, but not definitely stated. These more mild-tempered Pharisees are confronted with a problem and they seek a solution. The problem is, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs? Even among this group there were probably several who would have rejected the proposition: Perhaps Jesus is not a sinner. For themJesus is definitely a sinner. Hence, for themthe whole matter is a profound mystery. For themSyllogism B has no reality whatever. Others, however, are beginning to see the light. The syllogism, then, is the very mostthat can possibly be derived from the question, and even then it is only suggestedby the question. It is not a positive statement. Is the vaguely suggested syllogism valid? As an exercise in logic its validity must be granted. The reasoning is as sound as a silver dollar fresh from the mint. But is the major premise correct?If not, then the conclusion though ever so correct as a historical fact is not legitimate. To answer this question it must not be forgotten that those whose question suggests this syllogism (here in verse 16) are, after all, Pharisees. Call them the better, milder class of Pharisees, they remain Pharisees all the same. The type of reasoning that is here suggested fits into their scheme of thinking. One finds something resembling it in the following syllogism: Major Premise: Only the wicked suffer physical affliction. Minor Premise: This man suffers physical affliction. Conclusion: This man is wicked. That such reasoning is out of harmony with reality has been shown in connection with 9:2. Hence, if among these Pharisees there are those who adopt Syllogism B Unimprovedbecause they believe that the ability to perform amiracleanymiracle is, in and by itself, always proof of divine approval, they are wrong, as is very clear to anyone who reads Matt. 7:22. But we must be fair to them. As actually stated, the situation is slightly different. Among these milder Pharisees there must have been a considerable number who stressed the exceeding greatness of this miracle. Read the syllogism. They hadsomething there, as is clear from 15:24. Jesus himself was going to say, If I had not done among them the works which no one else did,they would have no sin. From this it is clear that he himself viewed his own miracles as being (from a certain aspect) in a class by themselves, signs of his deity and of his divine mission. One more element must be added, however, for Jesus himself added it. It is this, that not only were his miracles unique in character but also they were done in answer to prayer;hence, with the purpose of glorifying God. When Syllogism Bis severed from its Pharisaic context and is given a distinctly Christian context, it is entirely valid. See on verses 31 33; also on 10:37, 38; 11:39–44; 15:24; and 20:30, 31. Jesus himself supplied this context when he said: This happened in order that the works of God should be displayed in him. We, while it is day, must work the works of him who sent me. This gives us: Syllogism B Improved Major Premise: Only people who are from God (or: who are not sinners) can open the eyes of those born blind, in order that by doing this they may display the works of God. Minor Premise: This man, Jesus, with that purpose in mind,has opened the eyes of one born blind. Conclusion: This man is from God (or: this man is not a sinner). And there was a division among them.That is, among the Pharisees a sharp division or schismarises between the supporters of Syllogism Aand the suggesters of Syllogism BUnimproved. The former, after a brief directthrust at the conclusion of Syllogism B,a thrust in the form of a question (see verse 17), begin their indirectattack. Verses 18 26 contain the record of their attempt to demolish the conclusion by rejecting the minor premise. If they can show that this man, Jesus, has not done a great sign, they will have overthrown the suggested conclusion of their opponents. In their embarrassment, unable to agree among themselves, the Pharisees turn again to the man who had just been cured of his blindness. 17. Then they again said to the blind man, What do you say about him, seeing that he opened your eyes?It is clear from verse 18 that those who favored Syllogism A(Christ's bitter opponents) were in the majority, as we also could have expected. In the light of that fact it is clear, of course, that when the Pharisees (probably both parties) now ask the man, What do you say about him? the causal modifier seeing that he opened your eyes does not imply any admission, on the part of the majority, as if theynow were willing to grant that Jesus had actually performed this astounding miracle. The clause is elliptical for seeing that you have declared thathe opened your eyes. He said, He is a prophet.The man is advancing in knowledge. He also shows courage. He knew that, through Jesus, God had revealed himself to him by means of this miracle. And surely one who in such a remarkable manner reveals God must be a prophet! 9:18–23 18 However, the Jews did not believe concerning him that he had been blind and had received (his) sight, until they called the parents of him who had received (his) sight, 19 and asked them, saying, Is this your son whom you say was born blind? How then is it that he now sees? 20 Then his parents answered and said, We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. 21 How it is that he now sees we do not know, and who opened his eyes we do not know. Ask him; he is of age; he will speak for himself. 22 His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had agreed that anyone who should confess him to be the Christ would be expelled from the [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] 23 It was for that reason that his parents said, He is of age; ask him. 9:18, 19. However, the Jews did not believe concerning him that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight, and asked them, saying, Is this your son whom you say was born blind? How then is it that he now sees? In their attempt to destroy the conclusion of suggested Syllogism Bthe Pharisees had failed to receive the co-operation of the man most directly concerned. Well, then if the direct method fails, they will try the indirect method: destroying the conclusion by attacking the minor premise. Moreover, if the sonwill not help them in their efforts to produce this result, they will seek the aid of his parents! The opponents of Jesus are here called the Jews (see on 1:19). How is it to be explained that they (the Pharisaic majority) did not believe that this man had been blind and had received his sight? There are, of course, several possibilities: a. the mendicant may not have been as well-known to the religious leaders as he was to the common people; b. they may have doubted that thiswas that familiar beggar. Perhaps they thought that the reallyblind man had been kidnapped and that his double (in every respect except blindness) had been substituted for him; c. or, finally, they may have concluded that the well-known mendicant had been fooling everybody by acting as if he were blind. Ill-will toward Jesus played its role, of course. To believe that this man had been blind and had been cured of his blindness would have been the first steptoward crediting Jesus with a remarkable miracle. This step they did not want to take. Just as one often believes what he wishes to believe, so also one often disbelieves what he wishes to disbelieve. They disbelieved that this man had been blind and had received his sight, until they called his parents. Did they believe these two facts afterward? It is true that the word until does not necessarily imply this. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that even after the parents had given their testimony, the disbelief (with respect to the aforementioned two facts) continued. Verse 34 certainly implies that they then believed that this man had been born blind (as a punishment for sin). That he had been cured of his blindness was so evident that it could not be denied. But it is one thing to accept the fact that this man was cured of his blindness. It is another thing to ascribe this cure to Jesus. To do justice to the truth the hostile Jews would have had to take four steps. They would have had to admit. a. This man was cured of congenital blindness. b. It was Jesus who cured him. c. The cure was effected through the power and love of God, resting upon Jesus,and not through the power of the prince of demons, working in Jesus. d. This shows that Jesus is, indeed, a man from God. In fact, it indicates that he is all he claims to be. Now verse 18 simply teaches that before the parents had been summoned, the hostile Jews had not even taken step Number 1. Verse 19 implies that the Jewish leaders had heard a rumor to the effect that these parents had been talking about the cure of their son. On the basis of this information the examiners now ask [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] First, they wish to know whether this is that widely discussed son who by the parents was said to have been born blind; secondly, they desire information with reference to the fact and manner of his cure. 20, 21. Then his parents answered and said, We know that this is our son and that he was born blind.By this open declaration identifying this man as their son and testifying that he was, indeed, born blind, these parents are forcing the Jews to take that dreaded first step(see on 9:18, 19) toward crediting Jesus with a remarkable miracle. Whether they (the majority, the men who evidently take the leading part) ever took the second step, admitting even mentally that it was Jesus who cured him, is debatable. Verse 26 does not necessarily imply this. Openlythey never took this step but opposed it (see on 9:24). They definitely never took steps three and four. How (it is that) he now sees we do not know, and who opened his eyes we do not know. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.The parents shy away from the second question. They also lie. They doknow how it is that their son now sees. He has certainly told them all about the miracle. Verse 22 implies that they also knew who had performed it. It was lack of courage, selfish cowardice, which caused them to say, We do not know &we do not know &Ask him; he is of ageof age ;he will speak for himself. At a decisive moment, when they should have spoken, they were guilty of passing the buck. Nevertheless, we must not be too hard on them. The question must always be asked, What would we have done in similar circumstances? The threatened punishment was most terrible! See on verses 22, 23. It is possible that the intimate knowledge which these parents had with respect to the talents and character of their son his ability to defend himself, ready wit, and courage had something to do with their desire to let him speak for himself. The main reason why they spoke as they did is, however, stated in the passage which follows: 22, 23. His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had agreed that anyone who should confess him to be the Christ would be expelled from the synagogue. It was for that reason that his parents said, He is of age; ask him. Fear of the Jewsis a common theme in John's Gospel; see on 3:2 and 7:13. Alreadyformallycondemned as being worthy of death the hostile Jewish authorities had agreed (i.e., made a formal Sanhedrin-decision) that anyone of his followers who would recognize in him the Messiah, God's Anointed, should be unsynagogued ([Greek] ). To read back into this account the later regulations regarding the minor ban (for thirty, sixty, or ninety days) and the major ban (for all time) is probably not warranted. The account surely reads as if the excommunication here intended was final and terrible. For other references to the application of this rule see 12:42; 16:2. Note that in the last reference expulsion from the synagogue and killing are juxtaposed. The one who was unsynagogued was virtually cut off from the religious and social life of Israel (Lk. 6:22). From every point of view social, economic, religious the results were frightening, and this especially for people who were so poor that their son had to make his living by begging! Hence, although we cannot justifythese parents in shirking their duty, we can understandthem. How often has not courage been lacking in the case of those who should have shown it when the Sanhedrin or its equivalent under some other name threatened to put outthose who were defending the truth of God! Church History is full of examples! 9:24–34 24 So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner. 25 He answered, Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know: that though I was blind, I now see. 26 In reply they said to him, What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes? 27 He answered them, I already told you, but you did not listen. Why do you wish to hear it again? It surely cannot be that you too wish to become his disciples? 28 And they reviled him and said, Youare this fellow's disciple, but weare disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God has spoken to Moses; but as for this fellow, we do not know where he hails from. 30 The man answered and said to them, Why this is an astonishing fact, that you do not know where he hails from, and yet he opened my eyes! 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing and does his will, to him he [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] 32 Since the world began it was never heard of that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] 34 They answered and said to him, You were wholly born in sin, and you would teach us? And they threw him out. 9:24. So for the second time they call the man who had been blind, and said to him, Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner. The Jews were trying in every possible way to prove that Jesus was not the One who had opened the eyes of the man born blind. They were engaged in an attack on the minor premise of Syllogism BUnimproved (see on verse 16), in order to annihilate the conclusion: Jesus is from God. But in this attempt they had failed to receive any help from the parents, who, driven by fear, had refused to commit themselves in any way with respect to the manner in which their son had received his sight. In fact, the parents testimony had made the case even more difficult for the Pharisees, for it had left them without any excuse for thinking that there had been no miracle at all. And they fear lest within a very short time in the mind of everyone the name of Jesus will be linked with this miracle. And that must be prevented by all means. Hence, these leaders decide to resummon the man formerly blind, in order to exact from him a promise that he will never again give Jesus the credit for the great benefit which he has received. They say to him: Give glory to God; weknow that this manis a sinner. The most simple explanation of this declaration is the following: Glorify God by ascribing the miracle to him,and not to anyone else. Do not give that man (Jesus) the credit for it, for we have his number: we knowthat he is an open sinner. Surely, such a man could not have performed so great a deed! Notice how, in this argumentation, Syllogism Ais beginning to bear fruit! Its conclusion has become the minor premise of another syllogism, on this order: Syllogism A (2) Major Premise: Only people who are from God can open the eyes of those born blind. Minor Premise: This man (Jesus) is not from God. Conclusion: He cannot have opened the eyes of one born blind. Let it be granted then, so reason these Pharisees, that Jesus did actually cover the eyes of this man with mud and that he sent him to Siloam. When the man came to Siloam and washed the mud off his eyes, it was Godnot Jesus who performed the miracle. Hence, the man should give Godthe glory! This explanation is in harmony with the entire context. Note how the words Godand this manare contrasted! Not this man but God must receive the honor. There is another interpretation on which we wish to comment briefly. It is to this effect, that the expression, Give glory to God, is a kind of standard phrase, meaning Glorify God by confessing your sin. According to these commentators, the Pharisees have not yet given up the idea that the whole thing is a fraud, which they now ask the man to confess. These interpreters usually refer to (Josh. 7:19in defence of the position that also here in John 9:24the disputed expression has this meaning. However, one can glorify Godin more ways than one: a. by acknowledging one's sins, to be sure; but also by bringing a conciliatory offeringI Sam. 6:5); or, as here in 9:24, by giving God the thanksgiving and the praise for the inestimable privilege of physical eyesight. We, therefore, abide by the interpretation of 9:24 as we gave it. 25.As the story progresses it becomes increasingly clear that this man is not an ordinary individual. He is not easily shaken. Evidently the vaunted knowledgeof these eminent judges has failed to impress him. He answered, Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know: that though I was blind, I now see.Boldly he places both his I do not know and his I do know over against their we know. We say over against, for instead of assenting to the proposition This man is a sinner, he openly declares that he,the one formerly blind, is not aware of this; but that he is very definitely aware of the fact that, though blind, he is now fully able to see! Between the lines of his terse saying one can surely read this much: Over against your mere say-soI place this one great fact of experience:though I was blind, I now see. Factsare more stubborn than unsupportable opinions. 26.Clearly, the Pharisees are being crowded against the wall. Having come out second best in their interview with the parents, they have failed even more wretchedly in their conversation with the son! They seem to be in a quandary. So, In reply, they said to him, What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?Having exhausted their mental resources, they now return to the questions asked previously (see on 9:15), perhaps because they can think of nothing else to do. It is also possible that they were trying by means of this procedure to weary the man, so that by forcing boredom upon him they might cause him, in an unguarded moment, to make an inconsistent statement. How often the man had heard those questions: from the lips, first, of the neighbors, and that repeatedly; then, of the Pharisees; and now once more,of the Pharisees! It was the same thing over and over again: What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes? 27. He answered them, I already told you, but you did not listen.Clearly, the man is losing his patience. He is becoming disgusted with this stalling procedure. That, in itself, is not at all surprising. What issurprising is the fact that he is not at all afraid to express his marked displeasure in words that are clear and forceful. He had not inherited his parents timidity. Moreover, he brandishes the weapon of irony so delicious to him, but so distasteful to them and he does it in such a manner that the intended victims would never forgive or forget. Says he, Why do you wish to hear it again? It surely cannot be that you too wish to become his disciples?The last words constitute a skillfully expressed question which anticipates a negative answer, to be sure, but leaves the door slightly ajar for a positive one; as if one were saying, This is, of course, impossible &yet, one can never tell what you Pharisees might do! If this is not scorching satire, it is at least the next thing to it. How some commentators can imagine that this man was actuallyof the opinion that the Pharisees (especially those who predominated) were seriously considering the idea of becoming disciples of Jesus is more than we can understand. 28, 29. And they reviled him and said, Youare that fellow's disciple, but weare disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses; but as for this fellow, we do not know where he hails from. Under the circumstances this reaction of the Jewish leaders is entirely understandable. They were not the kind of people who would admit defeat. Moreover, they feel deeply insulted and humiliated. A mere beggar has defied their authority. He has made sport of their dignity and superior position. What, theyabout to become disciples of Jesus? His very nameis poison to them, so that they refuse to take it upon their lips. They prefer to call him that one or that fellow. You are that fellow's disciple, they say. They seem to regard the title disciple of Jesusto be a crowning insult. They can think of nothing worse to call the beggar. They do not even dream that they are bestowing upon him the highest possible honor. With self-satisfied arrogance they refer to themselves as disciples of Moses (see on 5:45, 46; 6:32; 8:5), not realizing that Moses was going to condemn them! They know that God spoke to Moses. Yes, they know the divine origin of the laws and ordinances which Moses instituted. What they do not know is that the One whom they hate with such devilish hatred has the right to say, Moses spoke of me. When, in this connection, they affirm, But as to this fellow, we do not know where he hails from, they are not denying what they (or their friends) have said previously with respect to the parentage of Jesus (6:42; 7:27). What they mean is: We do not know from what source he,in distinction from Moses, derives his authority. Now Jesus had answered that question again and again. But they had refused to accept his answer. 30. The man answered and said to them, Why, this is an astonishing fact that you do not know where he hails from, and yet he opened my eyes!And, it was, indeed, astonishing to hear these dignified men say, We do notknow. They were so used to saying, We know (9:24, 29; and cf. 6:42; 7:27), that it came as a shock that here for once they actually admitted ignorance with respect to a certain matter; and such an important matter! It concerned the One who had bestowed the blessing of vision upon a man bornblind! About this most remarkable miracle-worker these wise men know almost nothing. They do not even know the source of his authority. The man born blind takes full advantage of the situation. To use a colloquialism, he rubs it in!Says he, [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] this is an astonishing factin this is the marvel that you (who pretend to know so much) do not know where he hails fromwhere he is from ,and yet (see on 1:5, footnote with respect to [Greek]) he opend my eyes! 31, 32, 33.The healed man continues, We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is Godfearing and does his will, to him he listens. Since the world began it was never heard of that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. Here Syllogism Breturns in strengthened form (essentiallythe same as Syllogism B Improved). Verse 31 is the major premise; verse 32, the minor; verse 33, the conclusion. See on 9:16. Major Premise: Only people who are from God i.e., who are God-fearing and do his will are heard by God, so that they can open the eyes of those born blind. Minor Premise: This man, Jesus, was heard by God, so that he opened the eyes of one born blind, and thus performed a miracle so great that since the world began it was never heard of. Conclusion: This man is from God. If he were not, he could do nothing. He is definitely not a (flagrant) sinner. Note that by speaking as he does this man is employing the Pharisaic type of argumentation. He is defeating the Pharisees with their own syllogistic reasoning. This in itself is very remarkable: a beggar defeating a Pharisee with the Pharisee's own weapon!But the man is doing even better than that: he takes the Pharisaic syllogism, and improves it, not only by stating positively what before was only a hint (cf. 9:31–33 with 9:16b) but also by giving it a definitely scriptural setting. The man regards the miracle as an answer to prayer!He says, If anyone is God-fearing and does his will, to him he (God) listens. That position is entirely correct. It is Scriptural. The idea that God hears the prayers of the righteous but rejects the prayers of the wicked is found everywhere in the Bible: I Sam. 8:18; Job 27:9; 35:12; Ps. 18:41; 66:18; Prov. 1:28; 15:29; Is. 1:15; 59:2; Jer. 11:11; 14:12; Ezek. 8:18; Mic. 3:4; Zech. 7:13; John 8:21; Acts 10:35. Moreover, miraclessuchmiracles; see on 15:24 performed in answer to prayer and in order to display the works of God, do have evidential value (Acts 2:22; 4:31; II Cor. 12:12). The Pharisees have suffered a humiliating defeat. They have been driven into a corner. Meanwhile, the beggar has made definite progress in his confession. He is no longer saying, Whether he (Jesus) is a sinner, I do not know (9:25). By this time he knowsthat Jesus is not a sinner, but the recipient of God's favor in a very high degree. 34.Having lost the argument, the Pharisees resort to arrogant, glaring abuse. They answered and said to him, You were wholly born in sin, and you would teach us?But even this abuse contains the evidence of their defeat, for by implication they now admit that this man who stands before them clear-sighted was born blind. The position recorded in verse 18 ( Now the Jews did not believe concerning him that he had been blind and had received his sight ) has been abandoned. The miracle has actually occurred. So much is now clear to all. The very idea, however, of ascribing it to Jesus, as the One on whom the favor of God rests, is so obnoxious to them, that they regard the one who entertains it as wholly born in sin (his blindness being regarded by them as a punishment for sin; see on 3:2). That such a base fellow would actually take it upon himself to teach such worthies as themselves is disgusting! And they threw him out;i.e., out of the building and out of the religious fellowship of Israel. See on 9:13. 9:35–38 35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and having found him he said, Do youbelieve in the Son of man? 36 He answered and said, And who is he, sir, (tell me) in order [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] I may believe in him? 37 Jesus said to him, You have seen him; in fact the One who is speaking to you is he. 38 He said, I believe, Lord, and he worshiped him. 9:35. Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and having found him he said, Do youbelieve in the Son of man?Jesus, the Good Shepherd (see chapter 10), is interested not only in the body but also in the soul of those whom he saves (see also on 5:14). So, having heard that this man had been expelled from the synagogue, the Lord seeks and finds him. Having located him, Jesus asks, Do youbelieve in the Son of man? It is probable that the pronoun youreceived a certain emphasis, so the import of the question is, Do you,like a true disciple and in distinction from the unbelieving Jews, believe &? [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] The context clearly shows that the expression believe inin the present instance indicates true faith; in other words, Do you rely entirely for life and death on the Son of man? Do you trust him, and do you entrust yourself wholly to him with reference to the present and the future, for your physical and for your spiritual needs? For [Greek] see also on 1:8; 3:16; 8:30, 31a. Jesus asked whether this man believed in the Son of man. For this term see on 12:34. The textual support for the reading the Son of Godis definitely weaker; in fact, there are no good reasons to accept that reading. 36. He answered and said, And who is he, sir, (tell me) in order that I may believe in him?Before being able to answer the question, the man feels the need of knowing who this Son of man this Messiah might be. Hence, the question begins with the conjunction And,which anticipates additional information. Note that the Greek word [Greek] has been translated sirhere (verse 36) but Lordin verse 38. The reason is, of course, that in the present verse the once blind man is addressing someone whose identity has not yet been clearly revealed, though he may have surmised that it was Jesus; but in verse 38 the man is worshiping the One whom he now fully recognizes for what he is. See also on 1:38. On believe in himsee verse 35. 37. Jesus said to him, You have seen him; in fact, the One who is speaking to you is he.Literally the answer of Jesus is, You have both seen him, and the One who is speaking to you is he, but we believe that in English the translation which we have given is a little clearer without changing the sense in any way. In words that are almost identical to those found in 4:26 (see on that passage) Jesus reveals himself to this man as the true Messiah, even the Son of man. 38. He said, I believe, Lord, and he worshiped him.Being now fully aware of the fact that the One who has addressed him is the very One who has also healed him, namely, Jesus, on whom with wide-eyed wonder he fixes his gaze (what a privilege it is to be able to see!), and recognizing in Jesus the Messiah, the very Son of man, who is also Son of God and therefore the proper object of worship, the man falls down on his knees and renders religious worship (not merely respect or even reverence) to his Benefactor. In the Gospel of John the verb always indicates divine worship (see also 4:20, 21, 22, 23, 24; 12:20). 9:39–41 39 And Jesus said, For judgment I came into this world, in order that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind. 40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and they said to him, Certainly, we too are not blind, are we? 41 Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] but now that you say, We see, your sin remains. 9:39. And Jesus said, For judgment I came into this world.When Jesus sees this man on his knees in the attitude of genuine worship, and compares this humble and confiding condition of heart and mind with the hostility and stubbornness of the Pharisees, he sees that his coming into this world has two diametrically opposed effects. Some receive him with joy and are rewarded. Others reject him and are punished. This reward and this punishment is his judgment ([Greek]; see on 3:17) upon those who come in contact with him. It is for that reason that he can say, For judgment I came into this world. See on 3:18–21. He came with the very purpose of pronouncing and carrying into effect this authoritative verdict upon these two sharply contrasted groups. On the expression came into this world as a characterization of the Messiah see 1:9. The rewarding aspect of this judgment is expressed in the words: in order that those who do not see, may see;i.e., in order that those who lack the light of salvation (who are without true knowledge of God, righteousness, holiness, joy), and regretting their condition have by God's preparatory grace been made anxious to receive the light, may be placed in full possession of it. The man who had been blind from his birth but was now able to see both physically and spiritually illustrates the point. Then follows the punitive aspect of this judgment: and that those who see may become blind;i.e., and in order that those who are constantly saying, We see (9:41), but who deceive themselves by rejecting the light, may at last be completely separated from it (cf. on 7:34). Think of the Pharisees, who harden themselves more and more. 40, 41.Did some of the Pharisees (see on 1:24) gather around him in order to find fault? It seems so, for we read Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things. Andwith arrogant scorn and disdain they said to him, Certainly, we too are not blind, are we?Does Jesus mean to place them in the category of the accursed rabble that knows not the law (see on 7:49)? Are they,the devout disciples and interpreters of Moses, in a class with the people of the soilwho know nothing? Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no sin;i.e., if you were not only without the light (the true knowledge of God, holiness, righteousness, joy) but also conscious of this deplorable condition and anxiously yearning for God's salvation, no charge could be brought against you. He continues: But now that you say, We see, your sin remains.In other words, If you do not see the greatness of your sins and miseries, you cannot enjoy true comfort. Your sinremains, for you have rejected God's salvation. Synthesis of Chapter 9 See the Outline on p. 2. The Son of God Healing the Man Born Blind, to Whom in Love He Reveals Himself as the Son of Man. His Enemies Have Decided to Unsynagogue Those Who Accept Him. The story may be outlined as follows: I. A Jerusalem beggar is healed of his congenital blindness (9:1–7) Jesus, on leaving the temple or shortly afterward, saw a man born blind. The disciple asked whether the man's own sin or that of his parents had caused this blindness. Jesus by implication criticized the question, and substituted the forward look for the backward, the deed of mercy for the merely theoretical speculation. He said, Neither did this man sin nor his parents, but (this happened) in order that the works of God should be displayed in him. Thus moral and spiritual insightwas given to the disciples by him who called himself the light of the world(9:5). He then further illustrated this light-giving activity by imparting physical lightto the eyes of this blind man. He did this after covering the man's eyes with mud and sending him to the pool Siloam to wash it off. II. He is questioned by the neighbors (9:8–12) Among the neighbors opinions were divided: some were sure that this was the man who was born blind; others were almost sure; still others saw close resemblance. The man himself put an end to all this by stating definitely, I am the one. In answer to their further questions he related the manner of his cure and declared that he did not know the whereabouts of his benefactor. III. He is interrogated and expelled from the synagogue by the Jewish leaders (9:13–34) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER X Discussion of Certain Basic Points in connection with the Allegory of the Good Shepherd In the interpretation of this sublime allegory commentators differ widely. The solution which one adopts with respect to the various problems that are presented here determines, in a measure, the explanation of individual passages. It is for this reason that we discuss some of the more important points and problems before entering upon a detailed exegesis. I. Its Connection with the Preceding Context (if any) Was 10:1–18 spoken on (and does the entire section 10:1–21 belong to) the day on which Jesus found the excommunicated man? We have the first record of what happened on that day in 9:35–41.Isaiah 10:1 21to be regarded as the logical and chronological continuation? A. Those who do not see this close connection argue as follows: 1. The style is altogether different: 9:35–41 is polemical; 10:1–18 is allegorical. 2. The Good Shepherd discourse is continued in 10:26–28, but the latter passage was spoken at the feast of Dedication (10:22) in December; hence, a few months later than 9:35–41. It is clear, therefore, that either the entire Good Shepherd discourse belongs to that feast or else we simply do not know where to place it; the time when it was delivered is completely uncertain. B. Those who see this close connection (between 9:35–41 and 10:1–21) answer as follows, and with this answer we agree: 1. Though the style is different, the thought-connection is very close. Jesus describes himself as the good shepherd over against false shepherds. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep; the Pharisees, on the other hand, as evil shepherds, are not concerned about the sheep, and cast them out. The man born blind, a true sheep, had been excommunicated by the Jewish authorities; but Jesus, as the good shepherd, had sought and found him. What matters is this connection in thought. Once this is seen, it becomes evident that 10:1–21 is the logical and chronological continuation of 9:35–41 (and, in a sense, of chapter 9, in its entirety). 2. Why should it be considered impossible for Jesus (in 10:26–28) to refer to a theme (the good shepherd's care) which a few months earlier had been the subject of an extensive discourse? Note how the miracle at Bethzatha (5:2) is taken up again many months later (7:23). Besides, the present section (10:1–21) shows very clearly that it is closely connected with the preceding (i.e., with chapter 9), for verse 21 reads: A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he? The opening of the eyes of the blind was the subject of chapter 9. 3. This section is not introduced by a fresh note of time. On the contrary, it begins with the familiar expression, I most solemnly assure you, which nowhere else in this Gospel begins a new section. N.N. does not even begin a new paragraph at this point. II. Its Old Testament Background The audience which listened to this allegory was the same as in 9:35 41: Christ's disciples, the man who had been healed of his blindness (unless he had already left), the Pharisees, and probably other Jews, see on 10:6. They did not understand it. Had they been better students of the Word, they would have understood it at least to some extent, for this discourse is rooted in Old Testament symbolism, which Jesus used for his own purpose. The following are some of the most striking parallels in the Old Testament: A. Jehovah is the shepherd of Israel and of individual believers, who are regarded as the sheep. Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want, etc. (Ps. 23). So we thy people and the sheep of thy pasture will give thee thanks forever (Ps. 79:13). Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock (Ps. 80:1). For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand, (Ps. 95:7). I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord JehovahEzek. 34:15; see the entire beautiful chapter . That sheep have a tendency to wander, and are, therefore in need of a guiding shepherd, is clear from Ps. 119:176; Is. 53:6. B. He is a very good, a very tender-hearted and loving shepherd. This is clear from the passages referred to under A (above), and also from Is. 40:11: He will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs in his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and will gently lead those that have their young. Cf. II Sam. 12:3; Luke 15:3 6. C. There are, nevertheless, evil shepherds: Woe unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith JehovahJer. 23:1ff . Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say unto them, even to the shepherds, Woe unto the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the sheep? (Ezek. 34:1, 2). Semitic people (e.g., the Assyrians) often refer to their rulers (kings, princes, religious leaders, etc.) as shepherds. Woe to the worthless shepherd that leaves the flock! (Zech. 11:17). D. Forsaken by the shepherd, the sheep become a prey of wild beasts: lions, bears, especially wolves. &that the congregation of Jehovah be not as sheep which have no shepherd (Num. 27:17). And David said unto Saul, Thy servant was keeping his father's sheep; and when there came a lion or a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock, I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth; and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him and slew him. Thy servant smote both the lion and the bear (I Sam. 17:34–36). I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd (I Kings 22:17). And the wolf shall dwell with the lambIs. 11:6, implying, of course, that heretofore the wolf has been the lamb's greatest enemy . Therefore they go their way like sheep, they are afflicted because there is no shepherd (Zech. 10:2). Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered (Zech. 13:7). E. The great Son of David (the Messiah) will be the one shepherd of the reunited remnant (Israel and Judah, but now no longer regarded as separate): And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherdEzek. 34:23; cf. Jer. 23:5where the righteous Branch is contrasted with the evil shepherds . The allegory recorded in John 10:1 18may be regarded as the fulfillment of Ezek. 34:23. Jesus is himself the good shepherd, just as had been predicted! III. Its Character as an Allegory A. What Is an Allegory? The discourse about the good shepherd is called a paroimia. In general a [Greek] (literally, wayside saying) is a figurative saying (16:25, 29). Here in chapter 10 it is an allegory rather than a parable. The Gospel of John does not contain any parables. The very term parable occurs only in the Synoptics (Heb. 9:9; 11:19), while [Greek] occurs only in the Fourth Gospel (II Pet. 2:22). In the NT there is some overlapping in the meaning of the terms parable and paroimia: each may refer to a proverb (II Pet. 2:22; cf. Luke 4:23), but this is the exception rather than the rule. Similarly the Hebrew mashal has a very wide connotation: proverb, parable, poem, riddle (veiled and pointed remark). See on 2:19. Essentially the difference in meaning between a [Greek] in the sense of allegory (as here in chapter 10) and a parable amounts to this, that the former partakes of the nature of a metaphor; the latter is more like a simile. A metaphor is an implied comparison ( Tell that fox, meaning Herod); a simile is an expressed comparison ( his appearance was as lightning). An allegory may be defined as an extended metaphor; a parable, as an extended simile. B. How Must an Allegory be Interpreted? The following rules should be observed: 1. No attempt should be made to explain every trait or feature of the symbol. When, however, Jesus himself or the concrete historical situation, supplies the interpretation, that elucidation should receive its due. One should not ask at every point, What does this represent and what does that represent? Over-analysis leads to misinterpretation. The main idea must be grasped (see IV below). In harmony with this main idea, certain objects that are mentioned have parallels in the kingdom-sphere or in the sphere of the enemies of the kingdom. In the present allegory that is true with respect to the following: door, fold, sheep, shepherd, flock; and also the following: thief and robber, stranger, hireling. But the question is legitimate: How do we know that these terms have symbolical significance? We answer: a. As to the first list (door, fold, sheep, shepherd, flock), it is interpreted by Jesus himself. We should not hesitate to permit a term to have the symbolical meaning which its author attaches to it! Note the following: Verse 1: Symbol: Meaning: the door the fold sheep Jesus himself (verses 7 and 9) Israel (clearly implied in verse 16) those for whom Christ died, those destined to be saved; those who obtain eternal life; those who heed the voice of Jesus and follow him (10:4, 9, 11, 14, 28). Verse 2: shepherd Jesus (the good shepherd, 10:11, 14) Verse 16: flock the entire company of the saved (one flock, 10:16). b. As to the second list (thief and robber, stranger, hireling) see under 3 (below). The concrete, historical situation out of which the allegory arises is all that is necessary to explain these symbols. When we follow this rule, certain terms will remain, to which we cannot with any degree of certainty ascribe symbolical significance; such as door-keeper. These terms are necessary to round out the symbol. For the wolf see on 10:29. 2. Not every predication must be referred to the symbol. We have reached a crucial point in the interpretation of the present allegory. As we see it, it is here that many interpreters go astray. Often the reality (in the sphere of the kingdom) is more prominent than the figure. This means that in certain cases the sentence has as its subject (or implied subject) a metaphor, but the predicate applies not to the metaphor itself but only to the person to whom the metaphor refers. Thus, when in Ps. 79:13the poet says, So we, thy people and the sheep of thy pasture, will give thee thanks forever, it is immediately clear that this giving of thanks lies outside of the sphere of animals (sheep, for instance). Sheep (in the literal sense) cannot give thanks. Sheep-like people, however, do give thanks. (In this particular instance the reference is made very clear by the word thy people which explains the sheep of thy pasture. The two expressions are mutually interpretive.) Once this point is grasped, there will be no further difficulty in explaining the last part of 10:9: By me if anyone enters, he will be saved, and will go in and out, and will find pasture. It is, of course, perfectly true that one cannot say with reference to animals that they are saved, but this can be said, nevertheless, with respect to people who have received the characteristics of certain animals (in this case sheep). Hence, we cannot agree with commentators who argue that the entire interpretation is upset by the theory that in verse 9 Jesus is thinking of sheep. Their argument is that inasmuch as the subject of the sentence (anyone) is masculine, it cannot refer to a sheep, the word for which (in the original Greek) is neuter. Also, that it would be foolish to speak about a sheep entering the door, for how else but by the door would it enter the fold? They continue that the entire conception of a sheep going in and out of the fold at pleasure is wrong, as no sheep does that; and that a sheep does not find pasture for itself. But all this, as we see it, is the result of a failure to grasp the important rule in symbol-interpretation which we printed in italics at the head of this paragraph: Not every predication must be referred to the symbol. The subject (anyone) can very well refer to a sheep; i.e., to a person with sheep-like character (one who really follows the shepherd, Christ). Again, it is not at all foolish to speak about a sheep entering by the door, for the reference also in this case is to the person who by faith in Christ enters the kingdom. Now it so happens that many people try to enter by some other way; for example, by trusting in their own good works. Also, a sheep i.e., a sheep-like person does, indeed, go in and out and find pasture, rejoicing when he finds it (e.g., in the Word). Moreover, both the preceding context (verse 8) and the succeeding context (verse 10) clearly show that our own interpretation is on the right track, for these passages speak about people, not about animals (see our explanation of these verses). A text should always be explained in the light of its context (in the present case, verse 9 must be explained in the light of verses 8 and 10). Besides, verses 26 29 also speak about sheep; but it is very clear that these sheep are people, the true followers of Jesus. Once Rule 2 is understood, so-called mixed metaphors will not be so disturbing. Accordingly, we turn now to the next rule: 3. So-called mixed metaphors (really, sudden changes of metaphors) do not present any real problem if it be borne in mind that what may be impossible as far as the symbol is concerned, is often entirely reasonable and true with respect to the reality to which the symbol refers. In the present allegory the difficulty which has baffled so many interpreters consists in the fact that Jesus is referred to both as the door (10:7, 9) and as the good shepherd (10:11, 14). How can he be both? Feeling that this is impossible, some have resorted to the idea that we have here a corruption of the text. But for this there is no solid evidence. Instead, the solution must be sought in the direction of the application of Rule 2 (above). So great is Jesus that his significance can never be fully expressed. No symbol, taken by itself, can do justice to his fulness. He is, indeed, both door and shepherd. We encounter exactly the same phenomenon in the book of Revelation. John expects to see a lion (Rev. 5:5), but he sees &a lamb (Rev. 5:6). The lamb stands, as having been slaughtered! John expects to see a bride (Rev. 21:9); but he sees a city (Rev. 21:10). Yet when we begin to study these seeming irregularities, we see a good reason for every one of them. To be sure, a bride cannot at the same time be a city, but the church of God (to which both bride and city refer) can be (and is) both! Christ is both lion and lamb.^[69] So also here is John 10, though it is entirely true that a door cannot at the same time be a shepherd, it is also true that Jesus is both at the same time! And just as Jesus is both door and good shepherd, so also his enemies (the Pharisees) are represented as thieves, robbers, strangers, and hirelings. It is not at all necessary nor advisable to regard each of these terms as referring to a different category, sothat, for example, the thieves and robbers would indicate false Messiahs; the strangers, Pharisees; and the hirelings, covetous ministers. One must have an eye for the concrete, historical situation. In the entire context nothing at all is said about false Messiahs or about money-mad preachers. The Pharisees, on the other hand, are very much in evidence. It is to these that Jesus refers as being in one respect thieves and robbers; in another respect strangers; and in still another respect, hirelings! This interpretation does not inject foreign elements into the exegesis. IV. Its Main Idea The main theme throughout is Jesus as the good shepherd, contrasted with the evil shepherds. To be sure, Jesus is also the door. But this thought is secondary. It is a very beautiful and very necessary element in the entire picture, but it is subordinate to the main idea. It is introduced, first, to show who the false shepherds are. They are those who try to enter the fold illegitimately; i.e., not by the door (faith in Jesus and appointment by him) but by some other way (intimidation, for instance, 9:22). The true shepherd is not at all like that. He has the right of entrance. The idea of Jesus as the door also does duty in stressing the fact that he furnishes rest, safety (salvation even!), and food for his (spiritual) sheep. Being the good shepherd, he is naturally the door! The fact that the idea of the good shepherd is indeed predominant is apparent to anyone who counts the many references to him in this capacity. Notice: in the capacity of good shepherd Jesus: 1. enters by the door and is welcomed by the door-keeper (10:3). 2. calls the sheep by name (10:3); knows them thoroughly (10:14, 15; cf. 10:27, 28). 3. leads them out (10:3). 4. goes on ahead of the sheep (10:4). 5. is recognized and followed by the sheep (10:3, 4). 6. furnishes access to every blessing (10:7–9); is the door. 7. provides life and abundance (10:10; cf. 10:27, 28). 8. lays down his life for the sheep (10:11, 14). 9. guides his sheep (cf. 10:4), gathering also other sheep, sothat all become one flock with one shepherd (10:16). 10. is loved by the Father (10:17). In harmony with all that has been said in the aforegoing we are now ready to interpret the allegory: 10:1–5 10 1 I most solemnly assure you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs over from another place, that man is a thief and a robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the door-keeper opens, and the sheep listen to his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 Whenever he has put out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice; 5 but a stranger they will in no way follow but will run away from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers. He who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs over from another place, that man is a thief and a robber. 10:1, 2. For the words of solemn introduction I most solemnly assure you, see on 1:51. The underlying symbol here is a sheepfold. The original uses a term ([Greek] from [Greek] to blow) whose meaning in certain passages of the Gospels is disputed. See on 18:15. But here (in 10:1) the meaning is clear. It is a sheepfold. It was a roofless enclosure in the open field. It consisted of a wall made of rough stones and provided with a sturdy door. Sometimes caves served the same purpose, but that is not the idea here. A thief (one who is determined to deprive another of his property) and robber (one who uses violence in order to obtain the coveted goods) would not choose to enter by the door, for a. it was locked, had to be opened; and b. it was guarded by a door-keeper. Hence, such a man, in order to get in, would climb over from another place. Thus also the religious leaders, hostile to Jesus, were trying illegitimately to gain the mastery over the people of Israel (see verse 16). They tried to gain the people through intimidation (see 9:22). They avoided the door, the Lord Jesus Christ (did not believe in him, were not appointed by him). By means of threats (expulsion from the synagogue) they wanted to deprive Jesus of his disciples. They were thieves and robbers, therefore. On the other hand, Jesus, who had been definitely appointed and sent by his heavenly Father, appears here in the quality of legitimate shepherd (see 10:11, 14).^[70] That is implied here, but he who enters by the door is shepherd of the sheep, and expressed in 10:11, 14. 3. To him the door-keeper opens, and the sheep listen to his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. We can picture it thus. During the night the door-keeper has been with the sheep. He is acquainted with the shepherd. Hence, when in the morning he hears the shepherd's voice, he opens the door. The sheep also immediately recognize the voice of their own shepherd. They not only hear (more or less unconsciously) but listen. They obey. This is true with respect to actual sheep (the animals). But in a higher sense it holds with respect to all true disciples of Jesus. And it must be borne in mind that the reality in the kingdom of God predominates the symbol here! Just as an Oriental shepherd, even in our own day and age, often calls his own sheep by name (cases have been reported of shepherds who had been blindfolded but who even with that handicap recognized their individual sheep), so also (in fact, much more so!) Jesus, as the good shepherd, has an intimate, personal knowledge of all those whom he intends to save. And just as the shepherd leads his own sheep out of the fold, so also the tender and loving shepherd, Jesus, gathers his flock, leading them out of the fold of Israel (Mic. 2:12) and of heathendom (10:16). 4, 5. Whenever he has put out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice; but a stranger they will in no way follow but will run away from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers. The shepherd returns every morning. So also Jesus is constantly gathering his sheep. Hence, we read whenever. In an Oriental fold several flocks would at times be kept together for the night. In the morning each shepherd would lead out his own sheep. His own sheep, and they alone, would respond to his call. The others, belonging to other shepherds, would pay no attention. The shepherd, Jesus, puts out all his own. He overcomes all their objections. Sometimes sheep have to be pushed out! In any event, not a single one of his own is left behind. Note the word all. See on 6:37, 39. The shepherd, having put out all his own, goes on ahead of them, and the sheep follow. That is the custom in the Orient. Elsewhere the shepherd drives the sheep ahead of him. We see immediately that the Oriental custom is better adapted to illustrate the relation between Christ and his disciples. Jesus leads; he does not drive! The reason why the sheep follow their own shepherd is given in the words: for they know his voice. In the Word of God the true shepherd addresses his sheep. They recognize his voice, and follow i.e., trust and obey him. In no way (note the strong negative) will the sheep follow a stranger! When Jesus is thinking of the faithful and ever-watchful loving-care which he extends to his own and wishes to contrast this with the selfishness of the Pharisees, who are ever seeking to promote their own glory and to rob him of his followers (9:22), he calls himself the good shepherd, and he calls them thieves and robbers. But when he reflects on the intimate knowledge which he has with respect to his own disciples and wishes to contrast this with the ignorance of the Pharisees for they know neither the Lord nor his people, though he again thinks of himself as the good shepherd (for both tender care and thorough knowledge are bound up with the idea of being a true shepherd), he calls them strangers. A normal sheep does not follow a stranger even though the latter may put on the shepherd's garb, and may try to imitate the shepherd's call. It has been tried again and again. So also (and much more so!) the true disciple of the Lord does not know (refuses to acknowledge) the voice of strangers (II John 10), who come to him with strange philosophy, strange theology, and strange ethics; and, therefore, he does not follow them. He is resolutely determined to follow only the one true shepherd, Jesus, as he speaks in his Word. All others he shuns; in fact, he runs away from them in horror. 10:6–21 6 This allegory Jesus told them; but they did not understand what it meant that he was telling them. 7 So Jesus said again, I most solemnly assure you,^[71] I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the door: by me if anyone enters he will be saved, and will go in and out and will find pasture.^[72] 10 The thief comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy; I came in order that people may have life, and may have abundance. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and deserts the sheep and runs away. And the wolf snatches them and scatters (the flock). 13 (He runs away) because he is a hireling and not concerned about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know my own, and my own know me, 15 just as my Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I also have other sheep which do not belong to this fold; them also I must lead, and they will listen to my voice, and become one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me because I lay down my life in order that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from me; on the contrary, I lay it down of my own accord. I have the right to lay it down and I have the right to take it again. This charge I received from my Father. 19 There was again a division among the Jews on account of these words. 20 Many of them were saying, He has a demon and raves; why do you listen to him? 21 Others were saying, These are not the remarks of a demon-possessed (person). A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he? 10:6. This allegory Jesus told them. It is hard to see how some interpreters can maintain that this allegory was spoken only to the disciples, and that these disciples they alone did not understand what it meant. That these words were spoken not only to the disciples (9:2) but also to the Pharisees and perhaps other Jews would seem to be clear from a careful examination of the following passages: 9:40, 41 (continued into 10:1 ff); 10:7; and especially 10:19–21. For the meaning of the term allegory ([Greek]) and the rules of interpretation that apply to it see what has been said on pp. 100–103 above. The Jews did not understand the allegory; they did not understand what it meant that he was telling them. Had they known their Old Testament more thoroughly, they would not have experienced this difficulty. See what was said on pp. 98, 99 above. However, here one should distinguish carefully. Although the idea of shepherd and sheep (Jehovah the shepherd, his people the sheep) can be found on so very many pages of the Old Testament that total ignorance regarding this figure is almost unimaginable, the additional thought conveyed here in 10:1–6, namely, that the good shepherd (here not Jehovah but Jesus) would separate the true Israel from the national Israel (would lead his own out of the fold) was probably not so well known. However, even this idea should not have sounded so very strange. The outgathering or election of a remnant is taught in many Old Testament passages: Jer. 3:14; 23:3; Am. 3:12; 5:15; Mic. 2:12; 5:3, 7, 8; 7:18–20; Hab. 2:4; Zeph. 3:12, 13; Hag. 1:12, 14; Zech. 8:6, 12; 13:8, 9. In Mic. 2:12this outgathering of the remnant is even associated with the idea of the shepherd. Cf. Am. 3:12. 7. So Jesus said again, I most solemnly assure you, I am the door of the sheep. Because his audience had failed to understand the allegory, Jesus explains it in the present paragraph. Nevertheless, what we have here is more than explanation. Certain details are added, so that we may speak of explanation and amplification. When Jesus says, I emphatic; i.e., I alone am the door of the sheep, he means that he is the only One through whom anyone obtains legitimate access. There simply is no other entrance. Cf. 14:6. Now this basic idea is given a twofold application. Once that is seen, the question whether Jesus is the door to the sheep or whether he is the door for the sheep has been answered. In verse 8 Jesus appears as the door to the sheep; in verse 9 as the door for the sheep. He, and he alone, is, and is always, the door. For the true shepherd he is the door. For every true sheep he is also the door. For the shepherd he is the door to the sheep. For the sheep he is the door to all the blessings of salvation. The figure is very appropriate: a door leads both in and out: it gives the shepherd access to his sheep that are inside. It gives the sheep access to the fold, and to the pasture which is outside. 8. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. Verses 7 and 8, taken together, give a beautiful explanation of verses 1 and 2. In the light of this interpretation, supplied by Jesus himself, verses 1 and 2 may now be paraphrased as follows: I most solemnly assure you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by faith in me and appointment by me but enters illegitimately, that man is a thief and a robber. Thus, all who came before me are thieves and robbers. But he who enters legitimately is shepherd of the sheep. Jesus, as the one and only good shepherd, contrasts himself very sharply with all who had come before him. But what does the preposition before ([Greek]) mean here? In the New Testament this little word has the following recognized meanings: a. in front of (before of place), as in Acts 12:6: guards before the door; b. earlier than (before of time), as in Matt. 8:29: Art thou come hither to torment us before the time; c. more than, or above (before of preference), as in I Pet. 4:8: before all things. Of other meanings that have been ascribed to this word there are no undisputed instances in the New Testament.^[73] By far the most common is meaning b. before of time. In fact, in all other places in which the Fourth Gospel uses this preposition it has that meaning (1:49; 5:7 where the idea of place seems to blend with that of time; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 13:19; 17:5, 24). It surely is the natural signification also here in 10:8. If the temporal force is not basic here, it must at least be regarded as the resultant meaning. But we cannot even accept the interpretation of all who give the preposition its temporal sense. For example, it would seem to us that the idea that the Lord is referring here to the prophets of the Old Testament period and to John the Baptist, as if these had been thieves and robbers, is hardly worthy of comment. Again, to think in this connection of false Messiahs who had arisen before the beginning of Christ's ministry is equally unrealistic. The context says nothing about them. Without any question, it would seem to us, Jesus is thinking here of the men who are standing right in front of him as he is speaking, namely, the religious leaders of the people, the members of the Sanhedrin, Sadducees and Pharisees, but especially the latter (see 9:40; 10:19). They were the ones who were trying, by means of intimidation (9:22), to steal the people, and thus to gain honor for themselves in an illegitimate manner. If threats were insufficient, they would use violence. They were, indeed, both thieves and robbers. Moreover, they were already on the scene when Jesus came into the world (see on 3:1). Hence, it is easy to understand why Jesus says that they had come before him. It is also understandable that Jesus says, are (not were) thieves and robbers. They had not disappeared, were still present. Now there were many people who listened to these selfish religious leaders. But the sheep Christ's true disciples did not listen to them! Instead of heeding them, the sheep obeyed the true shepherd, Jesus (cf. 10:3, 14). 9. I am the door. For the meaning of the statement, I am the door, see on 10:7. Not only is Jesus the door to the sheep; he is also the door for the sheep. To some extent we have already explained verse 9. See pp. 101, 102. A few thoughts must be added. Jesus has just stated that his true followers refuse to listen to thieves and robbers. It is logical, therefore, to assume that when he now says, by me if anyone enters, he is still thinking of these same true followers. Note emphatic position of the phrase by me. There is no other entrance! Let 3:16serve as commentary: faith in Christ as the Son of God is the only entrance-door. And this faith is full, personal trust in him and in his substitutionary atonement. Jesus says, By me if anyone enters, he will be saved. What does he mean when he says that such a person will be saved. This term is explained in verse 10. It means will be given life. The terms to be saved and to have life are used together here, just as in 3:16 and 3:17. From 3:16 we know that everlasting life is meant. See on that verse. And even if we did not have 3:16, 17, we would still have the commentary furnished us by 10:28. These sheep receive freedom from the guilt, the misery, and the punishment of sin. Abundance the love of God shed abroad in their hearts, the peace of God that passes all understanding is their portion, here in principle, by and by in perfection. There is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the verb in this passage, as if it meant no more than, he will be safe. To be sure, safety is implied also in the words, and will go in and out; but this is only part of the meaning. Not only will he go in and out, i.e., experience perfect freedom from all real harm and danger, and this even in the small affairs of every-day living, and feel himself entirely at home in the daily routine of God's people (Ps. 121:8), but in addition, he will find pasture; i.e., life and abundance, as the following verse indicates. The pasture which the true sheep finds in the study of the Word is certainly included. 10, 11. The thief comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy; I come in order that people may have life, and may have abundance. The thief is the Pharisee, as has been explained (see on 10:1). Note the climactic arrangement: steal, kill, destroy. That these religious leaders spiritually killed and destroyed the people whom they had stolen is clear from (Matt. 23:15. The exact opposite of killing and destroying is making alive. And the exact opposite of the thief is the good shepherd, Christ. So Jesus says, "I came in order that they (i.e., people; here the sheep) may have life (see on 3:16) and may have abundanceRom. 5:17, 20; Eph. 1:7, 8; of joy, II Cor. 8:2; of peace, Jer. 33:6). See also 2:6, 7; 4:14; 6:13, 35. These passages show that Jesus always provides an overflowing measure, a surplus. Jesus continues, I am the good shepherd, really: the shepherd, the good one. The adjective is stressed! This adjective, however, is not [Greek] but [Greek]. The basic meaning of this word is beautiful. Here it indicates excellent. This shepherd answers to the ideal both in his character and in his work. And he is the only one in his class. (See footnote 70 above.) The predicate of this great I AM has the article, and is therefore interchangeable with the subject. The statement I am the good shepherd explains 10:2, 3, 4. We now know whom Jesus had in mind when he spoke about the shepherd to whom the sheep give heed. The excellent character of this shepherd is shown especially in this, The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. In the sense in which this is meant it cannot apply to an ordinary sheep-herder, no matter how good he may be. Such a shepherd may, indeed, risk his life in the defence of his sheep (I Sam. 17:34–36), but he does not really lay down ([Greek]) his life; i.e., he does not yield his life as a voluntary sacrifice. Also, in ordinary life the death of the herder means loss and possible death for the herd. In this case the death of the shepherd means life ([Greek]) for the sheep! The good shepherd pours out his soulIs. 53:12, the LXX translation unto death. He gives himself! The idea is not that this shepherd gives merely his natural life. No, [Greek] which rests on an Aramaic original (whether oral or written) is the full equivalent of the self, the person. See also the same phrase, his life, in Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45, while I Tim. 2:6has himself. It is probable that [Greek] has this meaning wherever it occurs in John's Gospel (10:11, 15, 17, 24; 12:25, 27; 13:37, 38; and 15:13). The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The preposition is [Greek], a word which has the root-meaning over. In the Fourth Gospel it is always used with the genitive.^[74] Thus used, its meaning pendulates all the way from the colorless concerning (1:30), through for the benefit of and the closely related for the sake of (6:51; 11:4; 17:19), to the very meaningful instead of (see 10:11, 15; 11:50, 51, 52; 13:37, 38; 15:13; 18:14). However, it is probably incorrect to say that this preposition in itself ever means instead of. That is its resultant connotation when it is used in certain contexts. The good shepherd lays down his life for the benefit of the sheep, but the only way in which he can benefit the sheep, saving them from everlasting destruction and imparting everlasting life to them, is by dying instead of them, as we learn from Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45, where the preposition [Greek] (instead of, in exchange for) is used. It is easy to see how by a very gradual transition for the benefit of or in behalf of may become instead of. Thus, in the papyri the scribe who writes a document in behalf of someone who cannot write is writing it instead of that unlettered individual.^[75] Cf. also II Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13. It is for the sheep only for the sheep that the good shepherd lays down his life. The design of the atonement is definitely restricted.^[76] Jesus dies for those who had been given to him by the Father, for the children of God, for true believers. This is the teaching of the Fourth Gospel throughout (3:16; 6:37, 39, 40, 44, 65; 10:11, 15, 29; 17:6, 9, 20, 21, 24). It is also the doctrine of the rest of Scripture. With his precious blood Christ purchased his church (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25–27); his people (Matt. 1:21); the elect (Rom. 8:32–35). Nevertheless, the love of God is wide as the ocean. The sheep are found everywhere. They are not confined to one fold (10:16; see also on 1:10, 29; 3:16; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 11:52). On Jesus as the good shepherd see also Ezek. 34:23; Luke 15:3 6; Heb. 13:20; and I Pet. 2:25; 5:4; see especially on John 10:14, 15. 12, 13. Jesus had already compared his enemies to strangers and thieves. They are strangers because they do not know the sheep. Thieves are they because they seek to gain possession of the sheep in an illegitimate manner. And now Jesus adds the figure of the hireling. Yes, the Pharisees are also hirelings. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not. They are hirelings because they have no concern, no love, for the sheep. That is typical of the hireling. He is not the equivalent of any hired man. Some hired men may have the shepherd's heart. But these hirelings have not. They are merely working for wages. They had just given a very telling example of their utter lack of concern for the true sheep (9:34). They were the kind of people who would devour widows houses! The hireling sees the wolf coming. (About this wolf see on verse 29) and deserts the sheep and runs away. He immediately forgets about the sheep. Says he to himself, What do I care about the sheep, as long as they are not mine anyway? So in the spirit of cold selfishness he flees. Jesus could never have chosen a better figure than that of the hireling. Had the Pharisees these religious leaders of the people shown the least interest in the lame man at Bethzatha (see on 5:10, 12)? Had they manifested even a speck of pity for the woman taken in the very act of adultery (see on 8:3, 6)? And see how they treated the man whom Jesus had cured of his congenital blindness (9:34). Instead of in any way defending Israel against the spiritual dangers which surrounded it, they riveted all their attention upon themselves and their own ease. They were exactly like the hireling who, when he sees the wolf coming, abandons the sheep, And the wolf snatches them and scatters the flock. (He runs away) because he is a hireling and not concerned about the sheep. That hireling, therefore, is the exact opposite of the good shepherd who takes care that no one ever snatches the sheep out of his hands (see on 10:28, 29). Moreover, instead of scattering his sheep, the good shepherd gathers them (cf. 10:16). 14, 15. I am the good shepherd, and I know my own, and my own know me, just as my Father knows me and I know my Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. Here we have an emphatic repetition and amplification of the preceding. Jesus says, I am the good shepherd. This is a repetition of 10:11 (see explanation of that verse). Here (in verse 14 and 15), however, the matter is not merely stated but fully set forth. Jesus and he alone is the good shepherd, for: a. in distinction from the Pharisees viewed as strangers (10:5), he knows his sheep. Note: I know. See 10:27; II Tim. 2:19. He knows the name (10:3) and nature of each sheep, and the sheep have an experiential knowledge of their shepherd (10:3, 4). b. in distinction from the Pharisees viewed as thieves and robbers (10:1, 8, 10), he owns his sheep. He calls them: my own. See 6:37, 39; 17:6, 24. c. in distinction from the Pharisees viewed as hirelings (10:12, 13), he loves his sheep, even to the point of offering himself as a sacrifice in their behalf and in their stead. He says, I lay down my life for the sheep. For explanation of this sublime statement see on verse 11. (Note, however, the difference: in verse 11 the third person is used; here in verse 15 the first person; hence verse 15 explains verse 11). Note also the chiastic arrangement of the parallelism which we have in these verses: a. I know my own b. my own know me c. (just as) my Father knows me, and d. I know the Father. In a. and d. Jesus, the good shepherd, is the subject: the action proceeds from him. In b. and c. he is the object: the action proceeds from the sheep and from the Father. What Jesus states in these verses cannot mean that the fellowship which is found on earth (between good shepherd and sheep) is just as close as is that which is found in heaven (between the Father and the Son), but that the former is patterned after (is a reflection of) the latter. For the closeness of the fellowship between the Father and the Son see 10:30, 38; 14:11, 17, 21; also Matt. 11:27. Four times in these two verses the verb know ([Greek]) occurs. See on 1:10, 31; 3:11; 8:28. It is here a knowledge of experience and of loving fellowship. Jesus acknowledges his own (as his true disciples); they acknowledge him (as their Lord). Nothing could be more wonderful! Thus also the Father acknowledges the Son; the Son acknowledges the Father. 16. I also have other sheep which do not belong to this fold; them also I must lead, and they will listen to my voice, and become one flock, one shepherd. Not all the sheep belong to the fold of Israel. The good shepherd also has other sheep. He has them even now because they have been given to him by the Father in the decree of predestination from eternity (6:37, 39; 17:6, 24). That is also the reason why even before they are gathered out they can be called his sheep.^[77] A very great truth is proclaimed here, namely, that the flock of Christ will no longer be almost confined to believers from among the Jews. A new period is dawning. During the old dispensation all the nations with the exception of the Jews were under the thraldom of satan. Not, of course, in the absolute sense of the term, for God always reigns supreme, but in the sense of (Acts 14:16: God &who in the past generations suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. But that is going to change now. The church is going to become international.^[78] Through the labors of Paul and other great missionaries who were to follow him believers from among the Gentiles would be added to the church. The great blessing of Pentecost and the Gospel Age which followed it is here predicted. It is a wonderful theme. In a sense it was predicted even in the Old Testament: Gen. 12:3; Ps. 72:8, 9; 87:4–6; Is. 60:3; Joel 2:28; Zeph. 2:9; Mal. 1:11. But there the idea that elect from among the Gentiles will come in on the basis of equality with the elect of Israel does not receive emphasis. The usual representation is that Israel's tent will be enlarged so as to have room also for the nationsIs. 54:2, 3); that the nations shall go to the mountain of Jehovah in Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1, 2). The idea that the Gentiles would be fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus, in other words that they would enter into the kingdom on the basis of equality with the Jews, this idea (though not excluded by the prophets) is not stressed in the Old Testament. Hence, Paul could speak of it as a mystery (Eph. 1:9, 10; 3:1–6). But that very idea is here proclaimed by Jesus. Note that he does not lead the sheep of heathendom into the fold of Israel; but he gathers together the sheep of Israel and the sheep of heathendom as one flock! This passage may be regarded as a key to the explanation of the term world in 1:29; 3:16, 17; 4:42; 6:51; 8:12; 9:5; 11:52; 12:46. See on 1:10; cf. 12:32. The good shepherd must lead them. This is the must of predestination, of prophecy, and of inner compulsion, rolled into one. The shepherd leads or guides them (going on ahead of them, so that they follow him; see on 10:4), and they heed his voice (see on 10:3), as it comes to them in the Word applied to the heart by the Spirit. Thus all become one flock (not one fold, as the A.V. has, on the basis of the Vulgate), with one shepherd. Cf. 17:20, 21; Ezek. 34:23. 17, 18. For this reason the Father loves me because I lay down my life in order that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from me; on the contrary, I lay it down of my own accord. I have the right to lay it down and I have the right to take it again. This charge I received from my Father. Jesus has been speaking about laying down his life (verses 11, 15). It is sometimes said that Jesus does what any good shepherd does for his sheep. This is true only in the sense that neither flees when the wolf comes. But the Antitype is always better than the type. Christ's action differs in two respects from that of a shepherd who risks his life in behalf of the flock: a. it is a voluntary sacrifice (when the proper moment arrives, Jesus will not try to cling to life, like the shepherd who, in his struggle with the wolf, tries to save himself); and b. it actually saves the sheep. We now (verses 17 and 18) note still a third difference: c. Jesus lays down his life in order to take it again. See on 2:19. No ordinary shepherd is able to do that. Christ's death (as also his birth) is purposeful. Had he not given his life (i.e., had he resisted death) he would not have been able to take it again. So he gives in order to take back, and he does both in obedience to the divine will and in the interest of his people. The fact that Christ's death is an act of free volition must be stressed in order that when death occurs the enemies who have brought it about may have no right to boast as if this were their victory, and also in order that the disciples may have no reason to despair as if this were his defeat. The dying and the rising again are deeds, not merely experiences. They are deeds of perfect and purposeful obedience and love. For this reason (the phrase points forward here) the Father loves the Son (for the meaning of the verb [Greek] see on 21:15–17) because, says Jesus, I lay down my life in order that I may take it again. The Father will show his love by the reward described in Phil. 2:9. Prophetically viewing his entire atoning sacrifice from the aspect of one who has already accomplished it, Jesus says, No one has taken (the better reading) it away from me; on the contrary, I lay it down of my own accord. Thus, the voluntary character of the deed is again emphasized. Apart from that voluntary nature, Christ's death would not have had any saving value. Apart from the steadfast, resolute face when he was on his way to Jerusalem and the cross, the pleasure of Jehovah would not have prospered in his hands. See 18:4–11; Matt. 26:52–54; 27:50; Rom. 5:8; Heb. 9:14; and cf. Is. 53:10. No one has a right to lay down his life, but Jesus did have that right. He had the right both to lay it down and to take it again. The exact translation of the term [Greek] (see also on 1:12) is not easy, however. In fact, it is doubtful whether anything in English is the full equivalent of the Greek term. It has been rendered right, authority, freedom, power. The fact that Jesus has the [Greek] probably means that nothing in the realm of what is proper nor in the realm of what is possible could stop him from doing what he wanted to do. He is free in every respect to do what he intends. In the present case he is not only free but he also even received a definite charge or commission from the Father, a charge to do what he himself wanted to do! (For the meaning of the term charge see also on 13:34.) Here again the will of the Son as Mediator harmonizes completely with that of the Father. The Father gave the Son unto death (3:16); the Son gave himself. The Father would raise the Son; the Son would take back his own life. 19 21. There was again a division among the Jews on account of these words. Many were saying, He has a demon and raves; why do you listen to him? Others were saying, These are not the remarks of a demon-possessed (person). A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he? It is not difficult to understand that to the mind of the natural man the words of Jesus appeared to be foolishness. Why would a man lay down his life in order to take it back again? True, some people desire to commit suicide, but surely not with the intention of coming back to life once more even if they could! Many (perhaps, the majority; see also on 9:16) were reasoning in this manner. Hence, they said, He has a demon and raves. See on 7:20, 49, 52; 8:48. They did not mean to identify insanity with demon-possession, but intended to convey the idea that Jesus, being definitely under the control of an evil spirit, was uttering sheer nonsense. So, why should anyone continue to listen to him? With this sentiment not everyone was in agreement. So there was again a division (schism) among the Jews. For other instances of a sharp clash of opinion see on 6:52; 7:43; 9:16. Those who disagreed with the majority revolved in their minds the entire beautiful allegory of the good shepherd who in contrast with strangers knows his sheep, in contrast with thieves and robbers owns his sheep, and in contrast with hirelings loves his sheep. Perhaps they could not understand everything, but of one thing they were certain: These are not the remarks of a demon-possessed (person). Besides, they have not forgotten the great miracle which Jesus had performed so very recently. As they see it, this miracle has evidential value (see on 9:16, 31 33). They are not now interested in debating the question, Does this opening of the eyes of the man born blind indicate that Jesus is from God? They take a position which, even on the surface, seems unassailable: A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he? The implication is: Certainly not! Note how impressive and dramatic is this closing sentence of the account in which the Fourth Gospel reproduces the good shepherd discourse. Jerusalem has had a great Visitor. With respect to him no one can be neutral! Synthesis of 10:1–21 See the Outline on p. 2. The Son of God Revealing Himself as the Good Shepherd. His Enemies Regard Him as a Demon-possessed Maniac In this delightful allegory Jesus describes himself as the good shepherd, in contrast with evil shepherds who harm the sheep (having, no doubt, in mind the Pharisees who had cast out the man whom Jesus had healed of his blindness). The figure which underlies the allegory is that of an Oriental shepherd, who in the morning seeks to enter the fold where his sheep are kept. The door-keeper opens to him, and the shepherd then puts out his own sheep, calling them by the pet-names which he has given them. Hence, a little later in the day we see this shepherd leading his sheep to pasture-grounds, and by his call assuring them of his constant presence. At nightfall the shepherd returns with his flock and protects them against wolves. He is willing, if need be, to risk his own life in their defence. Being a real shepherd he is deeply interested in his sheep. We must distinguish between the symbol and the reality which is indicated by the symbol. Sometimes as in 10:1–5, 12, 13 the symbol itself rises above the surface, as it were. It is so conspicuous that we must remind ourselves again and again that these things mean something. At other times as in 10:6–11, 14 18 the actual realities (Jesus, caring for his own, laying down his life for them; humble believers, trusting in him and obeying him; the Pharisees hating Jesus and his followers) are much more clearly evident. As indicated, there are, in the main, three realities that require attention, as is also shown by the three main points in the following summary: The Allegory of the Good Shepherd I. The Friend of the Sheep: the Good Shepherd Everything in the way of rightful, complete, protective ownership, amazing, intimate, intuitive knowledge, and limitless, devoted, self-sacrificing love is wrapped up in this term. The actions of the good shepherd have been summarized on p. 103. The main thought is this, that whatever of goodness an earthly sheep-herder may possess is but a dim reflection of the transcending beauty (remember the Greek adjective: [Greek]) of the great Antitype Jesus, the real, the genuine good shepherd, the only one in his class! He owns, he knows, he loves his own, and he does all this in such a wonderful manner! Although there is only one good shepherd, namely, Jesus, nevertheless, there are lessons here for every under-shepherd, for every minister. He too should exercise protecting care with reference to his flock, should know each member, and should tenderly love each and all. In this connection the question was a burning one in the early church: May a shepherd ever leave his sheep; for example, if the shepherd's life is in danger? Extreme statements were made by the opponents on either side of this debate. Some hold that this action is permissible only if a. there be another under-shepherd who can take over immediately; and if b. by leaving the sheep who belong to one section of the fold, the shepherd's life is saved for service in another section and for possible return at a later time to his former post. Others simply emphasize that he should do whatever will promote the greatest good for the greatest number. Let every under-shepherd and every denomination which sends him out study this question in the light of whatever lessons may be legitimately derived from the present allegory. Meanwhile, the main idea is certainly not the under-shepherd, but the one and only good shepherd, who never leaves his sheep! II. The Foe of the Sheep: Thieves and Robbers, Strangers, Hirelings Thieves and robbers are they, for they do not own the sheep; strangers, for they do not know the sheep; hirelings, for they do not love the sheep. Thus, in everything they are the exact opposite of the good shepherd (see above, first sentence under I). By means of intimidation they try to acquire possession of the sheep: they climb over the wall to get into the fold! By means of imitation (false philosophy, false religion, false ethics) they try to entice the sheep. When danger approaches, they run away from the sheep. They are thoroughly selfish, a fit symbol of the Pharisees of Jesus day and of many false leaders in every age of history. III. The Sheep These have the following characteristics: 1. They listen to the shepherd's voice, but they do not heed the voice of strangers (10:3–5). 2. They follow the shepherd, but they run away from strangers (10:4, 5). 3. They enter by the door (true faith in Jesus and his righteousness), are saved, go in and out and find pasture (10:9). They obtain life and abundance (10:11). 4. They do not all belong to the same fold, but they will all become one flock, with one shepherd, Jesus (10:16). The absolute dependence of sheep upon the shepherd is everywhere implied. The sheep are dependent on him for provision, direction, and protection. The shepherd is all things to them. And they place all their confidence in him. Blessed sheep that have such a shepherd! No foe will ever molest them. 10:22–24 22 Then came the feast of Dedication in Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking inside the temple, in Solomon's portico. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. ^[79] 25 Jesus answered them, I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works which I am doing in my Father's name, these bear witness concerning me; 26 but you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, 28 and I give them everlasting life, and they shall certainly never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 That which my Father has given me is more excellent than all, and no one is able to snatch (it) out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father, we are one. 31 The Jews carried stones again in order to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works I showed you from the Father. For which of these works are you trying to stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, Not for a good work are we trying to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God. 34 Jesus answered them Is it not written in your law, I said, you are gods? 35 If he called them gods to whom the Word of God came, and scripture cannot be broken, 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God?^[80] 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;^[81] 38 but if I do them, then even though you do not believe me, believe the works,^[82] in order that you may come to realize and may continue to realize that the Father (is) in me, and I in the Father. 39 So they were again trying to arrest him, but he escaped out of their hand. 40 And he went away across the Jordan, to the place where John at first was baptizing, and he was staying there. 41 And many came to him and they were saying, John did no sign; yet everything John said about this man was true. 42 And many believed in him there. 10:22a. From the events that belong, in general, to the feast of Tabernacles the evangelist proceeds at once to the feast of Dedication. Then came the feast of Dedication in Jerusalem. But where was Jesus in the interval between these two festivals? Where was he between October and December of the year 29 a.d.? Opinions vary. Some say, He spent this period at the place where John at first was baptizing. They base this upon 10:40 (on the word again), but it is certainly not difficult to see that this conclusion by no means follows. Others make Jesus travel back to Galilee. Still others hold that he kept himself in seclusion within the city, that he spent the time at nearby Bethany, or that he was somewhere in Judea (Lk. 10:1 13:21). John simply does not give us any definite information with respect to this point. At the feast of Dedication in the latter part of December Jesus is still (or: is again) in Jerusalem. This feast was (and is even today) the commemoration of the purification and rededication of the temple by Judas the Maccabee in the year 165 b.c. (on the twenty-fifth day of Kislev, which approximates our December), exactly three years after it had been defiled by the wicked Antiochus Epiphanes. See I Macc. 1:59; 4:52, 59; Fl. Josephus, Antiquities XII, vii, 7; L. Finkelstein, The Jews, Their History, Culture, and Religion, two volumes, New York, 1949, vol. II, p. 1373; cf. also Dan. 8:14. It is an eight-day, joyous festival, marked by illumination of the dwellings and family-reunions. Though it is not one of the three great pilgrim-feasts, it nevertheless, drew many people to Jerusalem. 10:22b, 23. It was winter, and Jesus was walking inside the temple, in Solomon's portico. The rainy season had arrived. Hence, it does not cause surprise that Jesus was walking in the covered colonnade that ran along the eastern wall of the temple. This portico is said to have been the only remnant of the original temple. Because it was so regarded it was called Solomon's portico (Acts 3:11; 5:12). It lasted until the destruction of the temple by Titus, a.d. 70 (Fl. Josephus, Antiquities XX, ix, 7). 24, 25a. So the Jews (see on 1:19), still smarting as a result of the verbal lashing which Jesus had given them when he, by implication, had called them thieves and robbers, strangers, and hirelings (10:1–18), gathered around him in order to obtain from his lips a statement on the basis of which they would be able to bring about his doom. So they confront him with the question, How long do you keep us in suspense? Literally what they say is, Until when do you lift up (or: take away) our soul? That the lifting up of the soul has here the meaning keeping the person in suspense is clear from the sentence which immediately follows: If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. For the meaning of [Greek] see 10:11. The question may be asked, Why had not Jesus told them plainly (i.e., in so many words), I am the Christ? He had revealed himself as such to the Samaritan woman (4:25, 26); why had he not used the same clear language in speaking to the Jews? Although various answers have been given to this question, the best, it would seem to us, is the traditional one; namely, that to the mind of the Jews (particularly, the Jewish religious leaders, hostile to Jesus) being the Christ meant being the political (even more than spiritual) king of Israel, in rebellion against the Roman government. Cf. Matt. 26:63and Luke 23:2. Had Jesus used the plain language which they now demanded, it would have been completely misunderstood. See also on 6:15. In this connection it must be borne in mind that even to the Samaritan woman Jesus did not make himself known as the Christ until he had given her a much needed lesson in the spiritual character of religion. But although Jesus had not used the very words which the Jews were now trying to extract from his lips, he had, nevertheless, employed phraseology which clearly implied the fact that he regarded himself as the Messiah; in the strictly spiritual sense, however. See also on 8:25; and then on 8:23, 24. Hence, 25a. Jesus answered them, I did tell you, but you do not believe. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XI Outline of Chapters 11, 12 Theme: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God During his Public Ministry Manifesting Himself as the Messiah by Two Mighty Deeds Anointed by Mary, Sought by the Greeks, but Repulsed by the Jews ch. 11 He Raises Lazarus of Bethany. The Sanhedrin Plans His Death. ch. 12 He Is Anointed by Mary, Makes His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Is Sought by the Greeks, but Repulsed by the Jews. Preliminary Remarks on the Raising of Lazarus I. Its Significance This is threefold: A. It is a sign pointing to Jesus as the Son of God; specifically, as the resurrection and the life (11:25). Just as the miraculous multiplication of the bread-cakes was an illustration of Jesus as the bread of life, and the cure of the man born blind (as well as the pardon granted to the adulterous woman) made him manifest as the light of the world, so this miracle points to him as the resurrection and the life. B. In connection with A. (above) it revealed Jesus to be the Messiah who was to die for his people, the fulfilment of prophecy (See on 11:51, 52; 12:14, 15). We should never lose the thread of the entire story. In his early ministry Jesus revealed himself to ever-widening circles, but was rejected (chapters 1 6). At the feast of Tabernacles and at the feast of Dedication he made his earnest appeal to sinners, inviting them again and again, not only by direct appeal but also indirectly by showing the rewards of discipleship. He also performed a great miracle. But he was bitterly resisted (chapters 7 10). And now, by means of two deeds which in greatness excelled all the others (the raising of Lazarus and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem) he more than ever before manifests himself as being, indeed, the Messiah. C. It directly led to the formal decision to put Jesus to death, and to the execution of that plot. See 11:47–55; and cf. Vol. I, pp. 12. II. The Parts of the Story There are four divisions, as follows: A. The report of Lazarus illness; his death (11:1–16). B. The arrival of Jesus (and his disciples) in Bethany near Jerusalem (11:17–37). C. The miracle itself (11:38–44). D. Its results (11:45–57). A good argument can be advanced for the position that verses 55 57 really begin a new chapter. However, one may also argue that the tension in Jerusalem (cf. the somewhat similar tension after the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves, chapter 6; then 7:11) was caused in part by the raising of Lazarus, and therefore can be regarded as one of the results. III. The Place and Time of Occurrence A. Place The place where Jesus received the report concerning Lazarus illness is not mentioned in chapter 11. It may have been Bethany across the Jordan (see on 10:40). The place where Lazarus and his sisters lived was Bethany near Jerusalem (see on 11:18). B. Time The last-mentioned time-indication that is definite is found in 10:22, feast of Dedication; hence, December (probably of the year 29 a.d.). The present miracle occurs a little later. Jesus has been staying a little while at the place where John was at first baptizing (10:40). Perhaps he stayed there a few weeks or a month (during which he may have made a journey), but not much longer (see 11:8). There is, however, also a considerable span of time between the raising of Lazarus and the Passover of 30 a.d. (11:54, 55). This again allows for events not recorded by the apostle John. On the basis of all these indications we cannot be greatly in error if we state as our belief that Lazarus was raised from the dead in January or early February of the year 30 a.d. The anointing at Bethany takes place six days before the Passover (12:1); hence, at the very close of the Perean Ministry, to which the raising of Lazarus also belongs. The triumphal entry (12:12–19) belongs to the Passion Week (April of the year 30 a.d.), and so does the request of the Greeks to see Jesus (12:20–36). It is clear from this that the apostle John does not really give us a full description of the ministries of Jesus; say, the Perean Ministry. He simply records a few happenings within a ministry. All in all these events actually occupy only a few days. Hence, there is no real conflict with the accounts as we find them in the Synoptics (particularly in Luke's Gospel). The Perean Ministry, for example, lasted long enough (December of 29 April of 30 a.d.) to allow for many other events and journeys. By many what is recorded in Luke 13:22 19:27is assigned to this ministry. There is, at any rate, no conflict. IV. The Sequence of Events within the Story There are two views which we reject as being too speculative: A. The first takes for granted that it took the messenger only one day to travel from Judean Bethany to the place where Jesus was; that when he arrived, Lazarus had already died; that after Lazarus death Jesus remained where he was for two more days, and that Jesus then in one day journeyed to the home of Mary and Martha; thus accounting for the fact that when he arrived, Lazarus had been in the tomb four days (11:17, 39). But the story itself contains no hint that this construction is the true one. In fact, if any inferences are warranted at all, they are in the opposite direction. There would seem to be some basis for believing that when the messenger arrives Jesus knows only that Lazarus is ill (11:4, 6), and that Lazarus actually died two days later, when his death was immediately reported to the disciples by Jesus (11:11, 14). They then immediately start off on their journey to Judean Bethany (11:15). That it was, nevertheless, the fourth day (three days after the day of the death and burial) when the company arrived would seem to indicate that the place from which Jesus traveled was some distance removed. This would harmonize very well with the idea that Jesus had been staying far to the north, in Bethany across the Jordan, exactly as 10:40 would seem to indicate. B. The second view, which is the very opposite of the first, proceeds upon the assumption that Lazarus was still alive, and this not only when the messenger (sent by the sisters to report his illness) reached Jesus, but also when he returned again; and that he then found Lazarus still fully conscious, and intimated to him that he would be raised from the dead, so that he knew about this and was comforted by it before he died! But all this is highly speculative. The account says nothing about it; seems, in fact, to contradict this construction (see under A. above). We should adhere to the story as given in Scripture. 11:1–16 11 1 Now a certain person was ill, Lazarus from Bethany, of the village of Mary and Martha her sister. 2 Now it was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet wit her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, Lord, listen!,^[84] the one whom thou lovest is ill. 4 But when Jesus heard it, he said, This illness is not unto death; on the contrary, it is for the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it. 5 Now Jesus was holding in loving esteem Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So when he heard that he was ill, he then remained two days in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, Let us go into Judea again. 8 The disciples said to him, Rabbi, the Jews just now were seeking to stone you, and are you going there again? 9 Jesus answered, There are twelve hours in the day, are there not? If anyone walk about during day-time, he does not stumble, because he sees the world's light;^[85] 10 but if anyone walk about during the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him. ^[86] 11 These things he spoke, and after this he said to them, Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go in order to wake him up. 12 The disciples said to him, Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover. ^[87] 13 But Jesus had been speaking about his death; they however, thought that he spoke about the repose of sleep. 14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, Lazarus died, 15 and for your sake, that you may believe, I am glad that I was not present; but let us go to him. 16 Thomas, the one called the Twin, said to the disciples, Let us go too, in order that we may die with him. 11:1, 2. Now a certain person was ill, Lazarus from Bethany, of the village of Mary and Martha her sister. Now it was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. The occasion of the miracle was the illness of Lazarus. His name is an abbreviation of Eleazar, meaning he whom God helped. In order to distinguish him from other persons by the same name (Lk. 16:20) he is called Lazarus from Bethany, a native and resident of that village. And in order to distinguish this Judean Bethany (see on 11:18) from the one on the east bank of the Jordan (see on 1:19) it is here called the village of Mary and Martha her sister. This suggests that it is taken for granted that the readers are acquainted with the beautiful story recorded in (Luke 10:38 42, where Mary and Martha are named together. When in the next sentence the Mary referred to is even more definitely indicated as the one who anointed The Lord with ointment, she is not only distinguished from other Marys a very necessary distinction, for there were so many bearers of this name, but she is also designated as being the one whom the readers have met before, namely, in the story recorded in Mark 14:3 9Matt. 26:6–13). See Vol. I, pp. 31, 32. However, neither in Matthew nor in Mark is there mention of the name of the woman who anointed Jesus. Hence, John mentions the name here. In 12:1–8 he is going to give his own version of the anointing (see on that paragraph). He will add certain details not mentioned in the other Gospels; for example, the one noted even here in 11:2: and wiped his feet with her hair. The mention of Mary here before Martha (though the latter was probably the elder sister), and of Martha simply as Mary's sister (Luke 10:38, 39) may be due to the fact that in both of the stories as recorded earlier (the reception and the anointing) it is Mary (whether named or not named), who does something that makes her famous for all time to come. In Luke 10:38 42it is Mary in distinction from Martha; but see especially Matt. 26:13. Moreover, it is not improbable that it was the raising of Lazarus, recorded here in John 11, which led to Mary's deed of gratitude, chapter 12. 3. So the sisters sent to him saying, Lord, listen! the one whom thou lovest is ill. While the condition of Lazarus was becoming more serious every day, the sisters were ardently wishing that Jesus, the close friend and great healer, were present (11:21, 32). They feel sure that with him present their brother would be healed, and would certainly not die. We can picture them saying again and again, Were Jesus only here! In this frame of mind it is altogether natural that they despatch a messenger to Jesus. How long it took him to reach his destination we do not know, If (as seems probable) the Lord was still at Bethany across the Jordan, far to the north, it may have taken the messenger considerable time, perhaps three days, certainly not less than two if he traveled fast. The message which the sisters sent was very beautiful: Lord (for this word see on 1:38, the footnote) listen! (see note 84 above), the one whom thou lovest is ill. Note the following: a. The urgent character of the appeal, which is brought out by the word listen! b. The fact that they do not tell Jesus what to do, but leave it all to him, simply stating the fact: the one whom thou lovest is ill. They do not even ask Jesus to come and heal him. c. The fact that they base their plea not on their brother's love or their own love for the Lord, but only on the Lord's love for their brother. They know that in the heart of Jesus there is a warm, personal affection for Lazarus. Probably at previous occasions they had noticed this. Jesus may even have told them in so many words. By and by others are going to make remarks about Jesus love for Lazarus (11:36). For the possible distinction between the two words for love used in this account see on 21:15–17. 4. But when Jesus heard it, he said, This illness is not unto death; on the contrary, it is for the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it. The answer which Jesus gave indicates that he was looking beyond death. When he said, This illness is not unto death, he did not mean, Lazarus is not going to die, but Death will not be the final outcome of this illness. The culmination will be the glory of God, i.e., the manifestation of the power, love, and wisdom of God, sothat men may see and proclaim these virtues. One should compare this with 9:3. See also on 1:14; 2:11; 5:41, 44; 7:18; 8:50, 54; 11:40; 12:41, 43; and 17:5, 22, 24. When the Son is glorified through the exhibition of his brilliant virtues in works of might and grace, the Father, too, is glorified. These two cannot be separated (10:30; then 5:23). And in order that this glory may shine forth most brilliantly Lazarus must first die (see on 11:6). The illness is for (in the interest of) the glory of God. When Jesus says, This illness is not unto death, the inference would seem to be legitimate that Lazarus had not yet died, and that Jesus knew this. But when he adds, It is for the glory of God, it is clear that he already knew exactly what was going to happen, namely, that Lazarus would die and that he would raise him. If we assume an interval of at least two (probably three) days between the delivery of the message and the messenger's re-entrance into the home of Mary and Martha, then, in all probability, Lazarus had already died when the round-trip was completed. But in the midst of the sisters deepest gloom the words of the Lord, conveyed to them by the messenger upon his return, would continue to resound in their ears: This illness is not unto death; on the contrary it is for the glory of God, in order that the Son of God (for this term see on 1:14) may be glorified by means of it. The message must have baffled the sisters. Yet, at times it may even have caused a ray of hope to shine across their path. How else can we account for Martha's mysterious saying recorded in 11:22? When Jesus said, This illness is not unto death the disciples must have thought that he meant, Lazarus will not die as a result of this illness. 5, 6. Now Jesus was holding in loving esteem Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So when he heard that he was ill, he then remained two days in the place where he was. For the verb was holding in loving esteem (note the imperfect of continued action) see on verse 3 above; then on 21:15–17. For the reason why Martha is now mentioned first, see on 11:1, 2. According to verse 4 the ultimate goal of the amazing miracle which is going to take place is the advancement of the glory of God. But this final goal does not exclude subsidiary objectives in harmony with it. One of them was the strengthening of the faith of the members of this family and of the disciples (11:15). Now what was the most effective means of accomplishing this end? Was it the healing of a sick man or the raising of a dead man? Naturally, the latter. Hence, when Jesus heard that Lazarus was ill, he remained two days longer in the place where he was; i.e., he probably did not depart for Judea until Lazarus had died. And he did not want to arrive in Judean Bethany until Lazarus had been in the grave four days, in order that the miracle and the glory might be all the greater. Hence, what may have looked like cruel delay was in reality the tenderest concern for the spiritual welfare of true disciples. The ways of God are sometimes very strange! Moreover, the more faith was strengthened, so much the more the glory of God would be extolled! Accordingly, there is perfect harmony between the subsidiary and the ultimate goal. God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform; He plants his footsteps in the sea, And rides upon the storm. Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take; The clouds ye so much dread Are big with mercy, and shall break In blessings on your head. His purposes will ripen fast, Unfolding every hour; The bud may have a bitter taste, But sweet will be the flower. 7 10. Then after this he said to the disciples, Let us go into Judea again. The disciples said to him, Rabbi, the Jews just now were seeking to stone you, and you are going there again? Jesus answered, There are twelve hours in the day, are there not? If anyone walk about during daytime, he does not stumble, because he sees the world's light; but if anyone walk about during the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him. The two days are over, and Lazarus has died. So Jesus said to the disciples, Let us go into Judea again. They, certain that Lazarus is on the way to recovery (see on 11:4), wonder whether the Lord intends to enter upon a new task in the province of his most bitter enemies. They did not yet understand that Jesus had to suffer (Matt. 16:21, 22). Viewed in this light, their reply is not surprising, Rabbi (for this term see on 1:38), the Jews (see on 1:19) just now were seeking to stone you, and are you going there again? We disagree with those commentators who deny that the word now ([Greek]) followed by the imperfect has the temporal force here. That is certainly the most natural meaning in the present context (as also in 21:10). Thus construed it accounts for the puzzled surprise on the part of the disciples: they cannot understand why Jesus wishes to return to a territory which so very recently made an attempt to stone him (10:31 cf. 10:39). The answer which Jesus gives, like so many of his sayings, has a deep meaning. A figure is used in order that it may illustrate a beautiful and comforting spiritual truth. However, just as even today certain people in a minister's audience will listen to the illustrative story but will fail completely to grasp the point which it intends to bring home, so also the audiences addressed by our Lord during his earthly sojourn very often saw the figure but missed the real lesson, the underlying truth (see on 2:19; 3:3; 4:10; 6:52; and also verses 11 13 of the present chapter). The figure which Jesus used, in its literal meaning, was as follows: The Jewish day has twelve hours. Whether it be winter or summer it always has exactly twelve hours, though the length of the hour differs, ranging all the way from (what with us would be) 9 hours and 48 minutes to 14 hours and 12 minutes. Thus the Jewish hour, being stretchable, differs from ours which is always of the same duration. Yet even with us there are, on an average, twelve hours in the day, sothat the saying of Jesus remains true for all time. Now if anyone walk about during daytime he does not stumble, the reason being that though there are obstacles which of themselves might easily cause him to stumble, he sees them clearly, for shining from above is the world's light, the sun. Hence, the obstacles can be avoided or else surmounted. However, if anyone walk during the night (especially in a country with hardly any artificial light), he stumbles, because the light of the sun does not illumine his eyes (there is no light in him). Now if Jesus simply meant, Let us take our journey by daytime, and hide during the night, this saying would be out of line with his otherwise highly symbolical style; see this very chapter, verses 11 13. In harmony with similar expressions which abound in John's Gospel (see on 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1) what he meant was this: The time allotted to me, to accomplish my earthly ministry, is definitely fixed (just like day-time is always exactly twelve hours). See on 9:4, 5. It cannot be lengthened by any precautionary measure which you, my disciples, would like to take, nor can it be shortened by any plot which my enemies would like to execute. It has been definitely fixed in the eternal decree. If we walk in the light of this plan (which was known to Jesus), willingly submitting to it, we shall have nothing to worry about (we cannot suffer real injury); if we do not, we shall fail. For Jesus himself rebellion against the plan of his heavenly Father (which was also his own plan) was, of course, unthinkable. With the disciples it was different. They needed this instruction. 11 13. These things he spoke, and after this he said to them, Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go in order to wake him up. The disciples said to him, Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover. But Jesus had been speaking about his death; they, however, thought that he spoke about the repose of sleep. Jesus now reveals the purpose of his plan to go to Judea. It has to do with Lazarus. The Lord calls the brother of Mary and Martha our friend Lazarus. From this the disciples can infer that it was not lack of love which caused Jesus to permit Lazarus death. The Lord addresses his disciples in these words, Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go in order to wake him up. How did Jesus know that Lazarus had departed from this life? See on 5:6 [method (2) or (3)]. The death of believers is often compared to sleep: Gen. 47:30, When I (Jacob) sleep with my fathers &II Sam. 7:12. When thy (David's) days are fulfilled and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers &Matt. 27:52, Many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised. Acts 7:60, And when he (Stephen) had said this, he fell asleep. I Thess. 4:13, But we would not have you ignorant, brothers, concerning those that fall asleep. The comparison is, of course, very appropriate: believers expect a glorious awakening on the other side. In the case of Lazarus the figure is still more striking: as a man rises from sleep, so Lazarus was about to rise again from death. In this connection it is instructive to observe the beautiful and comforting manner in which Scripture everywhere speaks about the death of believers. That death is precious in the sight of Jehovah (Ps. 116:15); a being carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22); a going to Paradise (Luke 23:43); a going to the house with many mansions (John 14:2); a (blessed) departure (Phil. 1:23; II Tim. 4:6), in order to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23). to be at home with the Lord (II Cor. 5:8); a gain (Phil. 1:21); very far better (Phil. 1:23); and, as here, a falling asleep in the Lord. The passages which speak of believers falling asleep do not teach an intermediate state of unconscious repose (soul-sleep, psychopannychy). Though the soul is asleep to the world which it has left (Job 7:9, 10; Is. 63:16; Eccl. 9:6) it is awake with respect to its own world (Luke 16:19 31; 23:43; II Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21–23; Rev. 7:15–17; 20:4). When Jesus told his disciples that he was going to Bethany to wake up Lazarus, they should have realized, by the length of the journey (perhaps three days), that the reference was not to the repose of natural slumber. For the readers in Asia Minor (and everywhere) the evangelist makes it very clear that Jesus had been speaking about Lazarus death. The disciples, taking his words (about Lazarus having fallen asleep) in the most literal sense (here as so often; see on verses 7 10 above) showed that they were still not very good at exegesis. They were doing what so many today want us to do: they were taking everything literally. They said, Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover; i.e., sleep itself will have its restorative effect on him. Though this may look like a very stupid remark on their part and to a certain extent it was stupid! it is only fair to note that the idea that Lazarus would recover from his illness was a natural inference from the words of Jesus recorded in 11:4, as (in all probability) interpreted by them. The one mistake simply led to another. When John writes, The disciples said to him, &he will recover, this does not necessarily imply, but I (John) knew better Such exegesis reads too much into the text. 14, 15. Then Jesus said to them plainly, Lazarus died, and for your sake, that you may believe, I am glad that I was not present; but let us go to him. Jesus waited until now to tell the disciples plainly (see on 7:26), Lazarus died. By waiting until now they would be enabled to reflect on this announcement in the light of that other very striking statement (spoken only a few moments previously), Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go in order to wake him up. Thus the waking up begins to be interpreted. It is the waking up of a man who has just fallen asleep; i.e., who has just died! But the fact that this should have cleared up matters in the minds of the apostles does not mean that it actually had that effect. In the case of Thomas we know that it did not (see on verse 16). Had the disciples forgotten the great event that is recorded in Luke 7:11 17? And had Peter, James, and John forgotten about the raising of the daughter of Jairus when Jesus had used similar (not identical) language with respect to death? Had Jesus been present, a healing miracle would have been expected of him; but, as pointed out previously (see on 11:5, 6), the raising of a dead man would naturally be a more effective means of strengthening faith than the healing of a sick man. It is for this reason that Jesus said, &and for your sake, that you may believe, I am glad that I was not present. Since the miracle which is going to be performed is (among other things) for the benefit of the disciples, it is not surprising that Jesus says, But let us go to him. 16. Thomas, the one called the Twin, said to the disciples, Let us go too, in order that we may die with him. One of the disciples had a name which both in Aramaic (Thomas) and in Greek ([Greek]) meant Twin. We do not know anything about his twin-brother or twin-sister, and it is useless to add to the theories. John, writing for Greek readers, adds the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic name. Elsewhere Thomas is merely mentioned in the list of apostles (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; cf. Acts 1:13). The Fourth Gospel describes him, indicates his character. Despondency and devotion (to Jesus) mark the man (cf. 11:16; 14:5; and 20:24–28). He is ever afraid that he may lose his beloved Master, or that some evil will befall the latter. He expects evil, and cannot believe the good when it occurs. In the spirit of devotion and despondency he says, Let us go too, in order that (or: sothat) we may die with him, He does not think first of all of Lazarus nor of himself but of his Lord, who must not be permitted to die alone! We believe that the phrase with him means with Jesus. As the disciples see it, going to Judea means danger, possibly death, for Jesus (see the context, verse 8). Certain able commentators argue that the clause that we may die with him cannot mean that we may die with Jesus, in view of the fact that in the hour of crisis all the disciples (including Thomas) left him and fled (Matt. 26:56). But how often does it not happen that a person's intentions are better than his actions? Thomas was probably very sincere in his intention to die with his Lord, but his courage failed him when death actually seemed to threaten. And may it not be safely assumed that Peter, too, was sincere when he affirmed with vehemence that he would never deny the Master? Nevertheless, we know what happened! We see no reason, therefore, to interpret the clause, that we may die with him, as if it meant that we may die with Lazarus. When Thomas said, Let us go too, he meant, Let us go with Jesus. Hence, when he added, that we may die with him, he must have meant that we may die with Jesus. Similarly Peter said, Even if I must die with thee (Matt. 26:35). 11:17–37 17 So when Jesus came, he found that he had been in the tomb four days already. 18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary in order to console them about their brother. 20 Now when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out and met him; but Mary continued to sit in the house. 21 So Martha said to Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died.^[88] 22 And even now I know that whatever thou wilt ask God, God will give thee. 23 Jesus said to her, Your brother will rise again. 24 Martha said to him, I know that he will rise in the resurrection on the last day. 25 Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,^[89] 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never, never die; do you believe this? 27 She said to him, Yes, Lord, I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, the One coming into the world. 28 And when she had said this, she went back and quietly called Mary, her sister, saying, The teacher is here and is asking for you. 29 So she, when she heard it, hurriedly arose and was coming to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31 Now when the Jews, who were with her in the house and were consoling her, noticed that Mary had arisen hurriedly and had gone out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb in order to weep there. 32 Then Mary, when she arrived at the place where Jesus was, at sight of him fell at his feet, saying to him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died. 33 So Jesus, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, was deeply moved in the spirit and was agitated, 34 and he said, Where have you laid him? They said to him, Lord, come and see. 35 Jesus burst into tears. 36 So the Jews were saying, See how he (constantly) loved him! 37 But some of them said, Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept also this man from dying? 11:17. So when Jesus came, he found that he had been in the tomb four days already. Jesus arrived at the outskirts of Judean Bethany. The words he found probably mean that he had enquired about Lazarus, and had been told that the brother of Martha and Mary had been in the tomb four days already. The soul of Jesus was able to gain information in more ways than one. See on 5:6. In the present instance someone seems to have given him the information in a perfectly natural and human manner. The news which the Lord received was that Lazarus had been in the tombLuke 11:47; then, as here, a sepulchre, tomb four days already. In all probability having started out immediately after Lazarus had died and had been buried (Deut. 21:23; Acts 5:5, 6, 9, 10), Jesus had arrived at the village-limits of Bethany after three days of travel; i.e., on the fourth day (counting the day of death and burial as the first). See on 10:40; also above, under Preliminary Remarks, III. The evangelist makes special mention of this fourth day in order to stress the magnitude of the miracle. According to a rabbinical tradition the soul of a deceased person hovers around the body for three days in the hope of reunion, but takes its final departure when it notices that the body has entered the state of decomposition.^[90] Scripture nowhere teaches this; rather, the very opposite: the soul goes immediately to its eternal state (see on 11:11–13); but it is possible that the people of Jesus day were deluded by this bit of superstition. We say possible (not certain), for the written form of the tradition dates from the early part of the third century a.d. If such a belief was current in the days of Jesus sojourn on earth, the greatness of the miracle, about to be performed, would naturally be enhanced. However, even entirely apart from this, the fourth day in this instance certainly meant decomposition (see on 11:39); hence, this note of time prepares the reader for a most remarkable manifestation of power. 18, 19. Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off, and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary in order to console them about their brother. This topographical note is added so that the readers living far away from Palestine may be able to visualize the happening. Does the verb was mean that the Judean Bethany of Jesus day had ceased to exist when this Gospel was written? Probably not: the past tense fits into the narration of a past event. Literally John locates Bethany as follows: about off stadia fifteen ([Greek] ); which is an idiomatic way of expressing distance, taking the more distant place (in this case Jerusalem) as the basis of computation. A stadium Isaiah 1/8 of a mile; hence, fifteen stadia is slightly less than two miles. See also on 6:19. The closeness of Bethany to Jerusalem is mentioned to explain why so many Jews from the capital had come to console the sisters. For the meaning of the term Jews see on 1:19. From the fact that Martha and Mary were disciples of Jesus it must not be inferred that the Jews who had come to pay their respects were all friendly to the Lord. Fact is that before the occurrence of this miracle these Jews were critical of Jesus, and did not believe in him in any sense. Many changed their attitude after seeing the miracle. Some, however, persisted in their unbelief, which broke out into open and determined hostility. Such is the picture as the evangelist himself draws it (11:36, 37, 42, 45, 46). 20. Now when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him. It would seem that the approach of Jesus had not been announced to the company of mourners at the home of Martha and Mary. Had Jesus sent a special messenger (perhaps, one of his disciples) to convey the news to Martha, to her alone? We are not told, in so many words, that Jesus called Martha. In any event, it seems that the Lord wished to talk to Martha, and that he desired to do this in the absence of the busy crowd. He wanted to speak to her alone and undisturbed. So he remained at the outskirts of the village. There may have been an additional reason why Jesus stopped here instead of proceeding to the house of mourning. See on verse 30. But Mary continued to sit in the house. The beautiful correspondence between the Gospels (in this case Luke and John) is shown by the character-portraiture of the two sisters. Compare Luke 10:28 32(busy Martha, overly active; quiet and contemplative Mary, remaining at the Master's feet) and the present story in John. Jesus, understanding the nature of each sister, allows Mary to remain for a while in the house, while he holds a conversation with Martha just outside the village. 21, 22. So Martha said to Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died. When Martha met Jesus, she repeated, in substance, what, in all probability, she had been saying so often during the illness of her brother. Then she and also Mary (see on 11:32) had been uttering the sigh of near-despair: If only Jesus were here. So now Martha says, Lord (for this see on 1:38), if thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died. This remark must not be viewed as an expression of reproach or resentment, as if Martha were saying, Why did you have to dawdle for two whole days, remaining where you where when you knew very well that we needed you so badly? It is not the utterance of disappointment with Jesus. Martha knew very well that it would have been very difficult (if not actually impossible, except by means of a miracle) for Jesus to have reached the home at Bethany in time to heal Lazarus. Humanly speaking the message had arrived too late. Accordingly, we must look upon Martha's words as the expression of poignant grief. Martha adds, And even now I know that whatever thou wilt ask of God, God will give thee. The striking character of this added statement must receive its full due. It is unrealistic to say that by means of these words Martha cannot have hinted that possibly Jesus might even bring Lazarus back to life. It is true that, on the surface, 11:24, 39 seem to point in the direction of the abandonment of present hope. But it must be borne in mind that a few days ago (day before yesterday?), Lazarus being already in the tomb!, the messenger had returned from his interview with Jesus. And this was his message, quoting the words of the Lord: This sickness is not unto death; on the contrary it is for the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it. See on 11:4. We can imagine how again and again Martha, now that her brother was dead, had been repeating these strange, these very mysterious words, This sickness is not unto death. It is in that light that the words of verse 22 assume meaning: God will grant Jesus whatever he asks. In the mind of Martha, the raising of Lazarus is not excluded from this whatever. Nevertheless, although Martha's words imply the possibility of the great miracle which is about to occur, with her this was only a glimmering hope. She did not dare to express it openly and in so many words. She was afraid of her own inference. When Jesus stated in very plain language (see 11:23) what Martha had merely hinted, then she, having transferred her attention from Christ's glorious promise (in 11:4) to the present state of her dead brother, concealed her hope (11:24). Perhaps we may even say that for the moment its spark had been extinguished within her soul, so that it had to be rekindled. In verse 39 we have a similar instance of momentary defeatism experienced by Martha. We believe that this psychological explanation is the right one. In the heart of Martha the darkness of grief and the light of hope were engaged in deadly combat. Sometimes her lips gave expression to her near-despair; then again to her optimism. Hence, it is wrong, as we see it, to say that, in view of 11:24, 39, the words recorded in 11:22 must not be interpreted as the expression of half-revealed and half-concealed hope. Here is a woman, deeply emotional. Her soul is overcome by grief over the death of a brother whom she loved very dearly. But, here is also a disciple of Jesus, her soul filled with reverence for her Lord. Here is, consequently, a heart, stirred to its very depths, and swaying between grief and hope. Martha looked upon the works of Jesus as done in answer to prayer. That was correct (see on 9:31). Nevertheless, when she said, And even now I know that whatever thou wilt ask God, God will give to thee, she used a word for prayer ([Greek]: to ask) which Jesus never employed with reference to his own requests. The term which Martha used is proper upon the lips of an inferior asking a favor of a superior (4:9, 10; 14:13; 15:7, 16; 16:23, 24, 26). The term which Jesus employed with respect to his own requests generally implies the equality of the two persons (the one who makes the request and the one to whom it is made). The latter term ([Greek]) means to make request, see on 14:16, 17:9, 15, 20; but also simply: to question or to inquire (in which sense it is proper on the lips of anyone), see on 16:19, 23. We might say, therefore, that Martha, who was about to make a beautiful confession with respect to Jesus, did not understand the full meaning of the relation between the Father and the Son. Nevertheless, the important fact to be emphasized is this, that in verse 22 the light of Martha's faith, though still obscured by rising doubts, momentarily dispels the darkness of near-despair. 23, 24. Jesus said to her, Your brother will rise again. Martha said to him, I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day. In the simplest possible manner Jesus predicted what was about to occur: Your brother will rise again. Martha, suppressing (perhaps even extinguishing?) for the moment her flickering hope, as if it were too good to be true, and as if keeping a firm grasp on the promise of Jesus would be too bold a stroke, replied plaintively, I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day. If suppressing and not extinguishing should be the right word here, one might ask further: Was she trying by means of her reply to draw Jesus out, in order to get him to say just what he meant? But more probable is the opinion that, for the moment (see on 11:21, 22) grief and despondency had once more gained the victory. She was probably thinking: Jesus refers, of course, to the resurrection at the end of history. This reference to the resurrection at the great consummation was perhaps a kind of conventional consolation, frequently poured forth by professional mourners who were at a loss what else to say. But that was not what Jesus had in mind when he said, Your brother will rise again. It must not remain unnoticed that in what she said Martha took for granted, as entirely indisputable, the resurrection on the last day. Personal belief in individual resurrection is expressed in many Old Testament references (Ps. 16:9–11; 17:15; 49:16; 73:24, 26; perhaps also Job 19:25 27). Collective resurrection is implied in Ezek. 37:1–14; Hos. 6:2; and clearly expressed in Is. 26:19and Dan. 12:2. Besides, it must be remembered that Martha was not merely a Jewess; she was a disciple of Jesus. We may assume that she had accepted by faith such teaching as that which we find in 5:28, 29 (see on those verses). 25, 26. Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never, never die; do you believe this? Here follows another great I AM, the fifth one. There are seven. For the others see on 6:35; 8:12; 10:9; 10:11; 14:6; and 15:5. Subject and predicate are again interchangeable. Jesus is the resurrection and the life; the resurrection and the life, that is Jesus. Both the resurrection and the life are rooted in him (Rom. 6:8, 9; I Cor. 15:20, 57; Col. 1:18; I Thess. 4:16). Note the order: first resurrection, then life; because resurrection opens the gate to immortal life. Jesus is the resurrection and the life in person (see on 1:3, 4), the full, blessed life of God, all his glorious attributes: omniscience, wisdom, omnipotence, love, holiness, etc. As such he is also the cause, source, or fountain of the believers glorious resurrection and of their everlasting life. Because he lives we too shall live. With him removed, nothing but death is left. With him present, resurrection and life is assured. The Prince of life is ever the conqueror of death. Not only is he this by and by in the resurrection on the last day; he is this always. That is exactly the truth which Martha failed to grasp. Hence, Jesus placed emphasis upon it here, in order that the spark of hope might be kindled once more in Martha's breast, and that it might be fanned into a briskly burning, open flame. What Martha scarcely dared to hope was about to become real, for he, who was the Prince of life also at this moment, was victor over death, over death in every form. The remainder of this glorious I AM is a systematic development of the opening words. Jesus is the resurrection; hence, he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live. Jesus is the life; hence, everyone who lives and believes in me shall never, never die. This is beautiful parallelism, synthetic in character. The second clause reinforces the first, but does not merely repeat it! First, the believer is pictured at the moment of death. One naturally thinks of Lazarus, but what is said is true of every believer who dies physically. The words are: He who believes (abidingly) in me (note present participle A [Greek] followed by [Greek]; and see on 1:8; 3:16; and especially on 8:30, 31a), though he die (physically), yet shall he live (possessing everlasting life in glory). Next, the believer is pictured as he lives here on earth, before death. We read: And everyone who lives (spiritually; see on 1:3, 4; 3:16) and believes (abidingly) in me, shall never, never die (shall most certainly never taste everlasting death; shall never, never be separated soul and body from the presence of the God of love). See also on 3:15–17; 6:47. Even physical death fails to quench the believer's real life; on the contrary, such death is gain, for it introduces him into the full enjoyment of life. In the first clause believing is followed by living. The life of heaven is meant. It is true, of course, that even here on earth the believer has a foretaste of this heavenly life (3:36; cf. 3:16). In the second clause living and believing (a kind of hendiadys: living by faith) is followed by never dying. We have here an instance of litotes: shall never, never die really implies: shall most certainly live forever, yes forever. Note the strong negative: shall never, never die ([Greek] ). The whole is beautiful parallelism, in which the second clause confirms and strengthens the first. The arrangement, moreover, is climactic. This will be seen immediately: that the believer at death enters upon life in the state of perfection is comforting, but not unfamiliar; that the believer residing here on earth is given the assurance that he will never, no never die, is astounding! Cf. also Rom. 8:10; II Cor. 4:16. Thus gloriously the miracle itself (11:38–44) is introduced and illumined, sothat when it occurs it shall be viewed not as an end in itself but as an illustration of what Christ is and wishes to be for all those who trust in him. Thus, the miracle will be seen in its true character, namely, as a sign, pointing away from itself, to Christ, and making him manifest in all his glory. An unbeliever rejects both propositions of this glorious I AM (i.e., both 11:25b and 11:26a), and also the statement in which the two are rooted (11:25a). He is of the opinion that death ends all. Hence he cannot accept the statement: He who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live. He also conceives of physical death as being the real thing, the grim reaper; hence, for him the idea that this death could ever be robbed of its real power is nonsense. It is by faith, by faith alone, that these great truths are accepted. Hence, Jesus demanded that Martha should personally appropriate what she had just now heard from his lips, namely, that as a result of what he is namely, the resurrection and the life the life of a believer ever conquers death. Do you believe this? says Jesus to Martha. There follows a beautiful confession: 27. She said to him, Yes, Lord, I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, the One coming into the world. Martha's confession here is positive, heroic, and comprehensive. It is, indeed, very touching, all the more remarkable because it was made under such trying circumstances. The I AM of Jesus had helped her considerably. We now see her at her best; rather, we see God's grace displayed in her, as we hear her say, Yes (assenting to the statement that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and to the two propositions which followed it), Lord (see on 1:38), I have believed (perfect tense: it has become a settled conviction with me) that thou art the Christ (see on 10:25), the Son of God (see on 1:14, 34; 20:31; Vol. I, pp. 33–35), the One coming into the worldPhil. 2:5–8; II Cor. 8:9; see on 1:9 . To say, as is sometimes done, that Martha did not intend to confess the Lord's full deity, involves one in hopeless inconsistency. Martha must have heard Jesus speaking about himself as the Son of God. Now if others understood this to mean that he claimed full equality with the Father (see on 10:30–33; cf. on 5:18), why not Martha? She had heard the claims of Jesus, and she believed them. Note. I have believed. The pronoun I, because it is expressed and because of its position in the sentence, must probably be regarded as emphatic here (but see vol. I, pp. 63, 64). Others had heard the same claims, but had rejected them, calling Jesus a blasphemer. For other notable confessions, recorded in preceding chapters of John's Gospel, see the one by John the Baptist ( Look, the Lamb of God, who is taking away the sin of the world, 1:29), by Andrew ( We have found the Messiah, 1:41), by Philip ( The One about whom Moses wrote in the law and about whom the prophets wrote, we have found, 1:45), by Nathaniel ( Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art King of Israel, 1:49), by the Samaritans ( We know that this is really the Savior of the world, 4:42), and by Simon Peter ( Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of everlasting life. And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God, 6:68, 69; cf. also his confession recorded in Matt. 16:16). That a little later (see on 11:39) Martha wavers again, sothat she then for the moment does not see the full implications of her previous confession, is understandable. Martha's eyes were not always fixed on Jesus. Sometimes they were turned in the direction of a corpse. When that happened, her spiritual vision became obscured. Peter had a somewhat similar experience (Matt. 14:28–31). 28 30. And when she had said this, she went back and quietly called Mary, her sister, saying, The teacher is here and is asking for you. Having made her glorious confession Martha went back to the house of mourning. We can picture her re-entering and whispering to her sister, Mary. Why did she call Mary quietly? Was it because she did not desire to have the Jews (generally hostile to Jesus) know about the nearness of Jesus? Was she afraid, perhaps, that otherwise a controversy would arise between Jesus and the Jews, and did she wish to give also Mary an opportunity to converse with the Master in private? That is probable. The reason why she called Mary at all was (in addition to her own desire) that Jesus had requested her to do this. That is surely the most natural explanation of the words: The teacher is here and is asking for you (or: is calling you). So she, when she heard it, hurriedly arose and was coming to him. Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. When Mary heard this, she jumped up and hurried out of the house. Presently she was coming (imperfect tense, very graphic) to Jesus. The latter had not yet entered the village proper but was still at the place where Martha had met him. Commentators suggest several possible reasons to account for the fact that Jesus remained there even after his conversation with Martha. One suggested reason is: to give Mary the same opportunity for a private interview which her sister had enjoyed. But in this connection it must be remembered that in actual fact Mary's interview can hardly be called private. Perhaps the solution must be sought in an entirely different direction, which has also been suggested by several commentators; namely, that the place where the conversations with Martha and (later) with Mary occurred was in the close proximity of the cemetery. Although we cannot be sure about this, the account, nevertheless, leaves this impression upon us (cf. verses 30, 32, 33, 34, 38). Now if this was the case, it is not hard to understand why Jesus, whose business was not in the house of mourning but at the tomb, would have remained right where he was. 31. Now when the Jews, who were with her in the house and were consoling her, noticed that Mary had arisen hurriedly and had gone out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb in order to weep there. For the meaning of the expression the Jews with her in the house consoling her see on verse 19 above. It would seem that Mary was the most emotional of the two sisters, as especially verse 32 appears to indicate (and see also 12:3). It is possible that this trait also accounts for the hurried manner in which she got up and left the house, although it must be borne in mind that we are distinctly told that Jesus, through Martha as messenger, had called Mary. We do not read that he had called Martha, though this is probable (see on verse 20). Was it this hurried manner of rising which caused the Jews to arrive at the conclusion that Mary was going to the tomb to weep there, sothat they followed her though they had not followed Martha? Certain commentators are of this opinion, which may be correct, but we do not know positively. It should not escape us that also this decision on the part of the Jews, namely, to follow Mary to the tomb, was in the plan of God. He wanted the Jews to see the miracle! The word for weep here in verse 31 is not the same as that in verse 35; see on that verse. 32. Then Mary, when she arrived at the place where Jesus was, at the sight of him fell at his feet, saying to him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died. When Mary saw Jesus, at that very moment she fell weeping (see verse 35) at his feet. In the attitude of reverence and worship she repeated what Martha had said, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died. For the meaning of this exclamation see on 11:21. Note that while Martha did not fall down at Jesus feet (11:20; 21), Mary did not add (as Martha had done), And even now I know that whatever thou wilt ask of God, God will give thee. That seems to even the score. In any event, on the basis of what is found here in John 11there is insufficient evidence to declare that Mary's faith was more excellent in quality or degree than Martha's. But see also chapter 12:1–8; then Luke 10:38 42. In the latter story it surely was Mary who chose the good part. 33, 34. So Jesus, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, was deeply moved in the spirit and was agitated, and he said, Where have you laid him? They said to him, Lord, come and see. When Jesus saw Mary weeping and the Jews who had come along with her many of whom were going to accept him by faith (11:45) also weeping, he was deeply moved in the spirit (see on 13:21). The verb here used has the root-meaning to snort (of a horse); then, to be moved with anger (Mark 14:5), to charge sternly (Matt. 9:30; Mark 1:43). The question arises, therefore, Does this verb as used here in verse 33 (see also verse 38) have the same meaning? Many commentators believe that it does. Jesus, according to their interpretation, was filled with indignation. But why was he angry? Certainly not because Mary and the Jews were weeping. He himself was about to burst into tears (verse 35). Why then? The answer that is generally given is this: Jesus was concentrating his attention upon sin, as the underlying cause of all suffering, grief, and sorrow. He was filled with indignation against sin. It would seem to us that this explanation contains a considerable element of truth. The very fact that the verb employed generally (i.e., in other passages) refers to a feeling of indignation would seem to point in this direction. Besides, it is inconceivable that Christ would think of sorrow and grief and not at the same time of sin as its cause. Nevertheless, we believe that this explanation, though correct as far as it goes, fails to go far enough. The intense emotion which surged in the heart of the Lord comprised at least one other element besides indignation. It went beyond anger and included more than this. The entire setting clearly indicates that it also included sympathy. In fact the immediate context does not even mention sin. It speaks only about the weeping of Mary and of the Jews, and we are given the impression that it was this weeping which led to his weeping (cf. 11:33, 34 with 11:35). The context, therefore, is one of sympathy rather than one of anger. Also the verb and was agitated or was troubled (here literally troubled himself, shook himself) which is used in connection with the verb in question, suggests inward disturbance (as it does also in 12:27; 13:21; 14:1, 27) of whatever nature, rather than purely indignation. For the meaning of the second verb ([Greek]) see also on 14:1. It would seem, therefore, that the translation was deeply moved in the spirit is the best. Thus rendered, the verb is sufficiently comprehensive to include both indignation and sympathy. The intense upsurge of emotion was probably visible in Christ's look, tone of voice, and (perhaps especially) in his constant sighing. For the meaning of the term spirit ([Greek]) see on 13:21. Indignant with sin as the root of all suffering and sorrow, but also taking to heart the sorrow of those about him, Jesus, thus deeply moved in the spirit and visibly agitated, said, Where have you laid him? Although he was able to obtain information in various ways (see on 5:6), he used the most human method here: he enquired of those who were standing around him. They (perhaps those among them who were most favorably inclined toward him) answered, Lord (see on 1:38), come and see. The aoristic present is used for the first verb, simple aorist for the second; both are imperatives, with little if any distinction here in the meaning of the tenses. 35. Jesus burst into tears. This is the only place in the New Testament where this verb occurs. It is probably ingressive aorist ([Greek]). However, the noun (tear, tears) whose root enters into the formation of this verb, is found also in (Heb. 5:7in connection with Jesus: who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to have him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, etc. See also Mark 9:24; Luke 7:38, 44; Acts 20:19, 31; II Cor. 2:4; II Tim. 1:4; Heb. 12:17; Rev. 7:17; 21:4. In all these passagesMark 9:24) the tears are shed by others, not by Jesus. However, there surely is a connection between 11:35 and Rev. 7:17: because of his tears ours shall be wiped away. Note the difference, which cannot have been unintentional: in 11:31, 33 another verb is used ([Greek]) than here in 11:35. Mary and the Jews wept. In Mary's case such weeping was, of course, genuine, the expression of real, inner sorrow over the loss of a dear brother. In the case of the Jews it was, in many cases, probably tantamount to wailing. See on 16:20. The verb [Greek] does not necessarily or always mean to wail (hence, in the sense of weeping, not wailing, it can be used even with reference to Jesus, (Luke 19:41: Jesus wept over Jerusalem) but can have that meaningMark 5:38, 39). The verb [Greek], used here in 11:35 does not mean to wail. These tears were the expression of love, love not only for Lazarus (as the Jews thought, 11:37) but also for Mary, Martha and others (see on 11:33). They were tears of genuine sympathy (Heb. 4:15; cf. Rom. 12:15). In connection with these tears the remark is often made that they prove Jesus true humanity. This is certainly correct (see also Vol. I, p. 84). The Fourth Gospel (the very book which stresses Christ's deity, Vol. I, pp. 33–35) describes him as being not only absolutely divine but also truly human. It must be stressed, however, that these tears of our Lord were unaccompanied by sin. They were not the tears of the professional mourner, nor those of the sentimentalist, but those of the pure and holy, sympathizing Highpriest! They proceeded from the most genuine love for man found in the entire universe, the love which gave itself. 36, 37. So the Jews were saying, See how he (constantly) loved him! But some of them said, Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept also this man from dying? The Jews gave a rather limited interpretation to these tears of Jesus, as if they had been shed only in grief over the death of Lazarus and not also (as the context clearly teaches) in genuine sympathy with the tears of others. Among these Jews, as already remarked, there were those who were going to accept Christ by faith (cf. 11:45). The Jews (see on 1:19) were deeply moved by Christ's love, just as a little later they are going to be deeply impressed by his power. In their exclamation they refer to the tender affection of Jesus for Lazarus. (For the meaning of the verb for love and its synonyms see on 21:15–17). The form here used is vivid (the imperfect: [Greek]): he was loving (in the past and up to the moment of Lazarus death) or he constantly loved. The Jews regarded the case of Lazarus to be closed. The matter was hopeless now. After all, Lazarus was dead! But why had not Jesus prevented this death? Some asked in criticism, others in sheer perplexity: Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man (the last great miracle at Jerusalem, about which the people were still talking; see on chapter 9) have kept also this man from dying? This question reminds one of the exclamation of regret recorded in 11:21 and 11:32, but does not convey exactly the same thought. Moreover, it does not rise to the height attained by Martha in 11:22 (see on that verse). It seems that the news of the raising of Jairus daughter and of the widow's son had not reached Jerusalem, or if it had, this death was altogether different: it was now the fourth day! This case was hopeless! For Synthesis see pp. 167–169. 11:38–44 38 So Jesus, again deeply moved within himself, came to the tomb. It was a cavern, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, Take away the stone. Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to him, Lord, by this time there is an odor, for he has been dead four days. 40 Jesus said to her, Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God? ^[91] 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 I knew that thou dost always hear me, but on account of the multitude that is standing around I said (this), in order that they may believe that thou hast sent me. 43 And having said these things, he shouted with a loud voice, Lazarus, come out. 44 Out came the dead man, bound hand and foot with grave-bands, and his face was bound about with a sweat-band. Jesus said to them, Untie him, and let him go. 11:38. So Jesus, again deeply moved within himself, came to the tomb. It was a cavern, and a stone was lying against it. Jesus came sighing to the tomb. For the verb deeply moved within himself (in the spirit, verse 33) see on 11:33. The tomb was in the form of a cavern or chamber hewn into a rock. We picture the rock as rising from the ground, perhaps slanting back somewhat. In order to ward off wild animals a slab of stone was lying against it. 39. In performing miracles Jesus did not waste his power. Only God can raise the dead, but men can move a stone away from a tomb. So Jesus bade them do this. Note the brevity of the command, Jesus said, Take away (aorist active imperative) the stone. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XII This chapter has four sections: a. Jesus is anointed at Bethany (12:1–11). b. He makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:12–19). c. He is sought by the Greeks (12:20–36). d. He is repulsed by the Jews (12:37–50). 12:1–11 12 1 Now six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they made him a supper there, and Martha was serving, while Lazarus was one of those reclining with him. 3 Mary, therefore, took a pound of very precious ointment of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and with her hair wiped his feet; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him, said, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denarii, and given to the poor? 6 Now this he said, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief; and as he had the money-box, he used to take away what was put into it. 7 Jesus therefore said, Let her be, (it was) in order that she might keep it for the day of my burial; 8 for the poor you have always with you, but me you have not always. 9 The great multitude of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, and they came, not only on account of Jesus, but also in order that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death also, 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away believing in Jesus. 12:1. Now six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany. That is, six days before the final Passover Jesus came again to Bethany. Whether he came directly from Ephraim where the Fourth Gospel last located him (11:54) or whether he now came from Jericho (Luke 18:35 19:10), as seems possible, the Fourth Gospel does not say. If Jesus withdrew to Ephraim in the early part of February and remained there two or three weeks, there would be sufficient time for other journeys before Passover in April. Accordingly, there is certainly no conflict here between John and Luke. In order to establish what is meant by six days before the Passover, the day when Passover began must be determined first of all. This question will be discussed in detail in connection with 13:1 (see on that verse). Anticipating the conclusion arrived at in the discussion of that passage, we shall here assume that the week of Passover began on Thursday, the fourteenth of Nisan. From Ex. 12:6it is probably safe to conclude that it began officially in the afternoon of that day. Hence, it is not necessary to inquire whether John had in mind the Roman or the Jewish day, for if the feast began in the afternoon before sunset, it would be the same day according to either system of reckoning. However, even with this assumed, it is not easy to determine the exact day when Jesus arrived in Bethany. Does the expression six days before Passover exclude the first day of the Passover-week or does it include this? If Passover began on Thursday, then six days before Passover, according to the inclusive method of computation, would bring us to the preceding Saturday; the exclusive method would fix the date of arrival one day earlier (Friday). Which is correct?^[97] We would be ready to leave the question unsettled and to confess our ignorance were it not for the information furnished in 12:9–11. Believing, as we do (see on 13:1), that the Triumphal Entry (12:12–19) occurred on Sunday, it is clear from 12:9–11 that on the day preceding (cf. 12:12), i.e., on Saturday, a great multitude of people came to Bethany to see both Jesus and Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead. It would seem that this big crowd came from Jerusalem (see on 12:9), having been informed about Jesus whereabouts by the caravan which had passed through Bethany (and had left Jesus there) on its way to the feast. The question, accordingly, arises, If Jesus did not arrive in Bethany until Saturday-evening (the evening just before the Triumphal Entry), then would there have been enough time for all of the following events to happen that evening? Study the list: a. The caravan, with Jesus in its midst, has started out after sunset, i.e., after the conclusion of the sabbath (from Jericho? but that is a distance of fourteen miles!) and has reached Bethany. b. Jesus leaves the caravan in order to spend some time with his friends in the village. c. The rest of the caravan proceeds to Jerusalem, a distance (on the average) of about two miles (11:18, though for some, who camped between Jerusalem and Bethany, it was a little shorter). d. The people who had belonged to the caravan now begin to spread the news about Jesus whereabouts. e. After a while, a big crowd gathers and travels from Jerusalem to Bethany to see both Jesus and Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. f. Many people, having seen Jesus and Lazarus, believe. g. This news travels back to Jerusalem, where the priests meet and decide to put Lazarus to death also. Is it not more probable that items, a, b, c, and d occurred on Friday, while e, f, and g took place on Saturday? Otherwise there would seem to be too much crowding of events in one evening. We shall assume, therefore, that Jesus arrived at Bethany before sunset on Friday, and that on the sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) he enjoyed the sabbath-rest with his friends, the very last sabbath before his body rested in the tomb. Meanwhile in Jerusalem the news is spreading that Jesus is in Bethany; and the people are making their plans for Saturday-evening. (See on 12:9–11.) In Bethany on that same Saturday-evening, a supper is given in honor of Jesus. John's Gospel begins to run parallel with the Synoptics at this point. See Matt. 26:6–13; Mark 14:3 9. There is no conflict. The time-indications in Matt. 26:2and Mark 14:1do not say that the supper at Bethany was given two days before the Passover, but that two days before the Passover the following happened: a. Jesus predicted that he would be delivered up to be crucified after two days, and b. the rulers resolved that he should not be put to death at the feast. In order to show the connection between the story recorded in chapter 11 and the present account (12:1–8), the evangelist writes: Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2. So they made him a supper there, and Martha was serving, while Lazarus was one of those reclining with him. Instead of reporting Jesus for the purpose of arrest (11:57), the friends at Bethany gave a dinner in his honor. As it was not considered proper for women in public to be reclining along with men, we must assume that the guests were exclusively men. There were at least fifteen of them: Jesus, the Twelve, Lazarus, and a certain Simon, who is mentioned only in the Synoptics (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3). The question, Why is Lazarus singled out for special mention? (12:2), has received various answers. Some say, Because he was an honored guest. Others, Because his public appearance, after having been raised from the dead, was unusual. Still others, Because his resurrection was the reason, or one of the reasons, for this festive meal. We do not know the answer, though to us the last seems the most probable. The idea readily suggests itself that this supper (or dinner if one prefers) was prompted by love for the Lord, specifically by gratitude for the raising of Lazarus (and perhaps also for the healing of Simon who had been a leper, and who is still called Simon the leper in Matthew and Mark). It was given at the home of Simon. Though not reclining along with the invited guests, both Martha and Mary figure prominently in this story. Martha, as usual (Luke 10:40), had taken upon herself the responsibility of serving. Had she agreed to do this at the request of Simon, the reason being that he was unmarried? We do not know. Whether Mary also helped along is not recorded. Nevertheless, the story concerns her and her Lord more than it concerns any other: 3. Mary, therefore, took a pound of very precious ointment of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and with her hair wiped his feet; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. It is claimed by many interpreters that, in describing the beautiful deed of Mary, the evangelist borrowed from Luke 7:36 50, and that the Mary mentioned in John 12:3is the same as the sinful woman of Luke 7; or, that, while the two events are distinct, the author of the Fourth Gospel got his sources mixed and simply added to the story which he had found in Matthew 26:6 13and Mark 14:3 9the detail concerning the wiping of Jesus feet, which feature he had found in Luke 7. We completely reject this theory. See the footnote.^[98] Lazarus was one of those reclining with him. Mary therefore.& It is possible that the connective [Greek] must here be given its full meaning therefore; i.e., because Lazarus had been raised from the dead and was now reclining, hale and hearty, with Jesus, therefore Mary performed her noble deed. Mary took a pound of ointment (twelve ounces). For ointment the original has the term [Greek]; cf. our myrrh. A girl's name Muriel is from the same root, and means perfume. For the distinction between oil ([Greek]) and ointment ([Greek]) see (Luke 7:46.^[99] The ointment which Mary bought was very preciousMatt. 26:7). (Mark 14:3has very costly or very expensive, [Greek]; but this word is sometimes used metaphorically with about the same connotation as [Greek]; cf. I Pet. 3:4. However, in view of Mark 14:5John 12:5) it is probable that in Mark [Greek] actually means very costly. The essence of this ointment was derived from pure nard, which is an aromatic herb grown in the high pasture-land of the Himalayas, between Tibet and India.^[100] In view of the fact that it had to be procured in a region so remote, and carried on camel-back through miles and miles of mountain-passes, it was very high-priced. Note, moreover, that this nard was no substitute. On the contrary, it was the genuine article. The ointment was extracted from pure nard.^[101] Moreover, the Synoptics point out that this ointment was in an alabaster jar; i.e., in a jar of white (or perhaps delicately tinted) fine-grained gypsum. One can picture the scene. Her heart overflowing with love and gratitude for her Lord, Mary has occupied the position behind Jesus, as the guests, according to Oriental custom, are reclining on couches arranged in inverted U-shaped fashion around a low table (see on 2:9, 10; 13:23, 24). Suddenly she breaks the jar which she is holding in her hand, and she pours its sweet-smelling contents over Jesus. According to Matthew and Mark she pours it upon his head (Ps. 23:5); according to John she anoints his feet. There is no conflict, for Matthew and Mark clearly indicate that the ointment was poured over the body of Christ (Matt. 26:12; <a href="/bible/parallel/MRK/14/8" class="green-link">Mark 14:8). Evidently there was enough for the entire body: head, neck, shoulders, and even for the feet.Ps. 133:2, but here in John the ointment does not merely flow down, but is actually poured out upon the feet. In complete disregard of Oriental rules of propriety, which viewed with definite disfavor the action of a woman who would loosen her tresses in the presence of men, Mary, allowing her heart to speak freely, not only unbinds her hair but (worse even, from the point of view of the Oriental) with her hair wipes his feet! Clearly, even the feetLuke 10:39is significant here! are covered with an amount of ointment so abundant that they have to be dried. A pound of ointment is a very large quantity! And Mary, having broken the jar, pours out all of this upon Jesus. She empties the contents of the alabaster cruse. Hence, the house of Simon is literally filled with fragrance. It floats in every direction, and, for a while, continues to spread and spread. One hardly knows what to admire most, the irrepressible character of Mary's devotion or the lavish nature of her sacrifice. The former, of course, produced the latter. It is wrong to detract in any way from Mary's generosity. Nevertheless, this is sometimes done. In that case the reconstruction of the narrative is on this order: the sisters had bought some ointment for the burial of Lazarus, but had not used all of it. What was left was by Mary poured upon the head and feet of Jesus. But this is erroneous. What Mary had in her hand was a new, alabaster jar or vase. In order to pour its contents on Jesus, she broke it here and now (Mark 14:3). 4, 5. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him, said, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denarii, and given to the poor? The contrast between the generosity of Mary and the selfishness of Judas is striking. The evangelist, writing so long after the event and looking back, describes the traitor as follows: Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him. For the meaning of the expression see on 6:71. Judas says in his heart, What a waste! That the native language of love is eager generosity was something which Judas could not comprehend. The selfish person cannot understand the unselfish individual. So Judas said, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denarii, and (the proceeds) given to the poor? Judas is the type of man who has money on his mind all the while. He views everything from the aspect of pecuniary value. He has already estimated the price of this alabaster jar filled with the most precious ointment. He reckons that it must be worth three hundred denarii. See on 6:7. The sum represents the wages which an ordinary laborer would receive for three hundred days of work. The wages of three hundred days for a single jar of ointment! To Judas this looks like unjustifiable extravagance under any circumstance, even if Mary herself were well-to-do (which was probably true) and did not have to work for a living. How much better as Judas sees it it would have been if Mary had sold her ointment and had given the proceeds to &to whom? Well, to Jesus and the Twelve, % Judas, Treasurer; but it will hardly do for Judas to say that; hence, what he actually says is: to the poor. A noble individual, this Judas! How deeply concerned about the poor is he! Because Judas was master in the art of dissimulation and of stating his case very persuasively, others (Mark 14:4) immediately chimed in. The disciples had indignation (Matt. 26:8). Wherever Mary looked she met angry glances, looks of shocked disapproval. Only one comes to her defence, but that One was the greatest of all! See on 12:8, 9. Here in verse 5 there follows an explanatory remark, such as John is in the habit of making. It sheds light on the character of Judas. Either by the course of events which followed (for example, the actual betrayal of Jesus by Judas for thirty pieces of silver), or by direct revelation, or both, the evangelist subsequently gained an insight into the soul of the traitor. Writing long afterward, he reveals to the readers the information which he had gained: 6. Now this he said, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money-box he used to take away what was put into it. Judas was, in reality, a thief. He was the kind of thief who as yet was undiscovered. He still enjoyed the confidence of all. He had been made treasurer of the common fund. He, accordingly, had the money-box ([Greek], originally a box containing the tongues or mouth-pieces of flutes; later, extended to indicate any box-like receptacle). From this box he would, off and on, pilfer a small amount. That the verb [Greek] has here the meaning to take away (i.e., to steal) is clear from the fact that it is immediately preceded by the information that Judas was a thief. For the meaning of this verb in various passages of John's Gospel see on 10:31. 7, 8. Jesus therefore said, Let her be, (it was) in order that she might keep it for the day of my burial; for the poor you have always with you, but me you have not always. When Mary is being criticized by all, Jesus comes to the rescue. The words which he speaks in her defence have been reproduced and interpreted in various ways. Among these the most prevalent are as follows: (1) Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burial (A.R.V.). Or: Let her be, in order that she may keep this for the day of my burial. Or: Let her be, let her keep it for the day of my burial. When rendered in this manner, the usual explanation (if one is given) is this: Mary had not used all the ointment. There was some left in the jar. Now Jesus says, in substance, Let her keep what is left. Do not take it away from her. Neither force her to sell it, in order to give the proceeds to the poor. By and by she will need what is left of the ointment. She will need it for my burial. The one great objection against this interpretation is that the Gospel of Mark states definitely (14:3) that Mary had broken the cruse! She had broken it in order to empty its contents on the head (Matthew and Mark) and feet (John) of Jesus. There was nothing left. Those who, nevertheless, wish to cling to the theory that there was some ointment left in the jar, and that according to John 12:7Jesus defended her right to keep this for a future day, have only one logical way out. It is the way followed by W. F. Howard in The Interpreter's Bible (p. 655), namely, to declare definitely that the version of the story as presented in the Fourth Gospel is contrary to the Synoptic statement. According to W. F. Howard, John contradicts Mark. That is consistent reasoning. But that conclusion cannot be accepted by anyone who believes in the infallibility of Scripture. Besides, nowhere not in Matthew, nor in Mark, nor in John is there any indication that Mary had used only a little of the ointment. On the contrary, even John, who does not mention the breaking of the jar, nevertheless stresses the lavish character of the gift: The house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. It is, accordingly, entirely impossible for us to accept this interpretation. (2) Let her alone: against the day of my burial hath she kept this (A.V.). This is much better. As it stands, the statement is true and in complete harmony with the account as found in Matthew and Mark. Nevertheless, though true in itself, this reproduction of the Lord's statement does not rest upon the best reading. The better and older manuscripts insert the word in order that ([Greek]) and have the aorist active subjunctive ([Greek]) form of the verb instead of the perfect active indicative ([Greek]). Therefore, literally what the best text says is not, Let her alone &she kept it, but Let her alone &in order that she may (or: might) keep it. (3) Let her be, (it was) in order that she might keep it for the day of my burial. This is the rendering which, with slight variations, is followed by many (including the margin of the A.R.V.). We believe that it is the best. It is immediately apparent that here, as so often, we have an instance of abbreviated style. See what was said about this in connection with 5:31 (Vol. I, p. 206). Words are left out which have to be mentally inserted. In the present case we have to supply it was. To show that these words are not actually in the text we have placed them between parentheses. Strictly speaking, also verse 5 of this chapter is a condensed expression. Judas did not literally mean, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denarii, and given to the poor? He did not mean that the ointment be given to the poor, but that the proceeds of the sale of the ointment be donated to them. Hence, also in connection with that verse, one (perhaps even unconsciously) supplies a few words that are necessary to complete the thought. There is nothing strange about this. Our daily conversation is full of shortened expressions. In order to arrive at what is probably the meaning of the words of Jesus in 12:7 the preceding context must be kept in mind. Judas (as spokesman for the rest) has criticized Mary. If Mary had come into possession of this costly jar filled with most precious ointment (whether by purchase, inheritance, or gift, Judas does not enquire), why did she not sell it and give the proceeds to the poor? Jesus now reveals the reason why Mary (who had, of course, purchased the ointment) had not followed the course indicated by her critics: It was in order that she might keep it for the day of my burial. Mary knew what she was doing. She actually believed that before long Jesus would be put to death by his enemies. Would his friends be given the opportunity to anoint his body? Yet, this honor must not be withheld. Mary owes so much, so very much, to Jesus! To him she owes her salvation, and &the recovery of her brother Lazarus from the very realm of the dead. Hence, she had decided to keep the ointment for the day of her Lord's burial. Not, however, in the sense that she literally wanted to keep the jar tightly closed until that day had actually arrived, for that might be too late; but thus, that she would keep it until a good opportunity would present itself, and then she would anoint him in anticipation of his burial. It was now or never! Contrast 19:39, 40. We believe that this interpretation is the probable one, and for the following reasons: (1) It is in harmony with the clear statement found in Matthew 26:12: She has done it to prepare me for burial, and in Mark 14:8, She has anointed my body in advance for burial. (2) It is also in harmony with the fact that Mary, perhaps more than any other disciple of Jesus, must have been convinced that the day of Christ's death and burial was rapidly approaching. Note in this connection: a. Jesus had often predicted his approaching death; sometimes publicly, sometimes privately. See Matt. 9:22; 16:21; Mark 8:31, 32; 9:12; 10:32–34; John 6:52 56; 7:33; 8:21–23; 10:11, 15. Some of these predictions must have reached Mary's ears. b. The events of the last few months clearly pointed in the direction of the fulfilment of his predictions. See 8:58; 9:22; 10:31; 10:45–57; cf. 12:10. Gradually the wrath of the enemies was being translated into action. c. Mary was, perhaps, the best listener Jesus ever had. The one who now anointed the Lord's feet was the same one who previously had been sitting at the Lord's feet (Luke 10:39). Between these two facts there is a close connection. Mary had embraced her opportunity, and that opportunity would soon be a thing of the past. Hence, very significantly, Jesus, in defending her action, adds: &for the poor you have always with you, but me you have not always. Note the fact that you is plural. Those translations which (like the R.S.V.) have substituted you for ye read as if Jesus were telling Judas that the latter always had the poor with him. By spacing the letters of the pronoun you whenever the original has the plural, the distinction is retained, and the true meaning is conveyed. Jesus, then, is speaking not only to Judas but to all the disciples; in fact, to all those who listen to him that day. He is telling them that just now anointing him in anticipation of his burial is more important than the care of the poor. By implication, however, he is saying to the church of all the ages that the care of the poor is its responsibility and privilege. Jesus loves the poor who trust in him. Cf. (Mark 10:23; Luke 16:19 31. He wants them to be the objects of the constant care of the churchMark 14:7). Let Judas, the man who seems to champion the cause of the poor but who on the sly is robbing them, take this to heart! As a reward for Mary's golden deed Jesus adds a beautiful promise. See Matt. 26:13Mark 14:9. 9. The great multitude of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, and they came, not only on account of Jesus, but also in order that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. For the explanation of verses 9 11 see also on 12:1. It is logical to assume that the great multitude (A [Greek]: the people in large numbers) of the Jews consisted mainly of those very people who, having arrived early at the capital, had been inquiring about Jesus (see on 11:55, 56). From the caravan that had just entered the city, and that had come by way of Bethany, they received an answer to their oft-repeated question: What do you think, that he will certainly not come to the feast? Friday-evening and Saturday, in the midst of great excitement, people are telling each other, Have you heard the latest? Jesus is actually coming. He has already arrived at Bethany. And so on Saturday-evening they came flocking out of the city on their way to Bethany. (Those who were lodging less than a sabbath-day's journey away from Bethany may have come a little earlier.) Their purpose, of course, is to see both Jesus, who just recently raised Lazarus from the dead, and also Lazarus himself. These Jews of whom mention is made here are not the religious leaders, hostile to Jesus (the sense in which the term is so often used in the Fourth Gospel; see on 1:19), but the common people, the thrill-seekers. 10, 11. So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death also, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away believing in Jesus. The chief priests (see on 11:47) were absolutely ruthless. In order to gain their objective they were willing to kill not only Jesus but also Lazarus. The latter, too, was an offence to them, and this for two reasons: a. the reason definitely stated here: on account of him many of the Jews were going away believing in Jesus (literally: were going away and were believing, but this is clearly hendiadys); and b. Lazarus had been raised from the dead, and the chief priests, being Sadducees, did not believe in the resurrection! So they plotted to kill him also, hoping in all probability that he might not rise again. It would seem that the decision with respect to Lazarus was never carried out. Lazarus, enjoying excellent health, walking around as usual, left an indelible impression upon the multitude, for they knew that this same man had been dead and in his tomb for four days! As a result of what they had now seen with their own eyes many, in departing from Bethany, were believing in him (the imperfect is used here [Greek], followed by [Greek]). For the meaning of [Greek] see also on 1:8; 3:16; 8:30, 31a. In view of 12:37 where the same form is used in the original (the imperfect of the verb followed by [Greek]), and where genuine faith is indicated, it must be considered probable that these believers had become disciples in the best sense of the term; at least, that this was true with respect to many among them. Synthesis of 12:1–11 See the Outline on p. 134. The Son of God Is Anointed by Mary of Bethany. Mary's Noble Act. I. Its Character A. It was prompted by thankfulness The difference between Mary and Judas was this: Judas failed to complete the circle; Mary (by the sovereign grace of God) completed it. Fellowship (even though only outward) with the Lord from day to day should have resulted in gratitude on Judas part, but it did not, for he was a thoroughly selfish person, a coldly calculating thief, a base pretender. Mary, on the other hand, understood that when love descends from heaven in deeds of might and mercy such as, the raising of Lazarus, it must be returned in the form of gratitude. Heaven had spoken: Lazarus, come out. Earth answered, and the sweet fragrance of its deed was wafted back to heaven. Thus love answered love, and the circle was completed. Woe to the man or the woman who fails to complete the circle! Cf. Eph. 1:3, 12. B. It was unique in its understandingness Jesus had often mentioned his approaching suffering and death (also his resurrection, but even Mary seems not to have grasped this). These predictions were disbelieved. Peter had said, This shall never happen to thee. But Mary understood, at least to some extent. She believed, and she anointed Jesus in anticipation of his burial. C. It was regal in its lavishness There was nothing measured or carefully calculated about this gift. Mary broke the jar and emptied it completely! Her devotion was unrestrained in its expression. The jar was of the costliest alabaster. The ointment was very precious. Its essence was the genuine article: real nard, obtained with great difficulty from a remote region. And the quantity of the ointment was a whole pound, enough to anoint not only the head but even the feet, and the latter so lavishly that they had to be dried! The entire house was filled with fragrance! D. It was beautiful in its timeliness The very presence of Lazarus, raised from the dead (and of Simon, cured of his leprosy) made the deed timely. Also, Jesus was about to enter the deep waters and the dark night of the Passion Week. Now was the proper time for Mary's noble Acts (Mark 14:6). II. Its Evaluation A. By Judas: To what purpose is this waste? (Matt. 26:8). B. By Jesus: She has performed a noble deed (Mark 14:6). And I solemnly declare to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world also what this woman has done will be told for a memorial of her (Matt. 26:13). Preliminary Remarks on the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem A. Significance This is an event of outstanding significance. The following points should be noted: 1. Jesus by means of his Triumphal Entry definitely indicates that he lays down his life; i.e., that he dies voluntarily. He takes matters into his own hands. He is forcing the issue. He deliberately plans a demonstration, fully realizing that, as a result, the enthusiasm of the masses will enrage the hostile leaders at Jerusalem to such a degree that they will desire more intensely than ever to carry out their plot against him. 2. Jesus forces the members of the Sanhedrin to change their time-table (with respect to his execution) sothat it will harmonize with his (and with the Father's) time-table. Originally it had not been the plan of the Sanhedrin to put Jesus to death at this particular time. But the excitement over Jesus aroused by the Triumphal Entry was one of the factors which, considered from the human point of view, hastened the crisis. 3. Jesus sets himself forth as the Messiah. By means of this Triumphal Entry he fulfils the Messianic prophecy of Zech. 9:9. Moreover, when the multitudes hail him as the Messiah, he does not in any way deny the clear implication of their Hosannas. 4. He also shows the multitudes what kind of a Messiah he is, namely, not the earthly Messiah of Israel's dreams. He enters Jerusalem mounted upon a colt, the foal of an ass, an animal associated not with the rigors of war but with the pursuits of peace. He enters as the Prince of Peace. B. Sources The story is found in all four Gospels, but the accounts differ, even though they do not conflict in any way. One might compare this with the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand. There, too, the story was found in all four Gospels (as we pointed out in Vol. I, pp. 13, 216); but the accounts differed to such an extent that of the more than fifty verses which John devotes to the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Sermon on the Bread of Life (which followed) only a very few have a parallel in the Synoptics. The accounts are so very different that we included John 6(the miracle and the discourse taken together) in the list of distinctly Johannine material (Vol. I. pp. 34, 216, and 227). We have something similar in John 12. John presents a summary. Nevertheless, even in this account one finds several details that are not recorded in the Synoptics. Also, whereas the Synoptists (as Edersheim observes) accompany Jesus from Bethany, John, on the other hand, seems to follow from Jerusalem that multitude which, on tidings of his approach, hastened to meet him. ^[102] In order to be able to appreciate the Johannine account of the Triumphal Entry it is probably best first of all to see the whole story, in outline-form. Piecing together the different accounts (Synoptics and John) we obtain the following: 1.Matt. 21:1–3, 6, 7; Mark 11:1 6; Luke 19:29 34: As Jesus takes his departure from Bethany, very soon after starting out (perhaps on approaching the eastern slope of the mount of Olives) he sends two of his disciples into a small village (probably Bethphage, which has been called a suburb of Jerusalem), in order to fetch from there a donkey on which he plans to enter the capital. In reality (as Matthew points out) there were two animals (a colt and its dam), but it appears later that Jesus makes use of the colt, the other animal either trotting by its side or else being held back by the disciples. The disciples find everything exactly as Jesus had predicted: they find the ass and its colt tied to a stake at the entrance of the village. There are some people standing around. Why are you untying them (or it)? ask the owners. The Lord needs them (it), is the answer. The owners, who were probably disciples of Jesus, comply immediately, and the disciples bring the animals to Jesus. 2.Matt. 21:4, 5; Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14, 15: The disciples throw their outer garments upon both of the animals (not knowing at first which one Jesus will choose), and when it has become clear that he wishes to ride upon the colt, they assist him in mounting this animal. Jesus starts out toward Jerusalem. Both Matthew and John see in this event a fulfilment of the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. Stop being afraid, daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming, mounted on the colt of an ass. 3.Matt. 21:8; Mark 11:8; Luke 19:36: Most of the people who accompany Jesus from Bethany spread their garments in the way. Others cut branches from the trees and with these they pave the way before him. 4.John 12:1, 12, 13a, 18: Meanwhile the multitude of pilgrims who had previously arrived in Jerusalem and had heard a. that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, and b. that he was on his way toward the city, come pouring out of the eastern gate on their way to meet him. They cut fronds from the palm-trees that line the road, and with these they proceed on their way to welcome the Messiah. 5.Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9, 10; Luke 19:37, 38; John 12:13b: As the two throngs meet, the enthusiasm mounts. This large multitude consisting of those who (having turned around as soon as they met him) are going ahead of him and of those who follow, includes the following elements: the Twelve, a throng from Bethany (many of whom had witnessed the miracle, which, however, had also been witnessed by some from Jerusalem), a host of pilgrims from Galilee (who had reached their destination, Jerusalem), and even some hostile Pharisees. Descending the western slope of the mount of Olives, and drawing near to Jerusalem, the combined throngs, with the exception of the hostile Pharisees, start to shout: Hosanna! Blessed is he (who is) coming in the name of the Lord, Even the king of Israel! Blessed is the kingdom that is coming, The kingdom of our father David. Peace in heaven, And glory in the highest. 6. John 12:17: That part of the multitude which had been with Jesus when Lazarus was raised from the dead continues to bear testimony with reference to this astounding deed. As a result, the excitement and the enthusiasm reaches a climax. 7. Luke 19:39, 40: The Pharisees, beside themselves with envy as they listen to this mad cheering, appeal to Jesus to stop it: Teacher, rebuke your disciples! Jesus answers: I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out. 8. Luke 19:41 44: When, of a sudden, the city comes into view, Jesus, fully realizing that much of the praise which he had been receiving is shallow and is based upon the identification of himself with the expected earthly, political Messiah, breaks into loud weeping. Before his prophetic eyes there arises the vision of Jerusalem as a besieged city, a city surrounded by Roman legions. In a wail of bitter lamentation he cries: Would that even today you, yes you yourself, had known the things that pertain to peace! but now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up earthworks around you and surround you and besiege you from every direction, and will dash to the ground you and your children within you, and will not leave one stone upon another within you, because you did not know the time of your visitation. 9. Matt. 21:10, 11 As Jesus enters Jerusalem, the entire city is stirred. Everybody who had remained behind, on seeing someone surrounded by a great multitude and riding into the city on a donkey, asks, Who is this? The answer comes back, This is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee. 10. Matt. 21:14; Mark 11:11a Arrived in the temple, Jesus heals the blind and the lame. 11.Matt. 21:15, 16 The children in the temple begin to shout, Hosanna to the son of David. The chief priests and the scribes, in their fury, ask Jesus: Do you hear what these are saying? Jesus answers, Yes, have you never read: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? 12. John 12:19 The Pharisees, filled with the spirit of frustration, envy, and rage, say to each other, You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him. 13.Matt. 21:17; Mark 11:11b When evening falls, Jesus and the Twelve retire to Bethany for the night. 14.John 12:16 Not until Jesus had been glorified did the disciples, looking back and revolving all these things in their minds, realize that the Triumphal Entry was the fulfilment of prophecy. 12:12–19 12 The next day the vast multitude that had come to the feast, on hearing that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 13 took the branches of palm-trees and went out to meet him. And they kept on shouting: Hosanna! Blessed is he (who is) coming in the name of the Lord, Even the King of Israel! 14 Now Jesus found a young donkey and mounted it, as it is written: 15 Stop being afraid, daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming, mounted on the colt of an ass. 16 These things his disciples did not understand at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they recalled that about him these things had been written, and that these things had been done to him. 17 And the crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead kept on testifying. 18 And for this reason the multitude went out to meet him, because they had heard that he had performed this sign. 19 So the Pharisees said to each other, You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him? Of the fourteen elements that enter into the composition of this harmonized story John has six (items 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, and 14). The first three he has in common with the Synoptics; the last three are new material. In listing the fourteen items we are not claiming that the order in which we gave them is correct. All we can reasonably claim is that the sequence which we have presented is probably not far removed from the facts of history as they occurred. 12:12, 13a. The next day the vast multitude that had come to the feast, on hearing that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm-trees and went out to meet him. This is item 4 in the list as given in the Preliminary Remarks on this section. Hence, if the order which we have suggested is correct, Jesus, riding upon a young donkey, is even now proceeding from Bethany toward Jerusalem. The multitude that is coming from Jerusalem toward the mount of Olives has heard about the raising of Lazarus (12:18) and about the approach of Jesus (12:12). The news that Jesus was actually planning to attend the feast (see on 12:9), in spite of the decision of the Sanhedrin (see on 11:57), had come first; and now the cry is heard: He is on the way! It was a large crowd, a Passover-multitude, that came pouring out of Jerusalem's eastern gate that Sunday-morning. At the sight of Jesus the people, having cut fronds from the palm-trees (literally: palm-branches of palm-trees), which in those days lined the road from Jerusalem to the mount of Olives, probably begin to wave these in token of rejoicing. In Scripture the palm-tree, with its perpetual verdure and remarkable longevity (constantly replenished with fresh vigor from deep-set roots), majestic growth and stately appearance (its trunk rising straight up from the earth, its magnificent crown of fronds), is a symbol of the righteousness and spiritual vigor of God's children (Ps. 92:12). Holding in one's hand the lulav palm with myrtle and willow branch on either side of it, according to the divine commandment (Lev. 23:40), and shaking it, was the way in which Israel during the feast of Tabernacles expressed its joy. Here in John 12the symbolism was the same. The multitude waved palm-branches in token of rejoicing and of triumph. Now at last victory (prosperity, salvation, conceived along earthly lines) seemed assured, for if this Jesus was able to raise from the dead a man who had been in the tomb four days, where were the limits to his power? Under such a leader one could even shake off the yoke of the Romans! The fact that not only today but also at that time palm-branches were considered to be an emblem not only of rejoicing but also of victory and prosperity has been called in question by certain commentators. Nevertheless, the sources point in the direction of this twofold meaning. Or, we might say, combining the two concepts, The waving of the palm-branch was the manifestation of the joy of victory, of the feeling: everything is going to be better from now on. When Simon, the Maccabee, entered Jerusalem, in triumph, it is recorded that he entered with thanksgiving and branches of palm-trees and with harps and cymbals and with viols and hymns and songs, because there was destroyed a great enemy out of Israel (I Macc. 13:51). And when his brother, Judas the Maccabee, defeated the Syrians, it is said: the people carried branches and fair boughs, and palms also, and sang psalms (II Macc. 10:7). In the present context not only the carrying of palm-branches but also the raising of a mighty shout, which echoed from hill to hill, and began with the exclamation Hosanna!, certainly lends support to the view that it was the joy of victory and prosperity to which the people were giving expression. 13b. And they kept on shouting: Hosanna! Blessed is he (who is) coming in the name of the Lord, Even the King of Israel! This is item 5 in the Preliminary Remarks on this section. The two crowds the one from Bethany and the other from Jerusalem are now united. The procession is descending the western slope of the mount of Olives. The cheering grows louder and louder. For this tumultuous jubilation and enthusiasm there were the following reasons: (1) Passover was near at hand, in commemoration of the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. At such occasions deliverance from foreign subjugation was always one of the main themes of conversation. (2) To liberate the Jews from Roman domination required a mighty deliverer. Jesus had already demonstrated his extraordinary power, especially by raising Lazarus from the dead. Hence, it looked as if now at last the ancient dream of the re-establishment of the Davidic dynasty would attain fulfilment. See also on 6:15. What the Jews kept on shouting, as they paved the way for Jesus by strewing branches, and as they shook their palm-fronds, was: Hosanna! This is derived from the imperative form of the verb to save, and means save now, or save, pray. It is a supplication addressed to Jehovah by the worshipper, who is convinced that the proper time for full deliverance has now at last arrived. In the spirit of joy and of approaching triumph he prays that Jehovah may no longer delay the promised salvation. It amounts to: We beseech thee, O Jehovah, save now. We wish to stress that this expression had not deteriorated into a mere exclamation of elation like our Hurrah!, but that it still retained (at least some of) its original sense: Save now.& Send now prosperity. ^[103] Proof: it has this supplicatory sense in (Ps. 118:25, and the words which followJohn 12) indicate that the people were thinking of that Hallel Psalm. Accordingly, the shout continues with these words (Ps. 118:26): Blessed is he (who is) coming in the name of the Lord. Ps. 118 (is one of six Psalms most often referred to in the New Testament. (For the others see Vol. I, p. 123). It is a distinctly Messianic Psalm, a Psalm which speaks about the stone which the builders rejected and which became the head of the cornerPs. 118:22, 23with Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; and I Pet. 2:7). Clearly, according to Ps. 118(in the light of its New Testament interpretation), the One who is coming in the name of the Lord, and who is called Blessed is the Messiah. Note the verses quoted in John 12as they appear in their Ps. 118context: The stone which the builders rejected Is become the head of the corner, This is the day which Jehovah has made; We will rejoice and be glad in it. Save now, we beseech thee, O Jehovah; O Jehovah, we beseech thee, send now prosperity. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of Jehovah. Psalms 118was one of the Hallel Psalms sung at Passover.^[104] But did the Jews regard Ps. 118to be Messianic? From Mark 11:8, 9it is clear that the vast multitude proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah-king. According to John 12:13b they regarded him as the Blessed One, who had come to them in the name (revelation) of the Lord Jehovah. However, it is also clear that very many of those people who cheered so loudly and who supplicated with such enthusiasm were hoping that this Messiah would answer their earthly expectations. They hailed him as the King of Israel, the One who was about to re-establish the kingdom of our father David. To them he was the mighty miracle-worker (Luke 19:37). In the light of all this it does not surprise us that when Jesus saw the city, he wept over it. See Point 8 in the Preliminary Remarks. 14, 15. Now Jesus found a young donkey and mounted it, as it is written: Stop being afraid, daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming, mounted on the colt of an ass. Here the story, as John tells it, leaves the multitude, and turns to Jesus, coming from Bethany. Having found and mounted a donkey (see points 1 and 2, Preliminary Remarks, for the commentary which is provided by the Synoptics) Jesus is proceeding toward Jerusalem. What he did was a clear fulfilment of prophecy, and the people of Jerusalem should have seen this immediately. The prediction which he fulfilled is found in the book of Zechariah (9:9). See point 2, Preliminary Remarks. That book has as its theme: The Future Glory of Zion and of Its Shepherd-King Its four divisions are: I. Visions (1:1 6:8) II. A Symbolic Act (6:9–15) III. An answer to a Question (chapters 7, 8) IV. Predictions and Promises (chapters 9 14) Especially the second and the fourth division are clearly Messianic, though several sections of Part I are in the same category. Division IV comprises predictions and promises regarding the future of Zion, and the rejection and subsequent glory of its Shepherd-King.^[105] The prophecy quoted is taken from the fourth division. With the version as given in (Matthew 21:5one should compare that found in the LXX. John abbreviates still more, and changes Rejoice greatly to Stop being afraid. However, this is not serious, the underlying thought is exactly the same: when one rejoices greatly, he will also, in course of timeMatt. 28:8), stop being afraid. John also omits the line just and having salvation, lowly, (reduced in Matthew to the one word meek), and for the animal on which Jesus rode he simply has the colt of an assMatt. 21:5, which has given rise to various interpretations . When Zion receives its own king, there is no reason to fear. This time no foreign king is approaching Jerusalem; hence, let the daughter of Zion cease being fearful. This king, in harmony (as has been indicated) with the entire fourth division of Zechariah's prophecy, is the Shepherd-King, Messiah himself. Even the Talmud applies this prophecy to the Messiah. The daughter of Zion, who is here addressed, is Zion itself, i.e., Jerusalem and its inhabitants.^[106] The daughter of Zion is told that its king, its spiritual Messiah, the One who will open a fountain for sin and for uncleanness (Zech. 13:1), is coming. To emphasize the peaceful character of his approach and of his reign it is added that he is mounted upon the colt of an ass. He comes as the Prince of Peace, not as a war-lord. Hence, the daughter of Zion should stop being afraid. The ass or donkey is commonly associated with the pursuits of peace (Judg. 10:4; 12:14; II Sam. 17:23; 19:26; Is. 1:3); the horse, with warfare (Ex. 15:1, 19, 21; Ps. 33:17; 76:6; 147:10; Prov. 21:31; Jer. 8:6; 51:21; Zech. 10:3; and Rev. 6:4). This king is meek ([Greek]), peaceful, gentle. He comes to bring salvation. O that the people would understand it! But even the disciples did not understand it at the time, as the following verse indicates: 16. These things his disciples did not understand at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they recalled that about him these things had been written, and that these things had been done to him. See point 14, Preliminary Remarks on this section. Due to ignorance of the Scriptures and little faith (Luke 24:25) even the Twelve did not immediately understand that the act of Jesus was the fulfilment of the prophecy of Zech. 9:9, and that by means of it he was proclaiming himself to be the spiritual Messiah. When Jesus was glorified by means of his cross and resurrection, and had sent forth his Spirit (16:12, 13), all this became clear to them. They recalled everything, and saw what it meant. They understood that Zech. 9:9referred to him, and that these things had been done to him. (One should not insist on the translation: that they had done these things to him, and then start to wonder what is meant by they. This is a simple Aramaism; for the active we substitute the passive; cf. Vol. I, pp. 63, 64). These things means: the waving of palm-branches, spreading of branches in the way, the cheering, etc. 17, 18. And the crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead kept on testifying. And for this reason the multitude went out to meet him, because they had heard that he had performed this sign. John returns once more to the multitude. See points 4 and 6, Preliminary Remarks. The translation as we give it here is based upon the best reading ([Greek] instead of [Greek]), and makes excellent sense. Bear in mind that the large multitude consisted of several component elements, mentioned under point 5, p. 185. As the large multitude proceeded on its way, those who had been with Jesus when he raised Lazarus from the dead kept on testifying to the others. It was such an unheard of and wonderful deed that they just had to tell it again and again. They testified what they had seen with their own eyes! For the meaning of testify see on 1:7. In thorough harmony with 12:9 we read that the vast multitude of pilgrims which had come to Jerusalem from every quarter had gone out to meet Jesus because they had heard that he had performed this (great) sign, namely, raising Lazarus from the dead. 19. So the Pharisees said to each other, You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him. See point 12, Preliminary Remarks. The more radical Pharisees said to the milder party this seems probable, though not stated in so many words: You see that you are gaining nothing, by your delay. Something has to be done, and done quickly, or it will be too late. Look, they add, the world has gone (away from us) after him. The Pharisees are frantic! The world, in a different sense, was indeed going after him: the Greeks were coming! See the next section (12:20 36a). Synthesis of 12:12–19 See the Outline on p. 134. The Son of God Makes His Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem The Preliminary Remarks on this section form a Synthesis. 12:20 36a 20 Now of those who were accustomed to go up in order that they might worship at the feast there were some Greeks. 21 So these came to Philip, the one from Bethsaida of Galilee, and they were requesting him, saying, Sir, we wish to see Jesus. 22 Philip went and told Andrew. Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. 23 Then Jesus answered them, saying, It has come, the hour in which^[107] the Son of man must be glorified. 24 Most solemnly I declare to you, unless the grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies it bears much fruit.^[108] 25 He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world keeps it with a view to everlasting life, 26 If anyone serves me, let him follow me,^[109] and where I am there also shall my servant be. If anyone serves me, him will the Father honor.^[110] 27 Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour! But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. So there came a voice out of heaven, And I have glorified it, and again I will glorify it. 29 However, the multitude that were standing (there), when they heard it, were saying that it had thundered. Others were saying, An angel has spoken to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, Not for my sake has this voice occurred, but for your sake. 31 Now is the judgment of this world. Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. ^[111] 33 This he was saying, signifying by what kind of death he was about to die. 34 So the multitude answered him, We heard from the law that the Christ remains forever; how then do you say that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man? 35 So Jesus said to them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you. He who is walking in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light believe in the light, in order that you may become sons of light. 12:20. Now of those who were accustomed to go up in order that they might worship at the feast there were some Greeks. From the Jews the story now for a moment turns to the Greeks. The passage does not refer to Hellenists (Acts 6:1) or Greek-speaking Jews, but to Hellenes (Greeks). We do not believe that the meaning which the author wishes to convey is that these Greeks were among the regular Jewish worshippers. On the contrary, the meaning is this, that these Greeks were of ([Greek], the partitive idea, as in 1:24, 35, 40; 7:48) those who were accustomed to go up in order that they might worship at the feast; in other words, these Greeks belonged to the large group of worshippers whom we commonly call proselytesActs 10:1, 22, 35; 13:16, 26, 43, 50; 17:4, uncircumcised converts to the monotheistic religion of the Jews . In the original we have the present participle of the verb to go up (hence, those going up or those accustomed to go up). The concept going up to Jerusalem is explained in connection with 2:13. For at the feast (of Passover) see also on 2:13. These Greeks, then, were Gentiles who had given up their worship of many gods and had been won over to the worship of the one God, the God of Israel. The fact that such people were allowed to render religious worship in the temple is clear from I Kings 8:42; Is. 56:7; Mark 11:17. They were not permitted to proceed any farther than the Court of the Gentiles. For the meaning of the verb translated worship see on 4:23 and 9:38. 21, 22. So these came to Philip, the one from Bethsaida of Galilee, and they were requesting him, saying, Sir, we wish to see Jesus. Philip went and told Andrew. Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. These Greeks desire to have an interview with Jesus. It is not surprising that they hesitate to approach the Lord directly. It is not clear to them whether he will welcome an interview. So they ask Philip to act as intermediary. Of course, not the deacon and evangelistActs 6and 8 is meant, but one of the Twelve, the apostle Philip who was from Bethsaida of Galilee (on this see the discussion in connection with 1:44 and 6:1; Vol. I, p. 108 and especially pp. 216, 217), the town of Andrew and Peter. Why did they single out Philip? And why did he, in turn, consult Andrew? Did these two men speak Greek better than the rest? Is it more than a mere coincidence that among the Twelve these are the only disciples that appear from the outset with Greek names? (But one must be careful in drawing an inference from this; see on 3:1.) Or was there a totally different reason why these two men are in the foreground in this story? We do not have the answer. See also Vol. I, pp. 102–105, 108, 112. The Greeks address Philip very politely, They say, Sir. ^[112] The expression, We wish to see Jesus, cannot mean, We wish to see how he looks, in order that our curiosity with reference to him may be satisfied, and we may be able to tell our friends that we have feasted our eyes on this celebrity. Nor does it necessarily mean, We wish to place before Jesus the proposal that he forget about the rebellious Jews and from now on preach the Gospel to us, Greeks. That interpretation reads too much into the text. With a view to what follows (see especially verses 24 and 32) it would seem that the desire of the Greeks had something to do with the great subject of salvation. Did they wish to see Jesus: a. because the wisdom of the Greeks had suffered shipwreck, having failed to satisfy the deepest longings of the soul? And b. because on the basis of what they had heard about Jesus they had become hopeful that he might be able to supply that spiritual peace of mind which they had not been able to find anywhere else? That is not at all improbable. To Philip and later to Philip and Andrew the request of the Greeks presented a double problem: a. In view of what Jesus had said on other occasions (Matt. 10:5; 15:24), could he consistently welcome Greeks into his presence? But, on the other hand, had he not spoken about other sheep, not of this fold, whom he must also gather? See also (Matt. 8:5–13. Just what was the attitude of Jesus toward Greeks: would he welcome them or would he refuse to give them audience? b. Would not Jesus by granting audience to the Greeks invite the wrath of all the Jewish people, especially if the interview were to be held anywhere in the temple?Acts 21:28). The problem being too big for Philip, he consults his friend and fellow-townsman, Andrew. Andrew and Philip, hesitating to offend the Greeks, also hesitating to encourage them, place the request of the Greeks before Jesus. 23, 24. Then Jesus answered them, saying, It has come, the hour in which the Son of man must be glorified. Most solemnly I declare to you, Unless the grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies it bears much fruit. Jesus answered Andrew and Philip. They, in turn, could convey the answer to the Greeks. A multitude of Jews was standing around when Jesus made his reply (12:29). In the request of the Greeks Jesus sees his seed, i.e., numerous spiritual posterity. This had been promised to the Messiah as the fruit of his voluntary sacrifice: When his soul shall make an offering for sin, he shall see his seedIs. 53:10, A.R.V., margin . Apart from this voluntary sacrifice Jesus could do nothing for these Greeks. Did they understand that? Did they realize that an earthly Messiah, no matter how famous (think of the praise he received at the occasion of the Triumphal Entry!) would avail them not at all? Did they fully understand that it was only by means of his substitutionary atonement that he, as spiritual Messiah, would be able to save them? To stress this thought Jesus immediately speaks of his death. He says, It has come, the hour in which the Son of man must be glorified. Previously he had indicated that the decisive moment, the time of most bitter suffering, had not yet arrived (see on 7:30; 8:20).^[113] Now, it has come! The term hour, it is hardly necessary to point out, must not be taken too literally, as if it referred to a period of exactly sixty minutes. It is the designated time, the season in which the Lord entered the valley of most intense suffering, followed by the just and promised reward: the resurrection, ascension, and coronation. In this climax of humiliation followed immediately by glorious exaltation the Son of man (see on 12:34) is glorified: the radiance of his grace and the majesty of his truth is made to stand out. The Father, in giving up the Son to die on the cross, and in granting him the promised reward, exhibits the divine attributes (love, justice, omnipotence, faithfulness, etc.) in all their majestic and indescribable beauty. They are displayed publicly for all who have eyes to see. With a view to the absolute necessity of his death Jesus adds, Most solemnly I declare to you (for this introductory phrase see on 1:51), Unless the grain of wheat (Mark 4:28; Luke 12:18) falls to the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Apart from the cross there is no spiritual harvest. (Gen. 2:16, 17; Luke 24:26; Rom. 3:23–25; 5:12–21.) The illustration was very clear, especially at the moment when it was spoken, not more than a few days before the (religious and) harvest feast of Passover. The kernels or seeds had been entrusted to the soil. As seeds they had died. But by means of this very process of dissolution they had brought forth an abundant harvest. If a seed is not sown, it remains alone, producing no fruit. So also if Jesus does not die, he will remain alone, without spiritual fruit (souls saved for eternity). His death, however, will result in a rich, spiritual harvest. 25, 26. He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it with a view to everlasting life. If anyone serves me, let him follow me, and where I am there also shall my servant be. If anyone serves me, him will the Father honor. The solemn truth stated in verse 24 applies to Christ, to him alone! He alone dies as a substitute, and in doing so bears much fruit. Nevertheless, there is an analogous principle which operates in the sphere of men. It is the one stated in verses 25, 26. The relation between the two laws (the one applying to Christ, the other to his disciples) may be summarized as follows: 1. As to Christ: If there is to be fruit, he must die (verse 24). 2. As to his disciple: he must be willing to die for the cause of Christ (verses 25, 26). Of course, he cannot do this in his own strength. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIII Outline of Chapter 13 Theme: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God During his Private Ministry Issuing and Illustrating His New Commandment Predicting the Betrayal and the Denial 13:1–20 He Illustrates His New Commandment by Washing the Feet of His Disciples, Explaining to Them That He Has Given Them an Example to be Followed. 13:21–30 He Startles the Disciples by Telling Them that One of Their Number Is Going to Betray Him. Judas Leaves. 13:31–38 He Issues His New Commandment and Predicts Peter's Denial. 13:1–18 13 1 Now Jesus, knowing before the feast of the Passover that his hour to^[122] depart out of this world (and to go) to the Father had arrived, having loved his own in the world, loved them to the uttermost. 2 And at supper,^[123] the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4 rose from the supper, laid aside his garments, and having taken a towel, tied it around his waist.^[124] 5 Then he poured water into the wash-basin, and began to wash the disciples feet, and to dry them with the towel which was tied around his waist.^[125] 6 So he came to Simon Peter, who said to him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? 7 Jesus answered and said to him, What I am doing you do not know now, but hereafter you will understand. 8 Peter said to him, By no means shalt thou wash my feet ever. Jesus answered him, If I do not wash you, you have no share with me. ^[126] 9 Simon Peter said to him, Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head! 10 Jesus said to him, He who has bathed has no need of washing anything except his feet, but is clean altogether. And you are clean, but not all of you are. 11 For he knew the one who was betraying him. It was for this reason that he said, Not all of you are clean. 12 So when he had washed their feet, had taken his garments, and had resumed his place, he said to them, Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say (this) correctly, for (that is what) I am. 14 If, therefore, I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash each other's feet,^[127] 15 for I have given you an example, in order that just as I did to you so also you should do. 16 Most solemnly do I assure you, the servant is not greater than his lord, neither is he who is sent^[128] greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.^[129] 18 Not of you all am I speaking. I know the ones I have chosen; but (it is) in order that^[130] the scripture may be fulfilled: He who eats my bread Has lifted his heel against me. 19 From now on I am telling (this) to you before (it) takes place, in order that when it does take place you may continue to believe that I am (he). 20 I most solemnly assure you, he who receives anyone whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me. 13:1. Now Jesus, knowing (already) before the feast of the Passover that his hour to depart out of this world (and to go) to the Father had arrived, having loved his own in the world, loved them to the uttermost. The fact that he was now about to depart out of this realm of mankind (for the meaning of [Greek] see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26; here in 13:1 meaning 2 seems probable), and that he was about to go home, that is, to go back to the Father (see also on 5:24; 8:23; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 28; and 17:5) did not suddenly dawn upon Jesus. Even in his human nature (see Vol. I, p. 191) he had known it long before this feast of Passover of the year 30 a.d. It was in the full and reassuring^[131] knowledge of this fact that he approached the momentous events of Passover-week. On Christ's foreknowledge see also 2:4; 7:6; 12:23; 13:11, 18; 18:4; 19:28. Hence, he who all along had loved his own disciples (his own not merely in the sense of 1:11, but in the full and comprehensive sense of 17:6, 9, 11, 20) considered this to be the appropriate time for the manifestation of his love to the uttermost (I Thess. 2:16). In all that follows that is, in the feet-washing, farewell address, highpriestly prayer, crucifixion, etc. that love-motive is operating. For the meaning of the term the feast of the Passover, see Vol. I, pp. 121, 122; and see on 13:29. That briefly is the meaning of 13:1, as we see it, in the light of its own context. Our translation of this verse indicates that we take the phrase before the feast of the Passover to modify the nearest verbal form, which in this case is the participle knowing. That would seem to be the most natural. We admit, however, that it is grammatically possible to construe this phrase with the main verb he loved. If this is interpreted to mean that at the very beginning of Passover-week Jesus exhibited his love most gloriously (by means of the feet-washing), the resulting explanation is not far removed from ours. Hint: those readers of this book who are not interested in the discussion of critical problems are advised to proceed at once to verses 2, 3, 4. The Origin of a Problem However, among the interpreters who believe that the phrase before the feast of the Passover modifies he loved there are those who inject an entirely different idea into the text. Their interpretation is as follows: Now twenty-four hours before the Passover Supper, Jesus, having all along loved his own who were in the world, showed his love in the most glorious manner by eating a meal with them, in connection with which he washed their feet. Proceeding upon this assumption, it is further argued that, as John sees it, the meal of chapter 13 cannot have been a Passover. Others, however, are of the opinion that John wishes it to be viewed as a Passover Supper which Jesus and his disciples ate a day in advance of the regular time. In either case, as these interpreters see it, it was John's intention to picture the Lord as the true Passover Lamb who died when the paschal lambs were sacrificed in the temple-court. He dies while the Jews have not yet eaten their Passover lamb. Or, as others see it (cf. Proposed Solutions (4)), he dies while many Jews for example, the Sadducees have not yet had their Passover Supper (as will be explained). Further support for this idea, namely, that the meal of John 13:2as viewed by the author of the Fourth Gospel, precedes by one day the (or a) Passover Supper, is by some interpreters found in 13:29: &buy what we need for the feast, which clause is then interpreted to mean, &buy what we need for the Passover Supper. It is argued that this passage clearly shows that at the time of the meal referred to in 13:2, the food necessary for the Passover Supper had not even been bought. Here again some would modify the last sentence so as to read, At the time of the meal referred to in 13:2, the food necessary for the Passover Supper as observed by many had not even been bought. One more passage which is considered to be a strong bulwark in support of this theory Isaiah 18:28, which shows, according to these interpreters, that, as John sees it, on the very morning of the crucifixion the Passover lamb had not yet been eaten by anybody. With reference to the men who led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium we read, They themselves did not enter the praetorium, in order that they might not be defiled but might eat the passover. And here once more certain interpreters (cf. Proposed Solutions (4)) would say that 18:28 shows that, as John sees it, by many Jews on the very morning of the crucifixion the Passover lamb had not yet been eaten. But, as far as possible, we shall leave 18:28 out of consideration in the present discussion. See, however, on that verse. The Problem Stated The problem that results is as follows: Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7) clearly teach that Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover Supper at the prescribed time; and that he died on (what we would call) the following dayMark 15:1ff. . But, if the interpreters whose view we have described are correct, then John teaches that Jesus died before the Jews ate their Passover lamb. Or, according to some, Jesus died before many of the Jews ate it. Did Jesus die after the Passover Supper (thus the Synoptics), or did he die before the Passover Supper (thus, say some, John)? That is the question. The Proposed Solutions With respect to a possible answer or solution the following opinions have been expressed: (1) A true solution which takes into account all the data of Scripture has not yet been proposed. The problem is very difficult. Often those who express this opinion purposely avoid saying anything that might create the impression that they believe that John and the Synoptics cannot be harmonized. They believe that somehow there is a solution, but that it has not yet been discovered. This is honest, and we have the highest respect for the men who give this answer. They are usually careful scholars of the orthodox persuasion. Others, however, believe that there is no solution, that the sources simply leave us completely in the dark, and that all we know is that Jesus died about the time of the feast of Passover. (2) The Synoptics and John contradict each other. The Synoptics are right. John is wrong. This is the general trend of the answer as given by G. Dalman, Jesus Jeshua, New York, 1929; pp. 88, 106. As he sees it, the supper of John 13is not a Passover meal. Jesus is by John represented as dying before the Passover. The Synoptics are more objective than the Fourth Gospel with respect to this subject. Siding with the Synoptics against John (though with individual variations) are also F. C. Baur, D. F. Strauss, W. Bauer and many others. (3) The Synoptics and John contradict each other. John is right. The Synoptics are wrong. Thus, J. H. Barnard, M. Dibelius, E. Hoskyns, A. E. J. Rawlinson, H. Windish, etc. M. Dods simply states that according to John, though not in agreement with the Synoptists, Jesus suffered as the Paschal Lamb on the day of the Passover. (4) The problem is solved by bearing in mind that Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover Thursday-evening, when most of the Jewish people including the Pharisees also ate it; and that the Sadducees celebrated Passover the next evening (Friday). In John 13:2the supper is the Passover of the Synoptics. In 18:28 the Passover is that of the Sadducees. Hence, when the Synoptics indicate that Jesus died after the Passover Supper, they are right, and when the Fourth Gospel (in 18:28) teaches that he died before the Passover Supper, it is also right. Various reasons for eating the Passover Supper on two days are given by different authors. Some say that when the fifteenth of Nisan coincided with the sabbath, the Pharisees, fearing that they might otherwise desecrate the sabbath by carrying out the elaborate Passover-ritual, would celebrate it a day earlier; while the Sadducees were not so scrupulous. Others point out that there were sometimes differences of opinion with respect to the day when the month was supposed to begin; or that so very many lambs had to be sacrificed in the temple-court that they could not all be killed in a single afternoon. In one form or another this theory is advocated by D. Chwolson in Das Letzte Passamahl Jesu-Christi und der Tag seines Todes nach den in Uebereinstemmung gebrachten Berichten der Synoptiker und des Evangeliums Johannis, St. Petersburg, 1892; S.BK., pp. 812–854; J. H. Bavinck, Geschiedenis der Godsopenbaring, Kampen, 1949, pp. 419, 420; C. Bouma, W. M. Christie, P. A. E. Sillevis-Smit, J. Th. Ubbink, etc. In the Light of Its Origin Has This Problem a Right of Existence here in chapter 13? Any attempt at solving the problem presupposes that there is a legitimate problem. But, as far as chapter 13 is concerned, is there? Is it not clear that the problem arose out of two assumptions: (a) that the supper of 13:2 is not the same as the Passover Supper described in the Synoptics (exception: those who favor Proposed Solution (4) consider it to have been the same); and (b) that the term feast in 13:29 has reference to the Passover Supper and the lamb eaten at that supper? Were it not for these two assumptions, there would be no problem here in chapter 13. But see also on 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42. Are these assumptions warranted? As to the first assumption, it has already been shown that it rests not only upon a construction of the Greek text which is by no means certain (the view that the phrase before the feast of the Passover modifies he loved in 13:1) but upon an even more uncertain interpretation which is super-imposed upon this uncertain construction, as if the text read, Now twenty-four hours before the Passover Supper Jesus &showed his love by eating a meal with his disciples, namely, the meal of 13:2. For the rest, we can safely leave it to the reader to decide whether or not John and the Synoptists are discussing the same Supper. Here is the evidence. Please compare the two accounts: The Meal as Described by Matthew, Mark, and Luke: The Meal as Described by John: And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, With great desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer And there arose also a dispute among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them &he that is greatest among you, let him become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is greater, one who sits at the table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at the table? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves. (Luke 22:14, 15, 24 27). The dispute about greatness (Luke) is the natural background for the feetwashing (John). After washing the feet of his disciples Jesus said: Most solemnly do I assure you, the servant is not greater than his lord, neither is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. (13:16, 17). And as they &were eating, Jesus said, I solemnly assure you, One of you shall betray me, one who is eating with me. This is followed by a detailed account of the reaction (to this startling announcement) on the part of the disciples (Mark 14:17 21; Matt. 26:20–25). I am not speaking of you all. I know whom I have chosen; but it is in order that the scripture may be fulfilled: He who eats my bread Has lifted his heel against me. &I most solemnly assure you, one of you will betray me. This is followed by a detailed account of the reaction (to this startling announcement) on the part of the disciples (13:18, 21 30). The details (as given by the Synoptists and by John) differ, but do not conflict. Jesus said to him (i.e., to Peter), I solemnly assure you, that this night before the rooster crows, you will thrice deny me (Matt. 26:34; cf. Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34). The actual denial follows during the same night. It has to follow, for it was going to occur before the rooster crows. Jesus answered, Will you lay down your life for me? I most solemnly assure you, the rooster will not crow until you have thrice denied me (13:38). The actual denial follows during the same night. It has to follow, for it was going to occur before the rooster crows. Must we, indeed, assume that these three identical incidents the lesson with respect to true greatness, the startling announcement about the betrayer, and the prediction of Peter's denial, followed shortly afterward by the actual denial occurred in connection with two different meals on two different evenings? Did Peter deny the Lord on two successive nights? Is it not clear that the Synoptics and John are describing the same supper, and that John, having read the accounts of the others, adds certain details? Having established that it was the same supper we now have the right to go to the Synoptics to ask what kind of supper it was. From such passages as Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12, 14; and Luke 22:11, 14, 15it becomes clear that it was the Passover Supper. That this supper was eaten at the regular time, that is, during the evening which followed the afternoon when according to the law of Moses the lambs had been killed, is clear from (Luke 22:7. Jesus was crucified the next dayLuke 22:66 23:33). That the day of Christ's death was a Friday, the day before the sabbath, is expressly stated in (Mark 15:42Luke 23:54). It was Preparation Day ([Greek]), which has long been the regular term for Friday in the Greek language (as my Greek calendar also indicates). Now John is in complete harmony with this. He also relates that Jesus died on Friday (19:14; 19:31; 19:42). One can also arrive at this result from another angle. According to the Fourth Gospel Jesus arose on the first day of the week; hence, on Sunday (20:1, 19). Beginning from there and paging backward in the New Testament, the chronology of John becomes clear. On the day preceding this Sunday his body rested in the tomb (19:31). On Friday he was crucified (19:30, 31). Since 18:28 note the expression It was early clearly begins a new day (namely, Friday), it is evident that the events related in 18:1–27 refer to the preceding day; i.e., to Thursday. But 18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out indicates that the Farewell Discourse and Highpriestly Prayer belong to the same Thursday. And a comparison between 13:38 The rooster will not crow until you have thrice denied me and 18:25–27 Peter's actual denial shows clearly that the events recorded in chapter 13 of John's Gospel occurred on this Thursday-evening. We are, therefore, in hearty accord with S.BK., p. 841, in believing that there is complete agreement between John and the Synoptics in this respect, namely, that the supper of 13:2 is the Passover Supper of the Synoptics, and that it took place on Thursday-evening, the evening before Christ's death. This leads to the discussion of the second assumption mentioned on p. 224. Does the term feast in 13:29 have reference to a Passover Supper and to the lamb eaten at that supper? The following should be noted: The Jewish people were fully aware of the fact that the law had stipulated one particular day for the slaughtering of the lambs. Two separate evenings for the eating of the lamb would have caused the wildest and most hopeless confusion. The Sadducees, who regulated the affairs of the temple, would certainly not have permitted it. See M. Goguel, op. cit., p. 433. Besides, does the disputed term in 13:29 refer at all to a Passover Supper? It has already been shown see Vol. I, pp. 121, 122 that the Old Testament calls the Passover a feast of seven days (Ezek. 45:21). The New Testament evidences the same usage. Thus, Luke 22:1applies the name Passover to the entire seven-day feast of unleavened bread. Now, with respect to the term feast in 13:29, what does this term (when applied to Passover) mean elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel? The remarkable fact is that in all probability it everywhere has the meaning seven-day festival. It was while Jesus was at the feast of Passover that many trusted in his name when they observed the signs which he was doing (2:23). Surely, Jesus did not perform these signs during the eating of the Passover Supper? The feast here is evidently the entire seven-day celebration. According to 4:45, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast, for they too had attended the feast. It is clear that here again the feast cannot refer to anything else than the seven-day festival. The next clear reference to the feast of Passover (the identity of the feast in 5:1 is disputed, as has been explained, Vol. I, pp. 187–189) Isaiah 6:4: Now the Passover was approaching, the feast of the Jews. We find exactly the same expression in 7:2. There, too, the feast is approaching, but this time it is the feast of Tabernacles. However, 7:37 the last day, the great day of the feast clearly shows that the reference is to the entire seven- (or eight-) day feast. If this is true with respect to 7:2, why not with respect to 6:4, where the same author uses the identical expression? The next reference to the feast of Passover is in 11:56 What do you think, that he will certainly not come to the feast? This cannot mean &to the Supper. In 12:12 the expression the vast multitude that had come to the feast the reference is, of course, to the seven-day festival. The Jews did not come from all over Palestine and from the regions outside of it in order to spend just one evening (and to partake of just one supper) in Jerusalem. Similarly, the supper of 13:2 which belongs to the feast (13:1) indicates the Passover Supper which was part of the seven-day celebration. Now if wherever (outside of 13:29) John employs the term feast with respect to the Passover, he always without exception refers to the entire seven-day festival, why would he not use the term in the same sense in 13:29? It is, therefore, entirely logical that the term feast in the expression &buy what we need for the feast be given the interpretation which must be attached to it everywhere else in John's Gospel. To assign any different meaning to it would be unwarranted. It has become evident that the supper of chapter 13, which occurred on the first evening of the feast of the Passover, was the regular Passover Supper, of which Jesus partook at the regular time, Thursday-evening. It has also become evident that there is nothing in chapter 13 which contradicts the idea that he was crucified on Friday, the fifteenth of Nisan. See further on 18:28. In the full consciousness of the fact that he was about to return to the Father, Jesus, who had loved his own all along, knew that the proper time had arrived to reveal to them his love to the uttermost. 3, 4. And at supper, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from the supper, laid aside his garments, and having taken a towel, tied it around his waist. It is Thursday-evening. The sun has gone down. It is supper-time. The translation supper being ended of the A.V. must be rejected. It is based upon an inferior reading ([Greek] instead of [Greek]), but even that reading does not necessarily mean supper being ended. ^[132] The washing of the feet would naturally occur not at the end of a supper but at the beginning. The situation as pictured here is as follows: Jesus and the disciples have come from Bethany. The feet, protected only by sandals, had become partly exposed to sand and dust. They were dirty, or at least uncomfortable. In such circumstances, the washing of the feet was customary. The host, though not himself performing this service (Gen. 18:4; Luke 7:44), would generally see to it that it was performed. It was, after all, a menial task, that is, a task to be discharged by a servant. When John the Baptist desired to give expression to his feeling of unworthiness in comparison to Christ, he could think of no better way to express this than to say that he deemed himself unworthy of kneeling down in front of Jesus in order to unloose his sandalstraps and remove the sandals (with a view to washing the Master's feet). See Vol. I, pp. 96, 97. Cf. I Sam. 25:41: And she (Abigail) arose, and bowed herself with her face to the earth, and said, Behold, thy handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord (David). But here in the Upper Room there was no servant. Hence, one of the disciples should have performed this task. But none was willing. These men were too proud. A few moments ago (probably in connection with the order in which they would recline around the table) they had been arguing among themselves about the question of greatness (Luke 22:24). And this was not the first time that they had been squabbling about it. The question, Who among us is the greatest? seems to have occupied their minds and hearts again and again. The fact that greatness is measured with the yardstick of service had not registered with them. In the Upper Room everything was ready. Here stood the pitcher and the wash-basin; and there lay the long linen cloth. There was water in the pitcher. Yet no one stirred. Each disciple was hoping that someone else would make the first move. And among these disciples there was one man so indescribably low in character that even at this very moment he was fully determined to betray the Lord, yes, fully resolved actually to deliver him up by treachery into the hands of his enemies, and to do this for thirty pieces of silver! Not one of the other disciples knew about this or suspected it. It was the devil who had injected this vile purpose into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son. Having discovered at length that being a disciple of Jesus would not pay off, and being a thoroughly greedy individual, he was determined not to be put out of the synagogue (see on 9:22) but instead to cultivate the favor of the authorities by showing them where Jesus was (11:57). See further on 6:71 and on 12:4–6. It was in the midst of such men men with the So Big attitude of heart, men with Judas the traitor in their midst that Jesus was about to set an example of humility and service. This reference to Judas, accordingly, makes the deed stand out in all its true greatness. Yes, the Master even washed the feet of Judas! Another wonderful circumstance which adds glory to the deed was the fact that when Jesus performed it, he did it in the full consciousness ([Greek], probably modal participle; not causal, nor merely concessive) that he was God's only begotten Son; hence, the rightful heir of all things. He knew that the Father had given all things into his hands cf. Psalms 2:8and see Vol. I, pp. 14, 150, and that he had come from God and was going to God (see above, on verse 1). Jesus waited a long time. The disciples had already occupied their places around the U-shaped table. The food was on the table, and the meal was about to begin. Still no one offered to perform the duty of the servant. The water-pitcher, the wash-basin, and the apron-towel, placed there in the plain sight of all, frowned upon them. These utensils constituted a silent accusation against these men! Still no one moved. It was then that Jesus acted. With calmness and majesty (see on verse 1 above) he rose from the supper and laid aside his garments ([Greek]). Note that the evangelist uses the plural garments both here and in verse 12. In 19:2 and 5 he uses the singular. In 19:23, 24 (the distribution of the garments among the soldiers, in connection with the crucifixion) he employs the plural once again. It seems, therefore that John makes a careful distinction. Hence, if the word garments in 13:2, 5 has the same meaning as in 19:23, 24, which seems probable, Jesus is pictured here as if he were an Oriental slave, wearing nothing but a loin-cloth. Phil. 2:7taking the form of a servant comes to our mind immediately. Both the flowing outer garment and the tunic (as well as the belt, of course) had been laid aside. Then Jesus took a long, linen cloth ([Greek], from the Latin, linteum), and tied it around his middle, sothat with the end of this towel he would be able to dry the disciples feet after he had washed them with his hands. Truly, the Lord of glory had girded himself with humility (I Peter 5:5). 5. Then he poured water into the wash-basin, and began to wash the disciples feet, and to dry them with the towel which was tied around his waist. The details of the action are pictured one by one. The scene had left an indelible impression on the mind of the evangelist John, who was present. Hence, the record is very graphic, and rightly so, the purpose being that the reader's mind may ponder this manifestation of wonderful condescension. The heart must linger here a while, until the lesson has been learned. Jesus poured water from the pitcher into the wash-basin. He placed the latter on the floor right behind one of the men whose feet projected from the couch on which he was reclining. With this water the Lord now proceeded to wash this disciple's feet. Then he dried them with the end of the towel which was tied around his waist. We have purposely used the terms wash-basin and wash in order to convey the similarity which in the original exists between the corresponding terms [Greek] and [Greek]. We do not know whose feet Jesus washed first of all. The words he began to wash probably serve to prepare the reader for the fact that there is going to be an interruption. (As this explanation agrees with the context, it would seem to be the most probable. But those commentators who discuss this point are not in agreement). The interruption is recorded in verses 6 11. 6. So he came to Simon Peter, who said to him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? The reactions of all but one of the disciples are not recorded. They probably kept their thoughts to themselves. Being perplexed and (let us hope) ashamed (exception: Judas, of course) of the fact that Jesus was doing for them what they should have done for him and for each other, they were at a loss what to say. However, with Peter it was different. Impetuous and impulsive Peter! He was the man who could not keep still. He did his thinking aloud. Lord (for the term see on 1:38, footnote 44; also on 12:21), says Peter, dost thou wash my feet? Peter sees the incongruity of what is happening. The Lord of glory, on the one hand, and Peter's dirty feet, on the other; what a contrast! To this disciple the very idea of the Lord washing Peter's feet was intolerable. According to the original, the contrast between the words thou and my is brought out by placing them next to each other. In order to retain the flavor of the original we should really render Peter's protest as follows: Lord, dost thou my feet wash? Peter was shocked! 7. Jesus answered and said to him, What I am doing you do not know now, but hereafter you will understand. For answered and said, see Vol. I, p. 64. Peter had raised his emphatic objection to what Jesus was beginning to do just now. Such an act of humiliation for the physical comfort of Peter was too much! He completely failed to realize that what the Lord was trying to do at this moment was part and parcel of all the events of this memorable night and of the hours that were to follow it. Peter simply did not know what he was saying; for if he demurs to the need of partial humiliation for his physical comfort, will he not have to reject the deed of absolute humiliation that has as its purpose his complete (spiritual as well as physical) salvation? In reality the two go together: when Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, that too is a necessary constituent of his suffering from conception to burial, whereby he merits salvation for his people. It was for this reason that Jesus, who saw not only a part but the whole, said to Peter, What I am doing you do not know now, but hereafter you will understand. For the difference in meaning between the two verbs here used ([Greek] and [Greek]) see on 1:10, 31; 3:11; and 8:28. For the meaning of the expression hereafter (literally, after these things, [Greek] ) see on 5:1. Of the many explanations of this expression here in 13:7 there are two which we reject: in the Hereafter, that is, after you have entered heaven; and b. as soon as I have washed the feet of all of you, and have added a few words of explanation. In harmony with 16:12–14 we must interpret the expression to mean after my death, resurrection, ascension; particularly, after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Then the meaning not only of this feetwashing but of my entire work of humiliation will become clear to you. 8. Peter said to him, By no means shalt thou wash my feet ever. Jesus answered him, If I do not wash you, you have no share with me. As already explained see on verse 7 Peter sees the part, not the whole. He is thinking only about what is happening just now, and even that he does not see in its true setting. Jesus, however, is constantly thinking about the whole work of humiliation, of which this feet-washing is only a part. It is necessary to keep this distinction in mind. Otherwise it will be impossible to explain the dialogue. Peter, conscious of the incongruity of the present situation, but completely unaware of the incongruity of a disciple telling his Lord what to do and what not to do, shouts: By no means shalt thou wash my feet ever! Note the strong double negative [Greek]. Had Jesus drawn a contrast between now and hereafter? Well, no matter how long a time might elapse before hereafter would arrive, never, no, not in all eternity ([Greek] &[Greek] ) would Peter allow Jesus to wash his disciple's feet! We must probably imagine that Peter, his feet already partly washed, suddenly drew them back in emphatic protest. Jesus answered, If I do not wash you, you have no share with me. The meaning is simple, yet very deep: Peter, unless by means of my entire work of humiliation of which this feet-washing is only a part I cleanse you from your sins, you do not share with me in the fruits of my redemptive merits. Jesus, he alone, is the Son, the true Heir. To him all things were promised. He also earned them all by his work of humiliation. In principle he even now possesses them all (see on 13:1 and 3). But what he has he shares with his own, a thought which is brought out beautifully in Rom. 8:17. Believers are joint-heirs with Christ. But if Christ does not wash Peter, the latter will not share with the former. 9. Simon Peter said to him, Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head! Peter had completely missed the meaning of the words of his Lord. Jesus certainly had not meant to stress the physical, as if in some mysterious manner physical cleansing made one a sharer in the bounties which Jesus provided, and as if the greater the area washed, so much the more numerous would be the blessings received. Proceeding upon his mistaken assumption, Peter blurts out, Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head! Note how this disciple turns from one extreme to another. That was characteristic of Simon Peter. In the Gospels he is pictured as a man who again and again loses his balance. Now you see him walking courageously on the waters (Matt. 14:28); a little later you hear him utter the cry for help, Lord, save me (Matt. 14:30). At one moment he makes a glorious confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16); hardly have the echoes of this wonderful declaration faded, when he begins to rebuke the very Christ whom he has just confessed (Matt. 16:22). Just a little while after the feet-washing hence, during this selfsame night which is discussed here in (John 13Simon definitely promises to lay down his life for JesusJohn 13:37; and cf. Matt. 26:33, 35). But a few hours later he is saying again and again, I am not his disciple (John 18:17, 25); and cf. Matt. 26:69–75. After Jesus has arisen victoriously, Simon Peter and John are running to the tomb, Simon being outdistanced by John. Once at the tomb Peter enters it before John does (20:4–6). And later on, at Antioch, he first throws aside all ideas of racial segregation and eats with the Gentiles. Nevertheless, soon afterward he withdraws completely from the converts of the pagan world. We believe that in Peter's case grace gradually won the victory, as is clearly evident from his epistles. But what we have here in John 13is the typical Simon, the man who reminds one of a farmer's son who is very unsteady in carrying the bucket of milk. While he is walking, the milk splashes from the pail, now from this side, then from that. Such was Simon. Peter's reply here in 13:9 recalls the Samaritan woman's answer recorded in 4:15. See Vol. I, p. 163. 10, 11. Jesus said to him, He who is bathed has no need of washing anything except his feet, but is clean altogether. And you are clean, but not all of you are. For he knew the one who was betraying him. It was for this reason that he said, Not all of you are clean. Jesus, continuing to use words in their deepest and most comprehensive sense see on verses 7 and 8 above answers Simon's request (that not only his feet but also his hands and his head be washed) by saying, He who is bathed that is, he who has been cleansed by my blood (justified) has no need of washing anything except his feet (on the basis of internal evidence the entire context here the words in italics must be regarded as genuine) that is, such a person being cleaned altogether (all his sins having been forgiven) needs only one thing, namely sanctification, here especially (though not exclusively) that work of God within the heart whereby the believer attains constantly renewed and ever-growing humility and day by day willingness and eagerness to render service to others in gratitude for all the benefits received. It is true, of course, that a very appropriate symbol is basic to this great saying of the Lord. In the sphere of everyday life in the Orient a person who had taken a bath before leaving for a supper did not need to take another upon arrival at the banqueting-hall. The washing of the feet was all that was necessary. But as in all other instances (see our explanations of chapters 3, 4, and 6), so also here, Jesus is not speaking about the physical but about the spiritual. He who in chapter 3 speaks about spiritual rebirth, in chapter 4 about spiritual water, and in chapter 6 about the spiritual nourishment which he as bread of life provides, is here in 13:10 speaking about spiritual cleansing. This follows also from verse 11, And you are clean, but not all of you are. The interpreter who explains verse 10 as having reference to physical cleansing must be consistent when he arrives at the explanation of verse 11. Logic requires, that he then interpret the verses as follows: Jesus said to him, He who has taken a physical bath has no need of washing anything except his feet, but is physically altogether clean. And you are physically clean, but not all of you are. On the face of Judas I see some dirt. That shows how absurd a conclusion can be, even though it be ever so logical, if the premise be false. And you are clean, Jesus adds; that is, You are sharers in the redemption which my humiliation merits for you. In order to indicate for all time to come that he is not taken unawares by Judas but is in complete control of the situation, and in order to make the traitor solely responsible for his actions, Jesus appends this significant exceptive clause: but not all of you are. Judas was not spiritually clean. And Jesus knew ([Greek] pluperfect of [Greek], with sense of imperfect, knew all the while) the one who even now was in the process of betraying him. Yet, he did not name Judas. He did not even say in what respect this one man was not clean. The disciples are placed before a riddle. And for this there was a good reason. See on 13:22. 12 15. So when he had washed their feet, had taken his garments, and had resumed his place, he said to them, Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say (this) correctly, for (that is what) I am. If, therefore, I your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash each other's feet, for I have given you an example, in order that just as I did to you so also you should do. Peter's objection having been answered, Jesus finished washing his feet, and then the feet of the others until the entire task was done. Then the Lord redressed and resumed his place at the table. In order to understand what follows it must be borne in mind that the feet-washing was a. an essential element in Christ's humiliation; b. a symbol of that humiliation (the water that washed away physical filth was a true symbol of Christ's suffering during his entire life on earth and especially on the cross, whereby he not only atones for the guilt of his people but also merits for them the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit); and c. a lesson in humility; in other words, an example. Ideas a. and b. are very closely related. With respect to them Jesus has already told Peter that he would understand hereafter, not now. Nevertheless, Jesus had prepared his mind and the minds of the others by saying to him, If I do not wash you, you have no share with me. But even though the disciples were able, at this moment, to catch but a glimpse of the deep meaning that was wrapped up in the feet-washing, the moral has instantaneous significance for them. How they needed the lesson (item c. above) which Jesus meant to teach them by means of this act! Bear in mind Luke 22:24! So Jesus said to his disciples: Do you know what I have done to you? Do you grasp the positive, practical teaching which I have just now imparted to you? Note that the Lord does not scold these men. He does not say, Shame on you! You should have washed each other's feet instead of waiting for me to do it. This rebuke is certainly implied in the exhortation, but the words of Jesus go much farther. He is never satisfied with being merely negative. It is as if he were saying, The past was bad enough; we shall say nothing further about that; for the future, copy my example. The implied rebuke, concealed in words of loving, positive exhortation, often does more good than the expressed reprimand. In this positive atmosphere Jesus continues: You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say (this) correctly, for (that is what) I am, Indeed, the disciples were right in addressing^[133] Jesus as Teacher (A [Greek], probably to be regarded as a translation of the Aramaic Rabbi; as 1:38 seems to indicate), for his teaching with authority and not as the scribes was the greatest that was ever heard on earth. Also they were right in addressing him as Lord (A [Greek]); and the deeper the meaning they poured into this concept, the more right they were. He was, indeed, the owner of all things (see on 13:1, 3); moreover, he was equal in essence and authority with God, the Father. See Vol. I, p. 103, footnote 44, for the gradual displacement of Rabbi by Lord. And see on 12:21. When Jesus adds, You say (this) correctly, for (that is what) I am, he is making a statement that is entirely in line with his great declaration in 10:30: I and the Father, we are one. Those who claim that Jesus never represented himself as the rightful object of worship are clearly wrong. See also on 1:7, 8. Now comes the application. It is an argument from the greater to the lesser: If, therefore, I, your Lord and Teacher the terms are reversed now, for it is especially as Lord that Jesus can claim the right to obedience have washed your feet (and the very form of the conditional sentence indicates that this act is here rightly assumed to have actually occurred), you also constantly (present tense) ought to wash each other's feet. Surely, if the Lord of glory is willing to be girded around with a towel, having taken the form of a servant, actually washing and drying the feet of those who are so very far below him, it ought to be easy for mere disciples to render loving service to one another in the spirit of genuine humility! Note the emphatic position of the pronouns in the original. We have tried to preserve something of the flavor of the original by using italics. Is Jesus instituting a new ordinance here, that of feet-washing? No, he is not commanding the disciples to do what (A) he has done; but he has given them an example in order that they, of their own accord, may do as ([Greek]) he has done. Hence, significantly he adds: For I have given you an example (Heb. 4:11; 8:5; 9:26; James 5:10; and II Peter 2:6), in order that just as I did to you so also you should constantly do. Jesus has shown (cf. the verb [Greek]) his humility under ([Greek]) their very eyes (hence, [Greek]). But although no sacrament has been instituted to be literally copied^[134] this does not remove the fact that under certain conditions those who may wish to show their hospitality in this manner are doing the proper thing (I Tim. 5:10). It should, however, be stressed that what Jesus had in mind was not an outward rite but an inner attitude, that of humility and eagerness to serve. 16. Most solemnly do I assure you, the servant is not greater than his lord, neither is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. For the words of solemn introduction see on 1:51. In all probability Jesus added these words in order to prevent anyone from saying: It is below my dignity to wash the feet of another believer. If it was not below the dignity of the Lord, it surely should not be considered below the dignity of the servant. This remains true even then when the servant is sent or divinely commissioned to function in a high office or to carry out an important task in the Church. If humility is the proper attitude for the Lord and Sender, how unremittingly should not the servant and commissioned individual exercise himself in this grace and grow in it. See also 15:20; Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40; 22:27. 17. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. See what has been said about this verse above, in footnote 129. The words of Jesus are very clear. Faith without works is dead. See also Matt. 7:17, 24 27; 11:30; I Cor. 4:20; and James 1:22 27; 2:14–26. It must not escape us that we have here not a commandment but a very loving and tender declaration. It has been called a promise, but it is even more than that. It is the statement of a fact: the practice of humility imparts blessedness. When Jesus says, If you know these things, etc., he means, according to the context, If you know that a. he who is Lord and Teacher is willing to minister to the needs of those who are his subjects and pupils, even though in doing so he has to stoop very low; and if you know that b. all the more, those who were thus benefited should be willing to serve one another in humility of spirit; if you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. The term blessed ([Greek]) does not necessarily refer to those who are considered happy by others; nor even primarily to those who consider themselves happy, but to those who are indeed the objects of God's favor, whether or not they are considered such by other men or even by themselves. The blessed ones may be poor and may even be mourningMatt. 5:1–12, The Beatitudes . The blessedness here spoken of is a matter not (at least, not primarily) of feeling, but of inner spiritual condition or state. The Christian who practises humility possesses this felicity whether he is at all times conscious of it or not. Before God, in his eyes, he is blessed. The Aramaic word which Jesus probably employed both here in 13:17 (see also 20:29) and in The Beatitudes (also in several other New Testament passages) resembles the Hebrew word found in many passages of the Psalms (1:1; 2:12; 31:1; 32:2; 33:12; 34:8; 40:4; 41:4; etc.). It means superlatively blessed, most blessed. It is true, of course, that the smile of God which is upon such a person who is constantly doing these things (note present continuative tense), sothat humility is of the very essence of his character, will sooner or later be reflected in his heart, sothat he will possess the peace of God which passes all understanding. 18. Not of you all am I speaking. I know the ones I have chosen; but (this happened) in order that the scripture may be fulfilled: He who eats my bread Has lifted his heel against me. In order to show the probable connection between verses 17 and 18 and to state more fully the thought of this condensed saying, we paraphrase verses 17 and 18 as follows: If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. But not of you all am I speaking in holding out this prospect of blessedness. I know the ones I have chosen for myself to be my apostles. There is one who, though chosen, is not blessed. But as to the fact that I also chose him, this happened in order that the scripture may be fulfilled: He who eats my bread Has lifted up his heel against me. In our translation we have placed the words this happened between parenthesis because we inserted them. We accept an ellipsis at this point. There are certain commentators who do not grant this ellipsis and whose translation and consequent interpretation is quite different. See the footnote in which we state the reasons for not being able to accept their view.^[135] Not of you all am I speaking. Judas should have pondered this statement. He should have taken to heart the clear implication. The saying serves to fix the responsibility for his act entirely on himself. It also serves to fortify the faith of the other disciples. When, after a little while, they receive the surprise of their lives with respect to Judas, they will begin to realize that Jesus had known it all along, and that what was happening was not a frustration but a fulfilment of the divine plan. I know the ones ([Greek]) I have chosen (or: I have chosen for myself, if the middle voice retains its distinctive flavor). Jesus knows them now. He knew them from the very beginning (see on 1:42; 1:47; 2:24, 25). He knew what kind (probably implied in [Greek]) of men they were. That was true also with respect to Judas. Yet, when from among many disciples (in a general sense) Jesus had chosen the Twelve (Luke 6:13), he had also chosen Judas (not unto salvation but) to be one of the apostles. Thoroughly aware of what he was doing, he had included in his selection the man who was going to betray him. Explaining this, he continues: But (this happened) in order that the scripture may be fulfilled, He who eats my bread has lifted his heel against me. For this use of [Greek] see not only footnote 130 but also on 12:38. The scripture-passage which was in the process of attaining its final fulfilment was Ps. 41:9, which is quoted here according to the Hebrew. It stresses the reprehensible character of the sin of betraying one's benefactor. Eating another person's bread ([Greek], originally gnawing, chewing, but here the same as [Greek], as is clear from the LXX version of Ps. 41:9, and from a comparison of Matt. 24:38and Luke 17:27), and then suddenly kicking him (lifting the heel against him, like a horse which without warning attacks its owner, kicking him violently), is the sin here described and condemned. Thus David had been betrayed by Ahithophel. Read (II Sam. 15:12; 16:23. In the quoted passagePs. 41:9) the Psalmist refers to Ahithophel or to a person similar to him. See also Ps. 55:12–14. It is entirely true that the Oriental considers an attack upon a person by whom one has been entertained at dinner to be well-nigh unthinkable. But especially in the light of Ps. 55:12 14an action such as that of Ahithophel merits strong disapproval and revulsion regardless of any regional etiquette. And if this be true with respect to Ahithophel, it is certainly true with respect to Judas, who kept up appearances of friendship to the very last! Not one of the disciples suspected Judas. He was two-faced. A double-crosser deserves to be despised. 19. From now on I am telling (this) to you before (it) takes place, in order that when it does take place you may continue to believe that I am (he). Here Jesus reveals his very heart. He shows what a kind Savior he is. He displays his affectionate and personal concern for the spiritual welfare of his own, and he does this in a marvelous manner. He knows that the treachery of Judas will have a tendency to upset the disciples and to undermine their faith. They might even begin to think of their Master as having become the victim of the plotting of that very shrewd fellow, Judas. This will happen unless the Lord is able to convince them that whatever befalls him, far from taking him by surprise, was included in God's eternal and all-comprehensive plan. And in order that when ([Greek], whenever, the exact moment is not stipulated) it happens they may be strengthened in this comforting conviction, he mentions and describes the deed in advance. Not only this, but he even tells them in so many words that this is the reason why he is making the prediction at this time and from this point on ([Greek], the prediction becomes more definite in 13:21, 26). He is dealing with his disciples like a mother deals with her child, lovingly explaining why she is following a certain course. When Judas by and by betrays the Master with a kiss, and the latter has seemingly suffered a defeat, when the Messiah experiences the bitter agonies of Gethsemane, Gabbatha, and Golgotha, the disciples must continue to [Greek] See Vol. I, pp. 33, 34; also on 20:30, 31. They must continue to believe that I am (he), that is, that Jesus is whatever he claimed to be. See on 8:24. 20. I most solemnly assure you see on 1:51, he who receives anyone whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me. When the prediction of verse 18 begins to be fulfilled, Jesus remains the Messiah, the Son of God, clothed with authority to send out his ambassadors. Hence, when the disciples see their Lord delivered into the hands of his enemies, let them not despair. Let them not think, Now it is all over, not only with him but also with us, his followers. On the contrary, everything continues just as it was. Nay rather, the very facts of the humiliation confirm his authority and the validity of their commission. An ambassador of Christ Betrayed, Condemned, and Crucified, is still a true ambassador; in fact, he is the only true ambassador. It follows, of course, that he who receives anyone whom I send^[137] receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me. Christ and his Sender are one (10:30). It is impossible to accept the one and reject the other. The two are inseparable. And when the plan of God is carried out, and Judas betrays the Lord, delivering him into the hands of the enemy, the disciples must remain conscious of the dignity of their calling. They will remain ambassadors for Christ. And when they say to anyone, We beseech you, on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God, God himself through their preaching will be making his appeal to the sinner. If anyone, whether Jew or Greek, rejects such an appeal, he will be rejecting Christ; and if anyone rejects the Christ, he will be rejecting his Sender, God. The statement applies to all time, and to every true ambassador for Christ (i.e., to every ambassador who truly represents him and truly proclaims his Word). Hence, it is even more general in its application than the similar one in Matt. 10:40. 13:21–30 21 When he had said these things, Jesus was troubled in the spirit, and he testified and said, Most solemnly do I say to you,^[138] one of you will betray me. 22 The disciples kept looking at each other, being at a loss (to know) of whom he spoke. 23 There was reclining next to the bosom of Jesus one of his disciples, one whom Jesus (constantly) loved. 24 So Simon Peter nodded to this one and said to him, Say who it is of whom he speaks. 25 Accordingly, having leaned back on the breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it? 26 So Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give the morsel after I have dipped it. Having dipped the morsel, he took it and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then, after the morsel, Satan entered into him. So Jesus said to him, What you are doing, do more quickly. 28 Now no one of those reclining knew why he had said this to him. 29 For some were thinking, since Judas had the money-box, that Jesus was telling him, Buy what we need for the feast, or (that he had said it) in order that Judas might give something to the poor. 30 So, having taken the morsel, he went out immediately; and it was night. 13:21. When he had said these things, Jesus was troubled in the spirit, and he testified and said, Most solemnly do I say to you, one of you will betray me. The exact order in which the happenings in the Upper Room followed one another has not been revealed in such a clear and definite manner that all interpreters are agreed. As we see it, the sequence as given by A. T. Robertson (A Harmony of the Gospels, New York, 1922, pp. 190–196) is as good as any that has been proposed and better than some. Now if this be correct, the order of events was as follows: 1. Jesus washes the feet of his disciples and explains to them that he has given them an example to be followed (13:1–20). 2. He startles the disciples by telling them that one of their own number is going to betray him. Judas leaves (13:21–30). 3. He issues his new commandment and predicts Peter's denial (13:31–28). 4. He institutes the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22 25; Luke 22:17 20; I Cor. 11:23–26). This important event, having been fully covered by the Synoptists and by Paul, John does not repeat. 5. He tenderly instructs his disciples and commits them to the Father's care (Farewell Discourse and Highpriestly Prayer, chapters 14 17 of John's Gospel). Note that, with the exception of item 4 which John omits, this is the order in which the man who himself was there relates the events. But was not Matthew also present? Indeed, but there is this difference between John's account and that of the Synoptists (including Matthew) that, on the whole, John's notes of time are here (and often; see Vol. I, p. 36, item (2)) more numerous and more definite than are theirs. While the Synoptists (especially Luke) do not seem to have any intention of giving us a strictly chronological account, John creates the impression that he is giving us such an account, as appears from the following notes of time: a. 13:2 Now supper arriving &The account of the feet-washing follows (see 13:1–20). b. 13:21 When he had said these things, Jesus was troubled in the spirit, and he testified and said &There follows the announcement with respect to Judas betrayal (13:21–30). c. 13:30 So, having taken the morsel, he went out immediately; and it was night. d. 13:31: So when he (Judas) had gone out, Jesus said &There follows the new commandment and the prediction concerning Peter's denial (13:31–38). We turn now to 2, the announcement regarding (and dismissal of) the traitor. It took place while they were engaged in eating (Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18). This probably places it at point f. in the order of the Passover Supper as described in Vol. I, p. 121. Jesus had said certain things which reflected and increased his grief. He was troubled. For the meaning of this verb see on 11:33, 34; 14:1. He had said, And you are clean, but not all of you are (13:10); and He who eats my bread has lifted his heel against me (13:18). By saying, Not all of you are clean, he had even given a hint that the wicked conspirator whom he had in mind was one of the twelve. But they had probably failed to catch this hint. Jesus knows that the time has now arrived to speak more plainly about this painful subject. Hence, it does not surprise us to read, When he had said these things (referring, perhaps, to all that he had said in verses 6 20), he was troubled in the spirit. For spirit the original has [Greek]. This is the higher element in man viewed in its relation to God. It is the same immaterial substance as that which in the LXX and in the New Testament is sometimes designated the soulMark 12:30; Acts 14:2; Phil. 1:27, the seat of the will, desires, and affections ; but contemplated from a different point of view. Sometimes, however, the terms are used interchangeably (Luke 1:46, 47; Acts 7:59with Acts 15:26).^[139] Jesus was troubled because of what he had just said, and in view of what he was about to say. And he testified, that is, in an impressive manner he made an open declaration. It could even mean: he bore witness of that which with the prophetic eye of his soul he had already seen. For the verb to testify see on 1:51. He testified and said, Most solemnly do I say to you (see on 1:51), one of you will betray me. One of you! It came as a bolt from the blue. It was a stunning blow. What! Did the Lord actually mean to say that one of their own number was going to hand him over ([Greek]) to the authorities, for them to deal with as they pleased? 22. The disciples kept looking at each other, being at a loss (to know) of whom he spoke. In order to see the entire picture one should also read the Synoptics on this (Matt. 26:21–25; Mark 14:18 21; Luke 22:21 23). They inform us that when Jesus said, One of you will betray me, he added, one who eats with me (Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21; cf. on John 13:18). They show that in this connection Jesus characterized the act of the betrayer as being: a. a deed which did not take him by surprise, but had been fully determined in the eternal counsel of God; and b. one for which the doer was, nevertheless, fully responsible (Luke 22:22; cf. Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21). The vivid description of the reaction among the disciples shows that the author of the Fourth Gospel was one of the company. He never forgot that dramatic moment. As he was writing, it was as if the soul-terrifying words of Jesus regarding the betrayer were still resounding through the Upper Room. That look of overwhelming consternation, serious misgiving, and painful surprise, on the face of John's fellow-disciples as he had seen them that night, flashed once more upon the screen of his memory. Again he saw it all, just as if it had taken place (not a half century or more but only) a few minutes ago. And as he had seen them, so they had seen him! He writes: The disciples including himself, of course kept looking (see Vol. I, p. 85, footnotes 33) at each other in startled dismay. They were at a loss to know (saw no way of knowing; note [Greek], without a way, without resource) of whom he spoke. They were thoroughly perplexed. Christ's shocking announcement evoked three responses; and these responses came in the form of questions, as follows: 1. A question of wholesome self-distrust, Surely not I, Lord? That was the reaction on the part of all the disciples with the exception of Judas (Matt. 26:22). 2. A question of loathsome hypocrisy, Surely not I, Rabbi? That, probably after considerable hesitation, was Judas response (Matt. 26:25). 3. A question of childlike confidence, Lord, who is it? And that, as we shall see, was the way in which John, prompted by Peter, expressed himself. When the disciples asked, Surely not I, Lord? Jesus did not immediately allay their fear or cure their self-distrust. Nor did he at once satisfy their suddenly-aroused curiosity. He gave a very general answer: He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same man will betray me (Matt. 26:23). But Judas surely was not the only man who was dipping his hand with Jesus in the dish. Hence, this answer did not identify the betrayer. What it did accomplish was the following: This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIV Outline of Chapters 14 17 Theme: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God During His Private Ministry Tenderly Instructing His Disciples and Committing Them to the Father's Care ch. 14 A Word of Comfort Ten grounds; see Synthesis of chapter 14 ch. 15 A Word of Admonition 1. Abide in me (verses 1 11): the believers relation to Christ 2. Love one another (verses 12 17): the believers relation to one another 3. Also testify (verses 18 27): the believers relation to the world ch. 16 A Word of Prediction 1. Persecution is in store for believers. The Holy Spirit will come. He will perform his task in the world (verses 1 11), and in the Church (verses 12 15) 2. The sorrow of the disciples will be turned into joy by the return of the Son, at Easter, Pentecost (verses 16 24) 3. Concluding Remarks: The Father loves you &You will have peace &Be of good courage (verses 25 33) ch. 17 The Prayer of the Highpriest 1. For himself (verses 1 5) 2. For his immediate disciples (verses 6 19) 3. For the Church at large (verses 20 26) Note: Although this is the general Outline of these chapters, there are no clear-cut divisions. Ideas mentioned in one subdivision frequently recur in the next. There is much overlapping. Preliminary Remarks on Chapters 14 17 These chapters contain the Supper Discourses and the Highpriestly Prayer. There is a close connection between chapter 13 and chapter 14. The comfort imparted in the latter chapter has little meaning apart from the teaching (in connection with the washing of the disciples feet) and the predictions (concerning Christ's imminent departure, the betrayal by Judas, and the denial by Peter) contained in the former. Without so much as an introductory formula^[156] such as, Jesus said, the Lord is at once represented as being still in the company of the disciples, addressing them and preparing them for the events that lie ahead. It is, therefore, not surprising that some have spoken about an unfortunate chapter-division. Nevertheless, we cannot agree. We too would have placed the chapter-division exactly where it is found. For, now that the close relation between chapters 13 and 14 has been pointed out, it is only fair also to mark the differences: 1. Chapter 13 ended with a word of Jesus addressed to Peter, to him alone. Chapter 14 begins with words addressed to the entire company. The you in 13:38 is singular; the your in 14:1 is plural (a fact which is obscured by modern English translations). 2. Chapter 13 contains a narrative and a dialogue; chapters 14 16 contain discourses. This is immediately evident from the fact that while in the thirty-eight verses of chapter 13 Jesus is interrupted no less than six times, in the ninety-one verses of chapters 14 16 he is interrupted only four times. 3. The subject-matter of chapter 13 is of a miscellaneous nature. On the contrary, chapters 14, 15, 16, and 17 have each one central theme. Although, to be sure, these discourses of chapters 14, 15, and 16 are in the form of conversations rather than formal addresses, and although at first glance the thoughts may seem to overlap (and actually do overlap) to a certain extent, sothat some have even spoken of a divine confusion (whatever that may be!), nevertheless, upon closer study it becomes clear that a certain organic and logical connection runs through the entire three chapters: the predominant note of chapter 14 is comfort; of chapter 15 admonition; and of chapter 16 prediction; while chapter 17 contains the Prayer of the Highpriest, famous for its simplicity and tenderness. 14:1–17 14 1 Let not your hearts any longer be troubled. Continue to trust in God, also in me continue to trust. 2 In my Father's house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, I would have told you;^[152] for^[153] I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And when I go and prepare a place for you, I come again and will take you to be face to face with me,^[154] in order that where I am you may be also. 4 And to the place where I am going you know the way. 5 Thomas said to him, Lord, we do not know where thou art going; how can we know the way? 6 Jesus said to him, I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me. 7 If you had come to know me, you would have known my Father also.^[155] From now on you do know him and have seen him. 8 Philip said to him, Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be content. 9 Jesus said to him, So long a time have I been with you, and yet you have not learned to recognize me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak of myself, but the Father who dwells in me is performing his works. 11 Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; but if not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 14:1. Let not your hearts any longer be troubled. We prefer this translation because it reproduces both the meaning and the cadence of the original. First, the meaning, for the thought is not, Do not begin to be troubled, but Stop being troubled, or Do not be troubled any longer. And secondly, the cadence. In the original the line has a rhythmical flow, a soothing and consoling tenderness, which can be reproduced in English by stressing the words and syllables that have been printed in italics: Let not your hearts any longer be troubled. Note that Jesus is not merely telling the disciples that they must not be sad any longer; he exhorts them not any longer to be troubled, tempest-tossed, agitated, thrown into a state of confusion and perplexity. The verb used is [Greek], third person singular present imperative passive of [Greek]. See also on 5:7; 11:33; 12:27; 13:21, The original has your heart where English idiom prefers your hearts (but see A.V. and A.S.V.). The heart is here the fulcrum of feeling and faith as well as the main-spring of words and actions, as is evident from such passages as 16:6, 22; cf. (Matthew 12:34; 15:19; 22:37; and Rom. 10:10. John seldom uses the termIs. 6:10). The hearts of the disciples were filled with a medley of emotions. They were sad because of the gloomy prospect of Christ's departure; ashamed because of their own demonstrated selfishness and pride; perplexed because of the prediction that one of their own number would betray the Master, that another would deny him, and that all would be ensnared because of him; and finally, they were wavering in their faith, probably thinking: How can one who is about to be betrayed be the Messiah? Yet, at the same time, they love this Master. They hope against hope. All this is implied in the words, Let not your hearts any longer be troubled. The exhortation is based on love of the most tender and self-forgetful character, for when Jesus uttered it he was himself troubled in the spirit (Matt. 26:38; Luke 22:28, 44). The agonizing shepherd, facing the cross, comforts others. He consoles the very men who have just demonstrated their selfishness and who are going to be offended in him, Was there ever kinder shepherd, half so gentle, half so sweet? Moreover, what Jesus is expressing is not merely a pious wish, like our cheering (but often empty) phrase: Just do not worry. Everything will be all right. When Jesus says, Let not your hearts any longer be troubled, he fortifies this with solid grounds. See the Synthesis at the end of the chapter. In this connection there is an interesting superficial resemblance between Christianity and Epicureanism. The latter also stressed the necessity of remaining calm and untroubled in all circumstances of life. In fact this school even used a term which is derived from the same root as is the verb which Jesus employs here in 14:1, 27. They spoke of ataraxia ([Greek]), the state of being unperturbed. And yet, upon a closer view, the difference between Christianity and Epicureanism, as brought out strikingly in John 14, is great. The reasoning of Epicureanism and of its present-day equivalents is this: Do not be disturbed, for the gods, if they exist at all, do not take notice of you. On the contrary, the teaching of Jesus is this: Do not be disturbed, for the God whom you trust does take notice of you. He hears your prayers. He loves you. And so does the Son of God. Hence, Christianity or, if you prefer, Christ furnishes the only adequate grounds for the exhortation of 14:1, 27. Continue to trust in God, also in me continue to trust. There is much to be said in favor of the position that both of these verbs ([Greek] &[Greek]) are imperatives, precepts.^[157] The imperative form is in harmony with the entire discourse (14:11; 15:4, etc.). It is also in harmony with the first line, for Let not your hearts any longer be troubled, is also imperative. The old argument, which one can find in many books, to the effect that the first clause cannot be a command because Jesus knew that the disciples already trusted in God, hence, could not order them to do so, has little value. Though they had faith, that faith was beginning to waver. Hence (using the continuative present imperative) Jesus says, Continue to trust! Though the disciples still loved the Master, their faith in him as Messiah-Savior was beginning to waver. Jesus knows that when within a matter of hours he dies on the cross and is buried, that faith will be undermined even more (Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27; 16:13; Luke 24:21). He knows also that the only remedy for the troubled heart is the assurance that Jesus is and remains the Savior even though rather, by virtue of the very fact that he suffers and dies. That is why he tells them, according to the original, Keep on trusting in God, also in me keep trusting. The verb may also be rendered keep on believing. It makes little difference. We chose keep on trusting because it is especially the trust-element in faith which is on the foreground in a context which concerns the troubled heart. Jesus does not, in this connection, fully explain why he must die on the cross, though there had been some teaching along this line previously (Mark 10:45); neither was a full explanation possible as yet (16:12). He demands abiding trust or faith in God and in himself even then when mysteries multiply. Jesus asks that the disciples shall continue to rest in God and in himself with their entire being, sothat their heart, soul, mind, and strength will continually go out to the source of their salvation, the goal of their existence. For the verb see also on 1:8; 3:16; 8:30, 31a. The clear implication is that Jesus is himself God. This is brought out beautifully by means of the inverted word-order in the second exhortation, sothat the phrases in God and also in me are placed right next to each other. 2. In my Father's house there are many dwelling-places. In addition to what has already been said elsewhere on this passage (see Vol. I, 56, the following must suffice:) According to the context, Jesus was comforting the disciples, who dreaded to think of the coming separation. Now it is in this connection that the Lord assured them that his going away to the Father's house had as its purpose a reunion, and was not a permanent separation. In the place to which he is going there is room for them also! In fact, his very going away (think of his death on the cross and his ascension which will enable him to send the Spirit) would make this reunion possible, sothat what appeared to be a calamity was in reality a blessing. Apart from Christ's death and the work of the Holy Spirit there would have been no place in heaven for the disciples. The Father's house is heaven (Ps. 33:13, 14; Is. 63:15). It is a very roomy place. In it there are entire dwelling-places, permanent homes, abodes or mansions for all God's children. The Father's house does not resemble a tenement-house, each family occupying one room. On the contrary, it is more like a beautiful apartment-building, with ever so many completely furnished and spacious apartments or dwelling places, and no crowding of any kind! Inside the one house there are many mansions! Plenty room in heaven, room for me but also room for you, is the one idea conveyed here. (The idea of variety, degrees of glory, though true in itself, is foreign to the present context.) If it were not so, I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you. This rendering, which retains the conjunction for yields an excellent meaning: If in my Father's house there were not plenty room for all God's children, I certainly would have known all about it and would have told you so, for, by means of my humiliation and exaltation, I prepare a place for you. This is my mission. Without my death there would be no place for you; without my ascension and the sending forth of the Spirit, you would not be made ready for the place. 3. And when I go and prepare a place for you, I come again and will take you to be face to face with me, in order that where I am you may be also. The coming again of which Jesus speaks in this verse is the counterpart of the going away. Cf. Acts 1:9 11. That fact explains its character. In all probability, therefore, it refers to the second coming, and its purpose is to enable Christ to receive the disciples into his loving presence, to abide with him forever. Observe that instead of saying what one might expect him to say, namely, And when I go and prepare a place for you, I come again and will take you to that place, Jesus says something that is far more comforting: I will take you to myself (or: to be face to face with me; for the meaning of [Greek] see on 1:1). So wonderful is Christ's love for his own that he is not satisfied with the idea or merely bringing them to heaven. He must needs take them into his own embrace. The verb translated, and will take you ([Greek], root-idea: to take over from another), with a wide variety of shades of meaning, has here the sense of welcoming someone. A. Deissmann has shown that the comfort contained in this passage (14:3) was by the early Christians applied to the death of dear ones. Although Jesus himself probably did not directly refer to this, but rather to the meeting again in connection with the second advent, nevertheless, the application to death is legitimate. Hence, in ancient letters of consolation the phraseology of 14:3 is often found.^[158] On the expressed purpose of this welcoming, namely, in order that where I am you may be also, see Rev. 14:1; 19:14; 20:4. Wherever the Christ is, there too are the believers. 4. And to the place where I am going you know the way. The way is the means by which the disciples are brought to the Father. Jesus means, You know me; I am the way. But he does not yet definitely say that he is the way. For this see on 14:6. He was able to say, You know, for he had previously revealed himself as the way to the Father (Matt. 11:27, 28). The statement is a veiled invitation: Come to the Father by means of this way. Up to this moment (14:1, 2, 3) Jesus had spoken about what he was going to do for his disciples (prepare a place for them, and come again to receive them to himself). They must not think, however, that they have nothing to do. They must go to the house where a place is prepared for them (Ps. 84:7; Heb. 11:13–16). 5. Thomas said to him, Lord, we do not know where thou art going; how can we know the way? In saying this Thomas may probably be regarded as the spokesman of the group, the one who actually said what most or all were thinking (cf. 13:36, 37). As to his character see on 11:16. His objection, although involving an element of weakness and sinfulness as it always does, a slowness to understand because one has not paid sufficient attention, nevertheless also reveals his devotion to the Master. He cannot bear the thought that Jesus is leaving. It is for that reason that he makes his protest. Note how Da Vinci in The Last Supper, with fine tact, places the devoted and despondent Thomas very close to Jesus at the supper-table! He is pictured by the artist as a very emotional type, with his finger raised almost in the face of Jesus as he says. Surely not I, Lord? Now in the present passage Thomas means to say: How can we be expected to know the way when we do not even know the destination? He committed two errors: a. He may have thought that Jesus was referring to his departure in death, or else he may have opined that the Master was leaving for another place on earth. In the latter case the way would be an ordinary road, and his error would be similar to that of the Jews in 7:35 (see on that passage). b. He imagined that the Lord was speaking about the way which he was about to take, whereas Jesus was actually referring to the way the disciples must take to reach their destination, as is evident from 14:6b. Nevertheless, the objection raised by Thomas contains an element of truth. He who does not know the destination will not know the way. See verse 7 for the distinction in meaning between the two customary verbs for knowing. 6. Jesus said to him, I am the way and the truth and the life. This is another of the seven great I AM's of John's Gospel (for the others see on 6:48; 8:12; 10:9; 10:11; 11:25; and 15:1). In the predicate each of the words way, truth, and life is preceded by the definite article. I am the way. Jesus does not merely show the way; he is himself the way. It is true that he teaches the way (Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21), guides us in the way (Luke 1:79), and has dedicated for us a new and living way (Heb. 10:20); but all this is possible only because he is himself the way. Christ is God. Now God is equal to each of his attributes, whereas he possesses each attribute in an infinite degree. Hence, not only does God have love (or exercise love), but he is love, nothing but love; he is righteousness, nothing but righteousness, etc. So also Christ is the way: in every act, word, and attitude he is the Mediator between God and his elect. Notice also the pronoun I. In the last analysis we are not saved by a principle or by a force but by a person. In the school the pupil is educated not primarily by blackboards, books, and maps, but by the teacher who makes use of all these means. In the home he is brought up by father and mother. So also the means of access to the Father is Christ himself. We are persons. The God from whom we have been estranged is a personal God. Hence, it is not strange that apart from living fellowship with the person, Jesus Christ, who exists in indissoluble union with the Father, there is no salvation for us (Rom. 5:1, 2). Now Jesus is the way in a twofold sense (cf. also on 10:1, 7, 9). He is the way from God to man all divine blessings come down from the Father through the Son (Matt. 11:27, 28); he is also the way from man to God. As already indicated, in the present contex the emphasis falls on the latter idea. I am &the truth. Much of what has been said in connection with I am the way applies here also. Jesus is the very embodiment of the truth. He is the truth in person. As such he is the final reality in contrast with the shadows which preceded him (see on 1:14, 17). But in the present context the term the truth seems to have a different shade of meaning. It is that which stands over against the lie. Jesus is the truth because he is the dependable source of redemptive revelation. That this is the sense in which the word is used is clear from verse 7 which teaches that Christ reveals the Father. Cf. Matt. 11:27. But just as the way is a living way, so also the truth is living truth. It is active. It takes hold of us and influences us powerfully. It sanctifies us, guides us, and sets us free (8:32; cf. 17:17). Basically, not it but he is the truth, he himself in person. Pilate asked, What is truth? (18:38). Jesus here in 14:6 answers, I am the truth. I am &the life. Jesus is not referring here to the breath or spirit ([Greek]) which animates our body. He is not thinking of the soul ([Greek]) nor of life as outwardly manifested ([Greek]), but of life as opposed to death ([Greek]). All God's glorious attributes dwell in the Son of God (see on 1:4). And because he has the life within himself (see on 5:26), he is the source and giver of life for his own (see on 3:16; 6:33; 10:28; 11:25). He has the light of life (8:12), the words of life (6:68), and he came that we might have life and abundance (10:10). Just as death spells separation from God, so life implies communion with him (17:3). All three concepts are active and dynamic. The way brings to God; the truth makes men free; the life produces fellowship. How are these three related? As more or less separate, wholly coordinate entities? Or, as forming a single concept: the true and living way? It is not necessary to choose either of these alternatives. Truth and life are nouns, not adjectives. Christ is the truth and the life, just as well as he is the way. Nevertheless, the context indicates that the idea of the way predominates. The meaning appears to be: I am the way because I am the truth and the life. When Jesus reveals God's redemptive truth which sets men free from the enslaving power of sin, and when he imparts the seed of life, which produces fellowship with the Father, then and thereby he, as the way (which they themselves, by sovereign grace, have chosen), has brought them to the Father. Hence, Jesus continues: No one comes to the Father but by me. Since men are absolutely dependent upon Christ for their knowledge of redemptive truth and also for the spark that causes that truth to live in their souls (and their souls to become alive to that truth), it follows that no one comes to the Father but through him. With Christ removed there can be no redemptive truth, no everlasting life; hence, no way to the Father. Cf. Acts 4:12. Both the absoluteness of the Christian religion and the urgent necessity of Christian Missions is clearly indicated. 7. If you had come to know me, you would have known my Father also. Jesus had said, You know the way. Thomas had answered, How can we know the way? Jesus was able to say, You know, because the way had been clearly revealed. But in one sense it was true that the disciples did not know: they had not paid sufficient attention to the words of Jesus! They did not know the Lord as fully as they would have known him had they given closer heed to all his words and admonitions. Moreover, had they done so, they would have had a fuller and richer perception of the Father also. They had failed too often to see in Jesus the only and absolute way to the only and absolute goal. They had failed, to some extent, to see is him the only Son of God who, because he is the Son, reveals the Father. So Jesus says, as it were, If by daily listening to me, pondering my words and works, if by means of this personal, day-by-day experience, you had learned to know me ([Greek] is probably the best reading) you would have known ([Greek], gained an insight into by mental reflection) my Father also. ^[159] Note my Father, which indicates Christ's unique sonship (see on 1:14). From now on, says Jesus, you do know him and have seen him. The most obvious explanation would seem to be this: You know (recognize) him from now on because of these very words, for I have now clearly told you that I myself am the way (and the truth and the life) to the father, sothat there is even less excuse for ignorance than heretofore. You have seen the way with your very eyes, physical and spiritual. 8. Philip said to him. For Philip see on 1:43–46; 6:5–7; and 12:20–22. He was one of the earliest disciples, a man with a Greek name. He came from Bethsaida in Galilee, the town of Andrew and Peter. It was he who had been instrumental in bringing Nathaniel to Jesus. To him, long ago, Jesus had addressed the question, How are we to buy bread-cakes that people may eat? He had given an answer which revealed his little faith (which, however, was characteristic not only of him, but of all). To him the Greeks had come with the request, Sir, we wish to see Jesus It was this Philip who said to Jesus, Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be content. With his physical eyes Philip (probably representing the others; note: show us) evidently desired to see the Father; not, to be sure, that he denied God's spirituality and essential invisibility, but he was asking for a theophany: a visible manifestation of the Father's glory, such as had been granted to Moses and other believers in the old dispensation (Ex. 24:9–11; 33:18). He did not seem to realize that a far greater privilege than that which Moses enjoyed while on earth, had been given to him! For Lord see on 1:38; 12:21. 9. Jesus said to him, So long a time have I been with you, and yet you have not learned to recognize me, Philip? Philip had failed to listen carefully to the words spoken to Thomas, to the effect that the Father had become manifest in the Son. Moreover, had not the Master revealed this truth again and again from the very beginning of his ministry? Since his first public appearance more than three years had elapsed: so long a time. One may well ask, Was there any truth which Jesus had emphasized so repeatedly as this one, that he, the Mediator sent by God, had come to speak the words and to perform the works of God; that in these words and works he was revealing the Father; and that this manifestation of the Father in him as Mediator rested upon the eternal, intra-trinitarian relationship between the Father and himself, the only-begotten Son? See the following passages: 1:18; 3:33–36; 5:17, 18, 19 32; 6:29, 38, 57; 7:29; 8:16, 19, 28, 29, 42, 54, 55; 10:15, 30, 33, 37, 38; 12:45; 13:31. Surely Philip and the others have heard some of this teaching! Hence, Jesus administers a tender rebuke when he says, So long a time have I been with you (note the plural), and yet you (note the singular) have not learned to recognize me? The plural you refers to all the disciples present in the Upper Room (i.e., the Eleven, Judas having left); the singular you refers to Philip alone. Note also the verb, on which see footnote 159, and the reference there indicated. The kind of recognition which Jesus has in mind is spiritual in character. It amounts to seeing by faith the Father in the Son; for Jesus continues: He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father? In the light of the abundant teaching of the Lord on this subject (see on verse 9 above), the remark, How can you say, Show us the Father requires no further comment. The three perfects ([Greek], [Greek], [Greek]; respectively: you have not learned to recognize; he who has seen; he has seen) show that once this spiritual knowledge or vision has been obtained, it has abiding results. The entire passage indicates that redemptive revelation apart from Christ is impossible. In the Son we have God's final revelation. As true as it is that he who has seen the Son has seen the Father, so true it is that he who has not seen the Son has not seen the Father. What the disciples lacked, however, was not genuine faith as such but genuine faith in full measure. They had seen but, due to their own sinfulness, they had not seen clearly enough. Hence Jesus continues, addressing himself first to Philip alone: 10. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? This passage shows that all knowledge with respect to the facts of redemption is based on genuine, Christian faith. Thus we get a sound foundation for a truly Christian epistemology. Reason cannot penetrate these mysteries. Jewish monotheism refuses to accept the possibility that the divine essence can unfold itself in more than one divine person. Only Christian faith will do. The expression I am in the Father and the Father in me makes sense only if Father and Son are one in essence, that is, in all their divine attributes. The Father and the Son (also the Spirit, mentioned in 14:16, 17, 26) do not exist apart as human individualities do, but in and through each other as moments in one divine, self-conscious life.^[160] The Jews did not make the mistake of thinking that when Jesus made statements of this character (see also 5:17; 10:30) he referred merely to moral unity or ethical harmony. They clearly understood that nothing less than essential equality with God was intended (see on 1:1). Nevertheless, the ontological trinity is reflected in the economical: The words that I speak to you (note change from singular to plural here) I do not speak of myself, but the Father who dwells in me is performing his works. Whenever Jesus speaks, the Father works by means of this speaking. Every word of Jesus is a work of the Father! This, however, does not mean that the Father is acting like a ventriloquist who speaks through his dummy. On the contrary, the Son speaks the mind of the Father because this is also his own mind. It is in that sense that when the Son speaks, the Father's redemptive deeds are being accomplished. However, the works of the Father are not limited to the words of the Son. They also include his miracles or signs. These serve to confirm faith, to strengthen it, to assist it in becoming strong. Therefore Jesus says: 11. Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; but if not, then believe me because of the works themselves. The disciples were wavering in their faith (14:1), a faith which had never been strong (14:7). But whatever of faith is present in their hearts must be kept there and strengthened, especially now, with the Master about to leave. It is for this reason that Jesus again exhorts his disciples to believe (or, as we may also render the original: to keep on believing) that he is in the Father, and the Father in him (see on verse 10). They are urged to take Jesus at his word! This is ever the highest type of faith. But if this be difficult for them, let them then believe because of the works considered by themselves. These works have evidential value. On this see 9:31–33; 10:37, 38; 11:39–44; 20:30, 31; cf. Acts 2:22; 4:31; II Cor. 12:12. 14:12–24 12 I most solemnly assure you, he who believes in me, the works that I do will he do also, and greater (works) than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13 And whatever you ask in my name, that I will do, in order that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you will ask me anything in my name, I will do it.^[161] 15 If you love me, you will keep my precepts^[162] 16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Helper, in order that he may be in your midst forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees nor knows him. You do know him, because he dwells by your side, and will be within you. 18 I will not leave you orphans: I am coming to you. 19 Yet a little while, and the world no longer sees me, but you see me; because I live, you too will live. 20 In that day you will recognize that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 He who has my precepts and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved of my Father, and I too will love him, and I will manifest myself to him. 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, Lord, what has happened that^[163] thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? 23 Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.^[164] 24 He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. 14:12. I most solemnly assure you, he who believes in me, the works that I do will he do also, and greater (works) than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. For the words of solemn introduction see on 1:51. The disciples need not fear that Christ's physical absence will mean loss of power to perform miracles. From heaven Jesus will continue to supply them with this power. A glorious promise is here given to the one who keeps on believing in him (see on 1:8; 3:16; 8:30, 31a for the meaning of the verb [Greek], and of its present participle followed by [Greek]). Such a person will do the works which Jesus is doing, and this not in spite of the fact that he is going to the Father but because of that fact. The very departure of the Lord will benefit the disciples. How this can be true is explained in 14:16 ff. As a result of this departure the disciples will perform not only the works which Jesus has been doing all along (miracles in the physical realm), but even greater works than these, namely, miracles in the spiritual realm. See on 5:20, 21, 24. Christ's works had consisted to a considerable extent of miracles in the physical realm, performed largely among the Jews. When he now speaks about the greater works, he is in all probability thinking of those in connection with the conversion of the Gentiles. Such works were of a higher character and vaster in extent. That Jesus actually has this great task in mind seems to follow from the fact that he referred to it just a few days before (12:23–32), and also definitely during this very night (17:20). Now this conversion of (God's elect from among) the Gentiles, this work of Peter in the home of Cornelius and of Paul on all his missionary journeys, could not have been done before Christ's death and ascension for the simple reason that at that time the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out. For that very reason the wall of separation was still in existence. All this was going to change presently, that is, in connection with Christ's death, resurrection, ascension, and coronation. Hence, Jesus is able to say, Greater works than these will he do because I am going to the Father. Two additional remarks are necessary before we leave this passage: (1) Let no one say that the work of conversion can never in any sense be ascribed to man. Cf. Jas. 5:20, He who converts a sinner from the error of his way. See also Prov. 11:30and Dan. 12:3. This is, of course, a very relative way of speaking. The real Author of conversion is ever God himself, but he uses man as an agent. The disciples are viewed as reapers (see on 4:35–38). (2) It is certainly worthy of notice that, according to this great saying of our Lord, the greater works are the spiritual works. The miracles in the physical realm are subservient to those in the spiritual sphere: the former serve to prove the genuine character of the latter. Does Jesus, perhaps, by means of this very comparison, which places the spiritual so far above the physical, hint that miracles in the physical sphere would gradually disappear when they would no longer be necessary? 13, 14. And whatever you ask in my name, that I will do, in order that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you will ask me anything in my name, I will do it. The word whatever comprises much territory. It refers to both the great works and the greater works (of verse 12). Accordingly, in this passage the relation of these works to prayer is pointed out. Jesus very clearly teaches that there is this connection. In the book of Acts miracles in both realms are again and again linked with prayerActs 1:14followed by the great miracles of ch. 2; 4:31; 6:6, 7; 9:40, 41; 10:4, 9; 12:5; 13:3; 16:25–34 .^[165] Only such prayers, however, are answered which are in Christ's name. Such prayers, of course, are not selfish but in the interest of God's kingdom. They proceed from faith, are in accordance with God's will ever implying. Not our will, but thy will be done, and to his glory. A prayer in Christ's name is a prayer that is in harmony with whatever Christ has revealed concerning himself. His name is his self-revelation in his works; here particularly, his self-revelation in the sphere of redemption. It is not difficult to see that such a prayer will always and most certainly be answered, for the one who utters it does not ever want anything that Christ does not want! And when such a prayer is answered, the Father, who abides forever in the Son, will do his works. Hence, the Father will be glorified in the Son. The resplendent attributes of God will shine forth in all their beauty in and by means of these works. Not only will the believer receive the very thing asked that is, if it be asked in Christ's name, which covers every condition of answered prayer, but Christ himself in person will grant this humble petition of his disciple; note the words, I will do it. For the meaning of the verb ask and its synonym see on 11:22, and below, on 14:16. Because of the far-reaching character of the promise contained in verse 13 it is repeated in the next verse. However, there is a difference, for now the disciples are told that they must not only pray in the name of Christ but to Christ, If you will ask me anything in my name; etc. Hence, by taking the two verses together we see that Christ here represents himself as: a. The One in whose name prayer must be offered. b. The Object of prayer. c. The Hearer of prayer. 15. If you love me, you will keep my precepts. We do not agree with those commentators who claim that there is no connection between this and the preceding. This very night perhaps an hour or more ago Jesus had issued his new commandment (precept); see on 13:34. Similar precepts were added in 14:1 and 14:11. Besides, does not the immediate context (verses 12 14) clearly imply that the Lord wants his disciples to keep on believing in him, to pray in his name, and to pray to him? Are not these statements implied precepts? But they must be kept if they are to be a blessing. In the conditional sentence, If you love me, you will keep my precepts, there are three words that predominate: love ([Greek]), keep ([Greek]), and precept ([Greek]). For the first see on 21:15–17; for the second, on 8:51; and for the third, on 13:34. Summarizing the results of these word-studies, the sentence may be paraphrased as follows: If with love that is both intelligent and purposeful you love me, you will accept, obey, and stand guard over the rules which I have laid down for the regulation of your inner attitudes and outer conduct. The passage implies that from a certain aspect love precedes obedience. Hence, in this connection we refer to what has been said with reference to the order of the elements in Christian experience; see on 7:17, 18. 16. And I will request the Father, and he will give you another Helper, in order that he may he in your midst forever & Those who keep Christ's precepts will receive a great blessing. Jesus, as Mediator, will make a request in their interest. We prefer the translation I will request to the more indefinite I will pray. Since Jesus has just used the verb ask in speaking of the prayers of the disciples (see on verses 13 and 14), and now shifts to the verb request when he is thinking of his own prayer in their interest, it is obvious that the change in verbs was intentional. The disciples are not on a level with God's only begotten Son. They must implore; he has a right to ask on terms of equality. Only once (I John 5:16) in the New Testament is the term request ([Greek]) used with respect to the petitions which man addresses to God, and that one exception is easily explained. On the other hand, in speaking of his own prayers, Jesus always uses request, never ask ([Greek]). See also on 11:22. Jesus promises that in answer to his request the Father will give to the disciples another Helper. In the next verse this Helper is called the Spirit of truth. The passage clearly indicates that the Holy Spirit is not merely a power but a person, just like the Father and the Son. He is another Helper, not a different Helper. The word another indicates one like myself, who will take my place, do my work. Hence, if Jesus is a person, the Holy Spirit must also be a person. Moreover, personal attributes are everywhere ascribed to him (Acts 15:28; Rom. 8:26; I Cor. 12:11; I Tim. 4:1; Rev. 22:17). His relation to the Father and the Son is described as of such a character that if these are persons, he too must be a person (Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 12:4–6; II Cor. 13:14; I Pet. 1:1, 2). For the same reason, if Jesus is divine, the Spirit, too, must be divine. This too is taught throughout the New Testament, to say nothing of the Old. Thus, divine names are given to him (Acts 5:4; 28:25; Heb. 10:15, 16); divine attributes are ascribed to him; such as, eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience (I Cor. 2:10; 12:4–6; Heb. 9:14); and divine works are predicated of him (Matt. 12:18; Luke 4:18; John 14:16; 1Cor. 12:2–11; II Thess. 2:13; I Pet. 1:12). Passages such as Matt. 28:19and II Cor. 13:14clearly indicate that the three persons are completely equal. One and the same divine essence pervades all. According to the passage which we are studying, the Holy Spirit is given by the Father, in answer to the request of the Son. He proceeds from both Father and Son. The Father gives him; the Son sends him (15:26). He is the Spirit of the Father; he is also the Spirit of Christ (Matt. 10:20; Rom. 8:9; I Cor. 2:11, 12; and Gal. 4:6). The Holy Spirit is the person in whom the Father and the Son meet one another. Moreover, here as elsewhere the economical trinity rests upon the ontological: the Spirit's outpouring on the day of Pentecost, to which the present passage refers, rests upon his eternal procession. Both of these are the works of the Father and the Son. The Spirit is here called another Paraclete ([Greek]). The term indicates that he is a person who is called to the side (in this case, of the disciples) in order to help. Two errors, as we see it, should be avoided in this respect: (1) The fact that by derivation the word is a verbal adjective derived from the passive (perfect) form of the verb ([Greek]) must not be interpreted to mean that therefore the resulting word remains forever passive in meaning. The derivation of words is one thing, the history of their meaning in actual usage (to which the science of semantics devotes its attention) is a different matter. To be sure, there is a relation between the two, but they are by no means the same. The context must decide. In John it is the active idea that is stressed, as every reference to him indicates (see next paragraph). The Paraclete does certain things for the disciples (and, of course, for the Church). (2) The meaning of the word must not be too narrowly restricted. The Holy Spirit is a Helper in ever so many respects: he comforts, indeed, and since the main theme of chapter 14 is comfort it is probable that Jesus had this in mind more than anything else. But the Spirit also (and in close connection with the work of imparting comfort) teaches, guides in the truth (16:13, 14); brings the teaching of Christ home to the recollection of the disciples (14:26); and dwells within them as a source of inspiration and life (14:17). The Father and the Son call the Spirit to the side of the disciples in order to comfort, admonish, teach, and guide them; in other words, in order that in any given condition the Paraclete may furnish whatever help is necessary. Hence, we know of no better translation than the term Helper.^[166] In I John 2:1Jesus Christ is himself called Paraclete. He is the Helper in the sense of being Advocate or Intercessor with the Father in the interest of believers who commit sin. The sense of 14:16 is, accordingly, this: instead of becoming poorer, the disciples are actually going to become richer. To be sure, one Helper is leaving, but he leaves with the purpose of sending another. Moreover, the first Helper, though physically absent, will remain a Helper. He will be their Helper in heaven. The other will be their Helper on earth. The first pleads their case with God. The second pleads God's case with them. This second Helper, moreover, having once arrived (at Pentecost), will never depart from the church in any sense whatever. Hence, Pentecost is never repeated. (See on the next verse for the distinction between the prepositions used in verses 16 and 17 with reference to the Holy Spirit's relation to the church.) 17 &even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees nor acknowledges him. The Paraclete is here called the Spirit of truth (qualitative genitive). This, according to 16:13, means that he, being the truth in person, guides his people into that realm of truth which is embodied in Christ and his redemption. In view of the fact that the world ([Greek] see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, probably meaning 6) follows Satan's lie (see on 8:44, 45; 14:30), lacks an organ of spiritual discernment (I Cor. 2:12–14) and fails to acknowledge the Spirit (Matt. 12:22–37; Acts 2:12 17), ascribing the influences of the third person of the Holy Trinity to Beelzebub or to new wine, it cannot (see on 3:3, 5) receive him. (For the meaning of [Greek] see Vol. I, p. 85, footnote 33; and for [Greek] see on 1:10, 31; 3:11; 8:28.) You do know him, because he dwells by your side, and will be within you. Note the difference in the verbs and prepositions (according to what is probably the best reading): 14:16. in order that he may be in your midst or with you ([Greek] ). 14:17. because he dwells by your side ([Greek] ). 14:17. and will be within you ([Greek] ). The matter of interpreting these clauses is not easy. As has been said before, one should read on and on (see Vol. I, p. 71, on 1:4). Unless this is done, we could easily arrive at the following explanation: Right now the Holy Spirit is already dwelling within the heart of the Spirit-filled Savior, and thus by their side. As a result of this, they even now, at least in principle and in moments of spiritual clarity, recognize and acknowledge the Paraclete. But by and by the Spirit will establish an even closer relationship. He who had all along been at their side ([Greek]) would, on the day of Pentecost, come to be in their midst or with them ([Greek]) and within ([Greek]) them. Though such an interpretation is tempting, it does not work out, and this particularly in view of verse 23: and we will come to him, and make our home by his side (or: with him). Here the by his side relationship is definitely ascribed to the dispensation of the Spirit (note close connection between verse 23 and verses 25, 26). Hence, one is not justified in making any sharp distinction between the present by your side relationship and the future in the midst of and within relationship. Also, one is not justified in ascribing a too restricted meaning to the preposition by the side ([Greek]), as if it necessarily indicated a less close relationship. For the real meaning of [Greek] in such contexts see on verse 23. In view of this difficulty some commentators have interpreted the passage now under study (14:17) as if Jesus meant to say, Even now you already have the Spirit in your hearts. By and by, at Pentecost, you will know more about him. But this amounts to an underestimation of the significance of Pentecost. While agreeing that there is a difference in the meaning of the prepositions, it is probably much better to seek the solution in the direction of the following paraphrase: The Father will give you another Helper (verse 16), in order that he may be in your midst (or, in that sense, with you) forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees nor knows him. You, on the contrary, once the Spirit has arrived, will know him, because he will dwell at your side (or with you, in the sense explained below in connection with verse 23) and will be within you (verse 17). This reading of a present tense as if it were future is fully justified in such a context. Jesus is simply projecting himself into the future, having clearly used the future tense in verse 16. With the future period already present to his mind, he can now use the present tense, You know him, because he dwells at your side, where we would use the future. That he has this future period in mind is again clearly shown by his use of the future tense in the very next clause, And will be within you (if the reading of N.N. in the text is correct). On the day of Pentecost, therefore, the Holy Spirit would come to dwell in the midst of, by the side of, and within the disciples. He would enter personally into the church, which would become his temple, his permanent dwelling-place (I Cor. 3:16; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21). As a result, the church would throw away the swaddling clothes of infancy and would become spiritually of age. It would become a nation of prophets, a kingdom of priests, the Body of Christ (I Pet. 2:9; Joel 2:28; I Cor. 12:7ff.; Eph. 1:22, 23; 2:21, 22; 5:23–33). As a second result, on that day the church would become international. Broken down and destined to be broken down more and more would be the middle wall, the partition between Jew and Gentile (Is. 54:2, 3; Acts 2:9 11). 18. I will not leave you orphans: I am coming to you. What Jesus means is: My departure will not be like that of a father whose children are left orphans when he dies. In the Spirit I am myself coming back to you. The Spirit reveals the Christ, glorifies him, applies his merits to the hearts of believers, makes his teachings effective in their lives. Hence, when the Spirit is poured out, Christ truly returns. Here in verse 18 the reference is not primarily to the second coming but to the return of Christ in the Spirit at Pentecost. Reasons for adopting this position: a. The immediately preceding context refers to the outpouring of the Spirit. b. So does the immediately following context. c. Thus only can it be explained that the disciples are not left orphans. d. At the consummation of the age Jesus will come to the world as well as to the church. In the Spirit, poured out at Pentecost, he chooses as his abode the church only. e. One of the results of the coming referred to here in verse 18 is that the disciples will know that I am in the Father, and you in me, and I in you. The knowledge of the believers intimate union with Christ was a fruit of Pentecost: Rom. 6:3–11; 8:1; 12:5; 16:2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13; I Cor. 1:30; 4:10, 15, 17; 7:39; 9:1; 11:11; 15:31, 58; 16:19, etc. On the other hand, it is also true that Christ's abode through the Spirit in his church is a type of God's indwelling in the hearts of his people (in heaven and ultimately) in the restored universe. Note the following: a. In this very context the words of verse 23, And we will come to him and make our home with him, find their echo in Rev. 21:3, where the reference is to the perfect communion of God with his people in the new heaven and earth. b. The expression in that day (verse 20) often refers to a long period of time in which one event is typical of another (and still future) happening. c. Prophetic foreshortening, according to which great events seem to be compressed together so as to be seen at a single glance, is not unusual in Scripture. Thus Christ's first and second coming are seen together in (Mal. 3:1, 2. The destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world appear side by side (and the first viewed as foreshadowing the second) in Christ's eschatological addressMatt. 24and 25; Mark 13; Luke 21). Thus also here in 18 21 the return of Christ in the Spirit holds within its bosom the promise of the return which the church is still awaiting. 19. Yet a little while, and the world no longer sees me, but you see me; because I live you too will live. For the meaning of the expression a little while see also on 7:33; 12:35; 13:33; and 16:16–19. Note, however, that the connotation of this phrase is climactic: the little while is shrinking more and more. It is now no longer a half year or even a few days. It is now the night between Thursday and Friday. On Friday Jesus will die on the cross. After that the world ([Greek] defined by Jesus himself in verse 24 as referring to those who do not love him; see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, meaning (6) ) will no longer see him. Not even physically will they be able to observe him. In the Spirit, however, the disciples will indeed observe Jesus. (The verb is [Greek]; see Vol. I, p. 85, footnote 33), for that Spirit, from Pentecost on, will bring Christ's teachings concerning himself home to the hearts of these men and their followers, sothat what the Lord from heaven is doing on earth day by day will pass in review (note the verb once more) before their eyes. Now in order to see Jesus as he carries out his victorious program in the church through the Spirit, one must be fully alive spiritually. The disciples will be able to see or observe Jesus, for they will be alive. They will live because Christ lives. He, being in his own person the way and the truth and the life, is ever the cause of their spiritual life. Yes, ever, for he is unchangeable; but as far as they are concerned, this life will blossom forth most abundantly on and after Pentecost; hence, with respect to them the future tense is used: you too will live. 20. In that day you will recognize that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. In the new dispensation, beginning with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the disciples (and those who afterward embrace the Christ by living faith) will recognize and joyfully acknowledge the closeness of the relationship between the Father and the Son (as has been shown in connection with verse 18). They will then also understand that this union is in turn the pattern for the relationship between Christ and his followers. To be sure, these two relationships are not identical. Between the Father and the Son there is basically (as the root of the unity in outward operation) a unity of essence. This unity is absolute, incapable of growth. On the other hand, between the Son and believers there is an ethical and spiritual unity. We love him because he first loved us. This unity is capable of growth. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that Christ by means of the Spirit actually lives in the hearts of believers, the former is truly a pattern for the latter. So close is the relation between Christ and believers that while he is the vine, they are the vine-branches. He is the shepherd; they the sheep. They are the members of the body of which he is the head (I Cor. 12:27). One of the most striking passages in this connection is certainly Rev. 3:21, which shows not only the closeness and tenderness of the relationship between Christ and believers, but also indicates, as does the passage which we are studying (14:20), that this relationship is a reflection of the everlasting and ontological union between the Father and the Son. This prediction has an anticipatory and an ultimate fulfilment, as has been shown in connection with verse 18 (see above). 21. He who has my precepts and keeps them, he it is who loves me. The joyful and obedient recognition of Christ's sovereignty hence, the keeping (see on 8:51) of his precepts (see on 13:34) is the proof of genuine discipleship. The grammatical structure of the sentence is such that one can turn it around and retain the truth, now viewed from the opposite angle: He who loves me, he it is who has my precepts and keeps them. One can also put it this way: Verse 21, as it stands (with he who has my precepts and keeps them as subject and he it is who loves me as predicate) is the obverse of verse 15. But why does Jesus, having spoken about the dispensation of the Spirit in verses 16 20, return to the thought of verse 15, the keeping of his (Christ's) precepts? Probably because apart from the Spirit, no keeping of precepts is possible. Note that the mere possession of these precepts is not enough. One must have them and keep them. Cf. Matt. 7:24; Jas. 2:14–26. Now the one who constantly keeps the precepts which he has as an abiding possession, he (he alone, the pronoun [Greek] is emphatic) shows thereby that he constantly loves the Lord Jesus Christ (note the three present participles). For the meaning of the word rendered loves we refer to the discussion of this verb and its main synonym, in connection with 21:15–17. And he who loves me will be loved of my Father, and I too will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Note the future tense. But does not the Father's love precede ours? Is it not true that the whole of our love is but the answer to his love? True not only, but that is also exactly what the apostle John remembered of the teaching of Jesus (I John 4:19). But why cannot God's love both precede and follow ours? That is exactly what it does, and that is the beauty of it: first, by preceding our love, it creates in us the eager desire to keep Christ's precepts; then, by following our love, it rewards us for keeping them! Nothing could ever be more glorious than such an arrangement! For a commentary on the love of the Father for his people see (Rom. 8:28–32. Note also that in that famous chapter Paul shifts the emphasis, sothat having spoken of the love of God (in the verses indicated), he follows this up immediately by riveting the attention on the love of ChristRom. 8:35–37). He concludes by indicating that in reality the two are one and the same (though the two divine persons remain forever distinct), sothat they can be summarized in the beautiful expression the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:39). Similarly, Jesus here, having mentioned the love of the Father, immediately adds, And I too will love him. This intelligent and purposeful love is made manifest by the Spirit. The expression, and will manifest myself to him takes on reality in the lives of believers again and again (I Cor. 2:10, 11; 12:3–7), sothat they can say, But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me (II Tim. 4:17, 18). See also Ps. 23and Rev. 3:20. This manifestation of Christ to the believer is ever in the Spirit and through the Word. 22. Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, Lord, what has happened that thou art about to manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? The Judas who interrupts the Lord was not the man who had just left the house (13:30), that is, he was not Iscariot (see on 6:71).^[167] This is added for the sake of clarity and for the protection of the memory of Judas the Greater (see Vol. I, pp. 19, 20). On the contrary, he was Judas the Thrice-named, the one who is called Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus (probably courageous, lion-hearted). He was Judas of James (Luke 6:16; cf. Acts 1:13). In the four lists of the apostles this Judas is placed next to Simon (the Zealot), from which some have inferred that the two were brothers or very close friends. (Note the striking resemblance between these disciples as pictured by Da Vinci in his Last Supper.) Although in apocryphal writings his name occurs again and again, the New Testament records no other incident with respect to him than the one here described. As often in the Fourth Gospel (see on 3:4; 4:11, 15, 33; 6:52; 8:22, 57; 11:12; 13:9) so also in this case a listener takes up a word or phrase which Jesus has uttered, and misinterprets it. Upon this misinterpretation the listener bases his question. The particular expression to which Judas gave the wrong interpretation was, Yet a little while, and the world no longer sees me &and I will manifest myself to him (that is, to the one who loves me) (14:19, 21). Jesus had clearly spoken about a manifestation in the Spirit, and therefore spiritual in character. Judas, however, was probably thinking of a public manifestation by means of mighty miracles or by means of a kind of Messianic theophany, as on the coming judgment day (cf. 5:27–29). Did he still cherish the hope that powerful works displayed in public would convince the world? (The question of Judas reminds us strongly of the advice given by the brothers of Jesus; see on 7:3, 4.) Moreover, the fact that some weeks later, at the very moment when Jesus was about to ascend to heaven, the disciples were still dreaming earthly, nationalistic dreams (Acts 1:6) causes us to think that what Judas meant here in 14:22 was this, Lord, what has happened (in other words, why is it) that, in a dramatic manner, thou art about to display thy great power to us alone, and not also to the public in general? Would not the latter policy be far better and more effective? For the meaning of ([Greek]) here see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, meaning (3). We do not believe that the question of Judas was merely theoretical, as if he were asking, How, in the abstract, is it possible for thee to reveal thyself in such a manner that only thy disciples will be able to see thee? The occasion was far too serious for purely speculative questions. Show thyself thy great power to the world. It may not be too late. Make an impression. Get into the limelight. Win applause. Overthrow the opposition. There seems to have been something of that spirit in Judas. He is somewhat dissatisfied with the words spoken by Jesus (14:19, 21). In view of the fact that basically the error of Judas concerned the character of Christ's promised manifestation, Jesus, while seemingly simply continuing from where he left off in verse 21, gives a further explanation of this concept in the words of verses 23 and 24: 23. Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him. For the meaning of the first part of this conditional sentence see on verse 15. There the plural was used; here the singular. The form of the sentence and the use of the singular emphasizes the responsibility of each disciple to ask himself whether he personally loves Jesus. The term my word here in verse 23 is explained by my precepts in verse 15. Such love, having Jesus as its object, receives a rich reward: My Father (note my, and see on 1:14) will love him, etc. The question, Which love is first? has been answered in connection with verse 21b. Note that the active expression and my Father will love him, corresponds to the passive he will be loved of my Father in verse 21; hence, see also on that verse. And we will come to him and make our home with him. In the Spirit (see preceding context) both the Father and the Son will come to ([Greek], face to face with; see on 1:1) the one who loves the Lord, and will make their home with ([Greek]: by the side of) him. This presence is very real. Its operation can be felt. The Spirit will convict of sin, lead to daily repentance, impart assurance of salvation, bestow the peace of God that passes all understanding, admonish, comfort; all of this in connection with the Word. It is in that way that Christ has promised to manifest himself to the disciples, but not to the world (see on 14:21, 22). The clause, and make our home with him, (home is [Greek]; see on 14:2) indicates a very close and intimate relationship. Father and Son, in and through the Spirit, are ever by the side of ([Greek]) those who love their Lord, ready to comfort, ready to cheer, ready to extend any and all necessary help.^[168] This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XV Discussion of Certain Basic Points in connection with the Allegory of the Vine and the Branches We can begin by repeating what was said in connection with the Allegory of the Good Shepherd: In the interpretation of this sublime allegory commentators differ widely. It is probably best to read these verses through, from beginning to end, several times before attempting any explanation. The earlier verses cannot be properly understood unless they are seen in the light of all that follows and, we may add, of that which preceded during this same night. Hence, in order that we may not in studying the trees (individual passages) lose sight of the forest (the thrust of the entire allegory) we deem a look at the whole to be very advisable. Only then when one reads on and on does the meaning of individual passages become clear. I. The Occasion for This Allegory The fact that before his trial and crucifixion this was the last opportunity which Jesus had to warn the disciples not to be like Judas but to remain in the faith, to manifest in their lives not the work of Satan but the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and the additional fact that the fertility of the vine (a very common plant in the Palestine of that day) readily suggested spiritual fruit-bearing, explains why Jesus spoke this allegory. Moreover, the illustration was not entirely new or strange. It was natural that the Israelite, acquainted with the Old Testament, would associate fruitfulness both natural and spiritual, with the idea of a vine (Ps. 80:8, 14; 128:3; Is. 5:1–7; Ezek. 17:8; Joel 2:22; Zech. 8:12; Mal. 3:11). That at times vines failed to bring forth desirable fruit was also well known, as was also the application of this truth to spiritual fruit-bearing (Is. 5:4; Jer. 2:21). All this must be borne in mind in any attempt to interpret John 15:1 11. However, it is almost certain that there was an additional reason for the use of this allegory.^[177] Its main metaphor was in all probability suggested by the fruit of the vine to which Jesus referred while instituting the Lord's Supper. See on 15:1. II. Its Central Meaning The emphasis should be placed where it rightly belongs. Although Jesus speaks about several things, such as the true vine, the vine-dresser, the branches, bearing fruit, the taking away and burning of unfruitful branches, etc., yet there is one main lesson: Just as a vine-offshoot bears fruit only when it abides in the vine, so also believers will bear spiritual fruit only when they abide in Christ. Hence, the precept which underlies the entire section is Abide in me in order that you may bear fruit abundantly. That this is, indeed, the main idea is clear from the frequent occurrence of the words bear fruit and abide. III. The Two Groups Here Indicated A. These two groups are (metaphorically): 1. Branches that bear fruit (15:2b, 5, 8). 2. Branches that do not bear fruit (15:2a, 6). B. They are treated as follows: 1. Branches that bear fruit are cleansed (15:2b). 2. Branches that do not bear fruit are taken away, allowed to wither, picked up, thrown into the fire, and burned (15:2a, 6). C. Who are represented by these two groups? Again and again in the Fourth Gospel those to whom the good tidings are proclaimed and who therefore, in a certain sense, have the light, are divided into two groups: a. those who accept the message; and b. those who reject it (see on 1:9; 12:35, 36). Do we have something similar here? The historical background certainly points in that direction. Judas had left. His relation to Jesus has been (outwardly, to all appearances) very close (see on 13:18). But now Judas was on the way to destruction. Would it not seem natural then that, in speaking of branches that do not bear fruit, are taken away, allowed to wither, picked up, thrown into the fire, and burned, Jesus was thinking of men who, like Judas, had once stood in very close connection with him, had left him, and were on their way to everlasting destruction? And again, would it not seem natural that, in speaking of branches that bear fruit, he was thinking of the other disciples, and in general, of all those who by remaining in him produced much spiritual fruit? This conclusion as to the meaning of the two metaphors (branches that bear fruit, branches that do not bear fruit) is greatly strengthened by an identical passage found in two accounts, both of which describe the happenings of this same night. Here in chapter 15 this passage is not explained; but in chapter 13, where it is also found, the explanation is added to it. The passage to which we refer is: You are clean ([Greek] 13:10; 15:3). In 13:10, 11 this is amplified as follows: And you are clean, but not all of you are. For he knew the one who was betraying him. It was for this reason that he said, Not all of you are clean. That would seem to settle the question with respect to the identity of the two groups. Group a. (branches that bear fruit and are cleansed) represents all those who not only come into close contact with Christ and the Gospel but also (by God's sovereign grace and through faith) accept it. Group b. (branches that do not bear fruit and are taken away and burned) represents all the others who have come into close contact with Christ and the Gospel. The two groups have in common their close contact with Christ and the Gospel. Speaking in terms of the metaphor, both groups of branches were in the vine (see, however, footnote 179). That this relation of having been in the vine (or, dropping the metaphor, in Christ) does not have to refer to the spiritual, saving union with Christ is easy to see. Not all those who are in the covenant are of the covenant. Not all those who were baptized into Moses were saved (I Cor. 10:1–5). That in speaking of men who have at one time been in him, but subsequently forsook him, Jesus had in mind not a merely hypothetical possibility but an oft-repeated situation in actual life, is apparent from 15:6, If a man does not abide in me, he is thrown away as a (mere) branch and withers; and such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned; where the indicatives show that it is assumed that these things actually happen. In no sense whatever do such passages as 15:2 and 15:6 suggest that there is a falling away from grace, as if those who were once actually saved finally perish. This allegory plainly teaches that the branches which are taken away and burned represent people who never once bore fruit, not even when they were in Christ. Hence, they never were true believers; and for them the in-the-vine relationship, though close, was merely outward. There is, accordingly, nothing here (in 15:1–11) that clashes in any way with 10:28 (see on that passage). The true believers of chapter 15 are represented by those branches which, abiding forever in the vine, bear fruit, more fruit, much fruit. These never perish! 15:1–11 15 1 I am the real vine, and my Father is the vine-dresser. 2 Every branch in me that bears no fruit he takes away, and every one that does bear fruit he cleanses, in order that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I (will abide) in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in me.^[174] 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, with me abiding in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If a man does not abide in me, he is thrown away as a (mere) branch and withers;^[174] and such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it will take place for you.^[174] 8 By this my Father is glorified that^[175] you bear much fruit, and so you will become my disciples. 9 Just as the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my precepts, you will abide in my love,^[176] just as I kept my Father's precepts and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, in order that my joy may be in you, and in order that your joy may be full. 15:1. I am the real vine. Bear in mind that this was spoken during the night of the Passover meal; more specifically either during or very shortly after the institution of the Lord's Supper. That night one could see on the table (among other things) the lamb, the bread, and the fruit of the vine, namely, the wine. Now in this very room there was present One apart from whom these things had little real significance (except historical). Did the disciples fail to see this? Yet, as to the lamb, had not the Baptist said, while pointing to Christ, Look, the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world? Similarly, Jesus now bids these men to look away from the symbols of merely physical bread and wine and to see in him the reality, the fulfilment, the great Antitype. Having taken in his hand a piece of bread he said, This is my body &do this in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19; I Cor. 11:24). And with reference to the fruit of the vine he said, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me &I am the real vine (I Cor. 11:25and the passage now under study, namely, John 15:1). In this connection see also Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18, which clearly show that during the institution of the Lord's Supper Jesus spoke about the fruit of the vine. ^[178] Not the vine from which the communion-wine had been derived, nor even Israel (which on the coins of the Maccabean period was represented by a vine), but Christ himself, present with the disciples that memorable night, was the real vine. Do the branches attain their unity in the vine? Does the vine sustain them? Do they owe their fruit-bearing capacity to the vine? Thus also only in a far higher degree does the church find its unity, its life, and its fertility in Christ. We must place the emphasis upon this phrase in a far higher degree. If we do not do so, we are not doing justice to the lesson which Jesus stressed in this great I AM. He said, I (or I myself) am the vine, the real one. To be sure, the unity which an earthly vine imparts to the branches is very close and organic. Were it not so, this metaphor could not have been employed. But the oneness of believers with one another and with Christ is far more glorious. They are the body of which he is the head. This unity is moral, mystical, and spiritual. It is a union founded on love. Again, the life which the branch receives from its parent, the vine, is highly appreciated by the owner of the vineyard, for apart from this there would be no vintage. But, after all, this life merely amounts to physical sustenance. It is but a dim shadow compared with the everlasting life which Jesus, by means of his death, gives to all those who accept him by a true faith. And so also the fertility of the vine, sothat its branches hang their many purple clusters in the sunlight, though ever so glorious, is nothing at all in comparison with the abiding fruitfulness with which the Son of God adorns those who love him; for the fruits of his Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5:22, 23; see also on John 15:16). Yes, indeed, Jesus has the right to say, I am the vine, the real (or genuine) one. And my Father is the vine-dresser. To Jesus the first person of the Holy Trinity is my Father, never our Father (see on 1:14). Here the Father is represented as the One who tills the ground (A [Greek]), or, in the present connection, who tends the vine, by busying himself with its branches. These branches need much care in order that they may bear fruit (which, as has been shown, is the important point in this allegory). The men represented by the branches need much fatherly care. In this connection it must not be forgotten that the cleansing is first of all (though not exclusively; see on 13:10) justification, a work in which the Father takes the leading part. Besides, it was the Father who gave the Son (3:16) in order that the forensic foundation for the entire work of cleansing might be established. It is the Father who, in answer to the request of the Son, sends the Holy Spirit (14:16). And it is the Father who is pre-eminent in those providential events of life whereby, when they are applied to the heart by the Spirit, the believer is cleansed more and more. We are not saying that Jesus had all (or only) this in mind when he said, And my Father is the vine-dresser. We merely mean to imply that there was more than sufficient reason why he calls the Father (not the Son, nor the Spirit, though in the outgoing works all three cooperate) the vine-dresser. One more item must not be forgotten: it is also the Father who takes away the vine-offshoots that bear no fruit! What is implied already in verse 1 is stated specifically in verse 2: 2. Every branch in me that bears no fruit he takes it away, and every one that does bear fruit he cleanses it, in order that it may bear more fruit. Just as a vine-dresser will take away the branches that bear no physical fruit, so the Father rejects those people who bear no spiritual fruit. For the nature of this fruit see especially Gal. 5.22(quoted on p. 297); also Matt. 3:8–10; 7:16–20; 12:33; 13:8; 13:23; Rom. 1:13; 7:4; II Cor. 9:10; Eph. 5:9; Phil. 4:17; Col. 1:6; Heb. 12:11; 13:15; and Jas. 3:18. These fruits are good motives, desires, attitudes, dispositions (spiritual virtues), words, deeds, all springing from faith, in harmony with God's law, and done to his glory. Those who bear good fruit are cleansed more and more. Having been justified, they now receive the grace of daily renewal, until finally (the last stage is the most incisive of all), completely sanctified, they reach the shores of heaven. The purpose of this daily cleansing in the life of God's child is to make him ever more fruitful. The one who has brought forth thirty can probably bring forth sixty or even a hundredfold. Thus, all who are brought into close contact with Christ are compared with branches that are in the vine. Some bear fruit; others do not.^[179] The responsibility is wholly theirs. 3. Already you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. By faith (Acts 10:43; Rom. 3:22) in the word (Acts 2:41) of Christ, the eleven had become clean (see on 13:10), that is, had been justified (Rom. 5:1). This grace they had received already. The process of gradual cleansing (sanctification) would be continued. 4. Abide in me, and I (will abide) in you. In the process of bringing salvation to the hearts of men God is ever first! See on 3:3, 5. By his Spirit he invades the heart of the sinner. Thus the sinner, who has now become, in principle, a saint, has received power to abide in Christ. The more he does so, the more will he experience Christ's loving-presence (see also on 14:21). That is the promise. Hence, the words, Abide in me, do not constitute a condition which man must fulfill in his own power before Christ will do his part. Far from it. It is sovereign grace from start to finish, but the responsibility of abiding in Christ is placed squarely upon man's shoulders, exactly where it belongs. Without exertion there is no salvation. But the power to exert oneself and to persevere is God-given! What is meant by abiding in Christ is explained in verses 7 and 9. This precept, even if it had been intended only for the eleven, is by no means in conflict with the assurance given in 10:28, to the effect that the sheep will never perish. On the contrary, there is beautiful harmony, for exactly by means of obedience to this command the promise of 10:28 is fulfilled! The admonition, Abide in me, is in agreement with numerous exhortations addressed to believers, warning them against apostasy and bidding them to abide in the faith. These warnings regard the matter from the side of man. They move on the plane of human responsibilityCol. 1:23; Heb. 2:1; 3:14; etc. . It is certainly true that once a man is truly saved, he remains saved forever; yet, God does not keep a man on the way of salvation without exertion, diligence, and watchfulness on man's part. And the strength thus to persevere in the faith is ever from God, from him alone! By way of illustration, one might point to an incident in the life of Paul. In connection with a storm and shipwreck in which Paul was involved God had given him the definite promise, There will be no loss of life among you (Acts 27:22). Nevertheless, Paul says to the centurion and to the soldiers, Unless these men remain in the ship, you cannot be saved (Acts 27:31). The word of warning did not in any way contradict the certainty that the men would actually be saved. The men heeded the warning and no life was lost. But on the basis of 14:21 (notice the very general character of this declaration) and 17:20 we may believe that the words spoken that night were meant not only for these eleven men, but also for many others who would follow them, in fact for all those who would be brought into close contact with Christ and the Gospel. And among these many there would also be several who would turn away from Christ. Hence, from every point of view the warning was altogether timely and necessary. Judas, let it be remembered, had turned away already! Just as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in me. One cannot enter the kingdom without birth from above (see on 3:3, 5). Once in the kingdom, one cannot bear fruit unless he remains in Christ, the vine. These are laws that allow no exceptions. To expect that fruit-bearing would be possible for the man who does not remain in Christ is even more foolish than to expect that a branch that has been severed from the vine can bring forth grapes! See also verse 5 (last clause). 5. I am the vine, you are the branches. First 15:1 is repeated: Jesus is the vine. Next, the thought already clearly implied in 15:2–4, is expressly stated, namely, You are the branches. A word is used for branch which literally means vine-branch or vine-twig ([Greek]). He who abides in me, with me abiding in him (literally, He who abides in me, and I in him, but this is hardly good English), he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. Note: more fruit (verse 2), much fruit (verses 5 and 8). The vitality of the vine, Jesus Christ, is stressed. This vine enables those who remain in him to produce fruit not only but much fruit. For the character of this fruit see on 15:1, 2. On the other hand, those who are out of relation to Christ can do literally nothing, nothing whatever ([Greek] &[Greek]). That holds not only for the drunkard, the thief, the murderer, the immoral person, but also for the poet, the scientist, and the philosopher who has not embraced Christ with a living faith. He can render no work that is acceptable before God. Then why is it that some even among those who like to pass as Christians and who seek the place of leadership in the church are ever engaged in ascribing the highest possible honors to such outsiders, as if one could better afford to do without Paul than without Plato? The passage certainly teaches the inability of man to do that which is good in the sight of God. It is entirely in line with Rom. 14:23, just as the preceding clause is entirely in line with Phil. 4:13. Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism of every description stands condemned here! 6. If a man does not abide in me, he is thrown away as a (mere) branch and withers; and such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire, and burned.^[180] Note the five elements in the punishment of the man who rejects the light: a. He is thrown away as a (mere) branch. He is condemned already (3:18). He is cast out (6:37). b. and withers. Though such an individual may linger on in this life for a while longer, he has no peace (Is. 48:22), no joyJoel 1:12: joy is withered away . He is like an autumn tree without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots (Jude 12; see also Is. 40:24; Mark 4:6; 11:21). The unforgettable example is Judas (Matt. 27:3–5). c. And such branches are picked up. Cf. Matt. 13:30: And in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them. See also Matt. 13:41and Rev. 14:18. d. thrown into the fire. Cf. Matt. 13:41, 42: The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom &all evil-doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire. See also Matt. 7:19; 13:50; Rev. 20:15. e. and burned. Cf. Matt. 25:46: And they will go away into everlasting punishment. That this being burned does not mean annihilation is also clear from such passages as Mark 9:43, 48; cf. Rev. 20:10( they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever, said with respect to the devil, the beast, and the false prophet, and compare Rev. 20:15). On teaching with reference to the last things in John's Gospel see Vol. I, pp. 200, 201. Note the instructive change from the singular to the plural here in 15:6. First we have the singular: If a man &he is thrown away &and withers. This stresses the responsibility of each individual who is brought into close contact with Christ and his Gospel. If he rejects the light, there will come a time when all further work with him as an individual ceases. He is regarded as being simply one of the mass of those who are rejected and cast into hell. Hence, now we have the plural: And such branches are picked up, etc. (The active voice in the original, sothat we literally read, And they pick them up and throw them into the fire, where we would use the passive, is probably due to Aramaic influence upon grammar; see Vol. I, pp. 63, 64). 7. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it will take place for you. The spoken words or utterances ([Greek] ) of Jesus had been rejected by many (5:18, 38; 6:66; 12:37–43). These men, in turn, were rejected, etc. (verse 6 above). For those who abide in Christ, on the other hand, there is a great promise. Here the thought of positively abiding in Christ (see 15:4, 5) returns and is explained. We learn that it means to heed the utterances of Christ, sothat they become the dynamic of one's life, taking complete control over a person, sothat he both believes them and acts in accordance with them. In the lives of such individuals the effective-prayer promise of 14:13 is realized (see on that passage). Note: I will do it (14:13). He will give it (16:23). Hence, it is double sure that: It will take place for you (thus here in 15:7). It stands to reason that a person who abides in Christ and in whose heart Christ's utterances (including the precepts, of course) are in complete control, will ask nothing that is contrary to Christ's will, for he will always ask in the spirit of, Not my will but thine be done, and in complete harmony with all that Christ has revealed concerning himself. Hence, it is not hard to understand that such a person will receive whatever he asks. All the same, this is a glorious promise which becomes an even more glorious reality in the lives of all God's true children whenever they, by God's sovereign grace, truly measure up to the stipulation mentioned in the if-clause. Abiding in Christ has glorious results: a. effectual prayer (15:7); b. the bearing of much fruit (15:8); c. fulness of joy (15:11). Having discussed a., Jesus now turns to b. 8. By this is my Father glorified that you bear much fruit, and so you will become my disciples. The spiritual graces or fruits (see on 15:1, 2) which adorn the children of God reflect his own being. Accordingly, seeing himself (his communicable attributes) reflected in their lives, he is thereby glorified, and this especially when the fruits are bountiful. Thus those who, by God's grace, are already disciples become disciples more and more. To weaken the sense of the verb become ([Greek]) is neither necessary nor justifiable. It takes a disciple to become a disciple. It takes a child of God to become a child of God. See on 1:12. 9. Just as the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. I have loved you, says Jesus. The best commentary on this Isaiah 13:1, which see. In this sacred night, the most sacred of all, the Lord looks back on all his experiences with his disciples from the day when he first chose them to discipleship, and then back once more to the eternity which preceded the foundation of the world, when in his sovereign goodpleasure he (together with the Father and the Holy Spirit) had elected them. He puts all this together in one word, I have loved you. This love, moreover, was pure, wholehearted, deep, personal, intelligent, enduring; hence, in all of these respects it was exactly like the Father's love for the Son. Just as the Father has loved me, so have I loved you (or simply, Just as the Father loved me, so I loved you). The Father had spoken of his love for the Son at the baptism: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matt. 3:17), and also in connection with the transfiguration (Matt. 17:5). Very precious to the heart of the Son was this love of the Father. Hence, he makes mention of it in the high-priestly prayer (17:23, 24). Here too the comparison holds, for Jesus specifically mentions that this love of which he himself was the object was a reality even before the foundation of the world. Since the love of Christ for the disciples is very, very precious for it is like the love of the Father for the Son, hence all the more the disciples should exert themselves to abide in it. For the order in which God's love for us and our love for him follow one another see on 14:21. For the reciprocal relationship of the elements in Christian experience see on 7:17, 18. Once for all abide (note [Greek], constative aorist active imperative) in this my love, says Jesus. Here too (as in verse 7) we have a clarification of the precept, Abide in me (verse 4). In complete harmony with the thought of verse 7, Jesus now reiterates how the disciples may continue in his love: 10. If you keep my precepts, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's precepts, and abide in his love. The believer is surrounded by cords of love, which draw him closer and closer to his Savior: a. His love is always first, We love because he first loved us (I John 4:19). Now our love begins to operate. How does it manifest itself? Answer: b. We show our love by keeping his precepts, If you love me, you will keep my precepts (14:15). c. This keeping of his precepts results, in turn, in our abiding in his love, If you keep my precepts, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's precepts, and abide in his love. This Isaiah 15:10, the passage which we are studying. So now we are back at the point from which we started, namely, to the station called my love. It is hardly necessary to add that this love was never absent. It was operating during every instant of our exercise of love. It precedes our love. It accompanies our love. It follows our love, and in the very process of doing this, creates more love toward him in our hearts, sothat, as it were, another love-cycle begins, this one even better than the first. Thus, the believer feels himself drawn ever closer to God in Christ. He ever abides in that love. Inasfar as that love is an answer to our obedience (and also from the point of view of its everlasting character) it is an echo or replica of the Father's love for the Son: just as I have kept my Father's precepts, and abide in his love. For the idea of the Son's perfect obedience to the Father's instructions see on 8:29; 10:17, 18; 12:49, 50; 14:31; 17:4. The Son's voluntary sacrifice to the bitter death on the cross is certainly the most glorious manifestation of this obedience. Note how Jesus, looking back upon his entire life of obedience, says, I have kept ([Greek], this reaches from the past to the present and implies that the accomplished obedience has abiding significance) and am (forever) abiding ([Greek]). For precepts see on 13:34. For keeping these precepts see on 8:51. See also on 7:17, 18; 14:21. 11. These things have I spoken to you, in order that my joy may be in you, and in order that your joy may be full. These words (15:1–10), by means of which Jesus has told his disciples how through abiding in him and bearing much fruit they will obtain the blessing of answered prayer and will abide forever in his love, Jesus has spoken in order that his joy may be (may abidingly remain) in them. Note: my joy (not the kind of joy or pleasure which the world promises), and compare my peace (14:27). Just as my peace means the peace which I give, so also my joy is the joy which I impart, a joy that is spiritual, based on peace with God, never-ending. Jesus wants to see this inner delight, this incomparable rejoicing in the hearts of his disciples. They needed this, for at present they were troubled and filled with sorrow (14:1, 27; 16:6). Moreover, not until the cup of joy has at length been filled to the very brim (I John 1:4) will Jesus be satisfied. On this fulness of spiritual joy see also Luke 2:10; Rom. 14:17; Phil. 2:17, 18; and especially I Peter 1:6, 8. 15:12–17 12 This is my precept, that you keep on loving one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no man than this, that^[181] a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I bid you.^[182] 15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that^[183] you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, sothat^[183] whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17 These things I bid you (to do) in order that you may keep on loving one another. 15:12. This is my precept, that you keep on loving one another as I have loved you. From the precept Abide in me (15:1–11) Jesus now proceeds to the next one, love one another. It is only when we abide in Christ in his words, in his love that we shall be able to keep on loving one another! For the explanation of 15:12 see on 13:34, where this is called a new precept. 13. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. When we combine verses 12 and 13, we notice that the thought is this: You must continue to love each other with that same love which I exercise when I lay down my life for all those who are truly my friends. Cf. I John 3:16. It is true, of course, that this love of Christ cannot in every sense be a pattern for our love toward one another. As far as its infinite value, substitutionary character, and glorious redemptive consequences are concerned, his act of love, whereby he determined to lay down his life for us, can never be a pattern for our love of the brethren. In these respects that love is completely unique and cannot be copied. To attempt to copy it with respect to these particulars would be blasphemous. Nevertheless, there is one characteristic of this love which should be reflected in the attitude of one brother to another, namely, its self-sacrificing nature. In your love for one another you must be willing to deny yourselves, is what Jesus meant. That this is actually what he had in mind is clear from such passages as 13:15 (viewed in its entire context) and Mark 8:34. Now, in ordinary life there surely is no greater manifestation of self-denying love for one's friends than this, that a man would even be willing to die for them. In the sphere of redemption Jesus did just that. He died for his friends. Moreover, he died for them when they were his friends only in the sense that he had made them such. In themselves and by nature (apart from God's grace) they were weak, ungodly, sinners, enemies (Rom. 5:6–10). A friend of Jesus is one: a. whom he has chosen out of this world (that is always basic); see on 15:19; and therefore b. who does what Jesus wants him to do; see on 15:14. For these friends Jesus lays down his life, that is, not only does he physically die for their benefit, but in their stead he even experiences the torments of hell on the cross (eternal death). The use of the preposition for ([Greek]) has been explained in connection with 10:11. 14. You are my friends if you do what I bid you. This comforting and reassuring statement is much like that found in verse 10; see on that verse. By constantly doing the will of Christ his disciples obtain for themselves the assurance that they are his friends, that is, that they will abide in his love. In the light of the manner in which these men had displayed their character-deficiencies even this very night (Luke 22:24), it was surely an act of glorious, condescending love for Jesus to say, You are my friends. Stress must be laid on the qualifying clause, if you do what I bid you. This expression places all the stress on human responsibility. Verse 19 ( I chose you out of the world; see also verse 16) emphasizes divine election. Both receive their due, which is not always the case in the writings of theologians. 15. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. The disciples are no longer called servants (as probably implied in 13:16) but friends. When a superior tells his servant^[184] to do this or that, the latter receives no minute explanations as to the why and the wherefore. With a friend the case is different. A friend is a confidant. By this time Jesus had told the disciples all that he had heard from the Father (see on 8:26; cf. 3:11; and note my Father; see on 1:14, 18); such things as, why he was sent to earth by the Father, why he was going to lay down his life, why he had to leave this earth, what he would do at his return, and how a man could be saved (see such passages as 3:16; 10:11; 14:2, 3; then 3:3, 5, 36). Hence, when emphasis is to be placed on the closeness of the fellowship between the Master and his disciples, the name servants is no longer the proper term. Moreover, the task which a servant must perform is often arduous, but the yoke which Jesus laid on his disciples was easy, the burden was light (Matt. 11:25–30), especially in comparison with the load of human ordinances and traditions which pressed down heavily upon the Jews (Matt. 23:4; Acts 15:10). They were servants, slaves even. But these disciples were friends. Clearly implied in these words of Jesus is the thought that he is not satisfied with merely servile obedience. His friends are motivated by friendship when they do his bidding. Obedience is an expression of their love. 16. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide sothat whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. Though the disciples are Christ's friends, this does not mean that they are on an equal footing with him. On earth friends generally choose each other, but the friendship of which Jesus speaks is different. It is one-sided in its origin. It was not brought about by gradual approach from both sides, as is often the case among men, but by Jesus alone! The words, You did not choose me, but I chose you, emphasize the free, independent, and spontaneous character of Christ's love. The ground of God's love for us never lies in us, always in himself, for even apart from his love for us God is love. In his very essence he is love. The unconditional and sovereign nature of this divine love is shown also by such passages as the following: Jehovah did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because Jehovah loves you &he has brought you out with a mighty hand (Deut. 7:7, 8). For mine own sake, for mine own sake will I do it (Is. 48:11). O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God, because thy city and thy people are called by thy name (Dan. 9:19). I will heal their backsliding; I will love them freely (Hos. 14:4). But God commends his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, in order that we should he holy (Eph. 1:4). Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (I John 4:10). We love, because he first loved us (I John 4:19). It was Christ who had elected these men for himself out of a world of darkness (see on verse 19), in order that they might be his followers and as such might bear fruit, and this not merely for a time or by spurts but abidingly. Unto that purpose he had also appointed them; that is, he had set them apart from the world and had promised to give them the required qualification. As has been indicated before, fruit-bearing refers to the bringing forth of such products of divine grace as those mentioned in Gal. 5:22love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; Eph. 5:9; Col. 1:6; Heb. 12:11; and James 3:18. But in view of 4:36 and 12:24, passages in which the term fruits indicates souls saved for eternity, it is certainly not amiss to point out that the good works of which Jesus is thinking are mentioned not as an end in themselves but as a means unto the conversion of others, and thus unto the glory of God, via the avenue indicated in Matt. 5:16. We agree entirely with Dr. F. W. Grosheide that the election of which the present passage speaks is not that unto office but that which pertains to every Christian.^[185] All believers are chosen out of the world (verse 19) to bear fruit (verses 2, 4, 5, 8). Though this is an act which takes place in time, it has its basis in election before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4; cf. John 17:24). Abiding in Christ is rewarded by fruitbearing, and via fruitbearing, also by answered prayer. A true disciple prays for fruits, for these fruits are pleasing to God. He asks God to give whatever is in accordance with his will. He asks this, not as if he (the disciple) himself had any merit, but solely on the basis of Christ's merits and in complete harmony with his revelation (hence, in Christ's name). Accordingly, verse 16 concludes with the words: sothat whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. Here the thought of 15:7 recurs; see on that verse. In verse 16, however, we do not find the impersonal it shall be done for you, but the very personal, He &gives it. The Father loves the Son; hence, he loves those who do the Son's bidding. 17. These things I bid you (to do) in order that^[186] you may keep on loving one another, says Jesus. The thought of verse 12 recurs here, but this time in a slightly altered form. Jesus now shows that in telling the disciples to abide in him (verses 1 11), and especially in reminding them of his great elective love for them (the immediate context, verse 16 cf. verse 9), he had one great purpose in mind, namely, in order that you may keep on loving one another. The logic here is simple and clear. I, being in myself unlovable, cannot keep on loving my brother, who also is often very unlovable (at least as I see him), unless I constantly reflect on (and remain in) the love of Christ for myself. Not only do we love him because he first loved us, but we also love one another because he first loved us. Our love for one another is an extension of Christ's love for us. It is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts so copiously that it overflows into the lives of others. Cf. Rom. 5:5. For Synthesis see p. 316. 15:18–27 18 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. ^[187] 19 If you were of the world, the world would have affection for its own;^[188] but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word which I spoke to you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you If they kept my word, they will keep yours also.^[189] 21 But all these things will they do to you for my name's sake,^[190] because they do not know the One who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin.^[191] But now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates me hates my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin;^[192] but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But (this happened) in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, They hated me without a cause. 26 When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, he will testify concerning me. 27 And you must also testify^[193] because you have been with me from the beginning. 15:18. If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. Jesus has admonished his disciples to abide in him (verses 1 11), and to love one another (verses 12 17). He now exhorts them to bear witness to the world (verses 18 27). This witness is to be the disciples answer to the hatred which they receive from the side of the world. Hence, the present section may be divided into two parts: a. The disciples hated by the world (verses 18 25); b. The disciples (following the example of the Holy Spirit, hence) witnessing to the world (verses 26, 27). The first of these two sections may, in turn, be subdivided as follows: verses 18 23 state the reasons why the disciples are hated by the world; verses 24 and 25 show why this hatred is very sinful and thoroughly inexcusable. The disciples are hated because they are not of the world and because they belong to the One whom the world hates, namely, the Christ. The words, If the world hates you, cannot indicate (in the present connection), Let us assume that the world hates you, whether or not this be actually true. On the contrary, as verse 19 clearly indicates by its very form (in the original), the hatred of the world is a fact, not merely an assumption. The disciples had experienced this hatred. They cannot have been ignorant with respect to the decree of the Sanhedrin, recorded in 9:22. Besides, in the future this hatred against them would manifest itself again and again and would even increase, as the book of Acts indicates. This hatred proceeds from the world, the realm of evil, the society of wicked men who have set themselves against Christ and his kingdom. See Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, meaning 6. In the early days of the apostles this cruel and sinister world was represented by the Jews, especially by their leaders. To comfort his disciples Jesus now adds, know that it has hated me before it hated you. What he means is, Constantly bear in mind that you are in excellent company. When the world hates you because you confess me, this shows that you belong to me and therefore experience, to a certain extent, what I have been experiencing right along. The fact that the world had hated Jesus, and that this hatred had been present almost from the very beginning of his public ministry and had never subsided, is evident from the following passages: 1:5, 10, 11; 3:11; 5:16, 18, 43; 6:66; 7:1, 30, 32, 47 52; 8:40, 44, 45, 48, 52, 57, 59; 9:22; 10:31, 33, 39; 11:50, 57; 12:37–43. 19. If you were of the world, the world would have affection for its own. If you owed your spiritual origin to the world; hence, if you were like the world in inner being and character, the world would have affection for you, for it cherishes its own people. The implication is: You are definitely not of the world. For the meaning of the verb to have affection for ([Greek]) see on 21:15–17. For abbreviated style see on 5:31. Jesus continues: But because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. What was already implied in the first clause of verse 19 is now specifically stated, namely, that these disciples (Judas has left!) are not of the world. However, the reason why they are not of the world lies not in them; on the contrary, it is this, that out of the world of darkness the Lord had elected these men for himself. The deed which Jesus has in mind refers not to eternity but to time. Either directly, as in some cases, or indirectly (for example, through the instrumentality of John the Baptist or of another disciple; see chapter 1) these men had been drawn away from the world (see on verse 18) into the kingdom of heaven. The act which took place in time was based upon an act which occurred in eternity (Eph. 1:4). Now this act of drawing love had made these men to differ from the world. Hence, their very existence, manner of life, conversation, as well as actual witness-bearing (in whatever degree it was present) constituted an accusation against the world of evil men. Besides, the world had lost them. 20. Remember the word which I spoke to you, A servant is not greater than his lord. In support of the statement just made (verse 19) with reference to the fierce and continuous opposition which the disciples are enduring and can expect to endure from the side of the world, Jesus now quotes his own previous saying, a saying that had been uttered this selfsame night; see on 13:16. As spoken the first time the meaning was: A servant is not greater than his lord; hence, he must not consider himself exempt from the obligation to render service in the spirit of humility. As repeated now it means: A servant is not greater than his lord; hence, he must not consider himself immune to persecution. In both cases we are dealing with litotes (affirmation by means of negation), sothat the real meaning is: If the lord must be humble, his servant should certainly be humble (13:16); if the lord is persecuted, the servant will surely also be persecuted. (15:20). In fact this implication is stated in so many words: If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. For proof of the fact that the world persecuted Jesus see on 15:18. The principle here laid down, namely, that servants can expect the same treatment as their lords, operates in two directions: unfavorably (similar persecution) and favorably (similar obedience). Hence, Jesus continues: If they kept my word, they will keep yours also. Assume, says Jesus, as it were, that they have kept my word. The result then is invariably: they will keep yours also. ^[194] For the meaning of keeping the word (precepts) of Christ, see on 8:51. 21. But all these things will they do to you for my name's sake. Here again the thought appears in abbreviated form. The meaning is probably: But this fact, that the world treats you like it treats me, is not surprising, for they will do all these things to you for my name's sake. All these things, that is, the things mentioned in the preceding: they will hate you (verse 18), will not have affection for you (implied in verse 19), will persecute you (verse 20). They will do all this for my names sake, which, as a comparison of parallel passages indicates, is tantamount to, for my sake, or on my account. Cf. Mark 13:9with Luke 21:12. Christ's name is Christ himself, as he reveals himself. When Jesus has departed from the earth, his name (revelation, the Gospel that centers in him) will still be there. The enemy will hate this name and will persecute the disciples when they proclaim it. That this is what actually happened is clear from such a passage as Acts 4:18: And they called them (Peter and John) and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. And why were they filled with such bitterness because of this name? The answer is: because they do not know the One who sent me. Had they known him, they would have known Jesus as his only-begotten Son; hence, they would not have persecuted him. For Jesus as the One sent by the Father see on 3:17, 34; 5:36, 37; 8:18, 27, 29. This lack of knowledge, moreover, was inexcusable. They should have known both the Father and the Son. Note the next verse: 22. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin. That Jesus had indeed made his appearance among the ancient covenant people and had indeed spoken to them is clear from the entire Fourth Gospel; see especially on 1:5, 10, 11; chapter 3; 5:17–47; 6:25–59; 7:16–38; chapter 8; chapter 10; and 12:37–50. Had he not done this, they would not have been guilty of the great sin of rejecting him. But now they have no excuse for their sin. Any reason which the Jews might still offer in justification of this rejection is mere pretense. They know better. 23. He who hates me hates my Father also. The Jews were in the habit of thinking that they could claim God as their Father (8:41), while at the same time they regarded Jesus as demon-possessed (8:48). They claimed that they loved the Father, though they evidently hated the Son (see on 15:18). But, in view of the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence (10:30), such an attitude is impossible. A person may imagine that he loves the Father while he hates the Son, but he deceives himself. Whoever hates the one necessarily hates the other also. And this holds also with respect to the present day and age. Men who scoff at blood-atonement and reject the vicarious death of Christ do not love God! 24. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. In connection with 9:16 and 9:33 it has been shown that the miracles which Jesus performed have evidential value. See on these passages; see also on verse 22 above, which is similar. A moment ago (verse 22) Jesus had spoken about his words; now he adds the works, that is, signs. Surely, the terrible hatred of these Jews was unexcusable. The thought of verse 24, completely expressed, would be as follows: If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now, in and by means of these works, they have seen both me and my Father (for my works reveal him, are also his works: 5:17, 36; 10:25; 14:9, 11); yet, in spite of this they have hated (and still hate; note perfect tense for both verbs) both me and (therefore) my Father. For the expression my Father (unique sonship of Christ) see on 1:14. 25. But (this happened) in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, They hated me without a cause. That is, in and by means of all this hatred, God is fulfilling his plan of redemption. The hatred of men must result in Christ's crucifixion, in order that men (his people) may be saved. Yet the eternal decree is being fulfilled in such a manner that the guilt rests on man, not on God! The experience of the psalmist is attaining final fulfilment: Let not them that are my enemies wrongfully rejoice over me; Neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without cause (Ps. 35:19). And again: They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head (Ps. 69:4).^[195] The author of (Ps. 35had bestowed many favors on those who now were his enemies. Their suffering had been his suffering; their sorrows his sorrow. He had treated them like brothersPs. 35:13, 14). But they had rewarded evil for good. For the background of Ps. 69and the use which is made of that Psalm in the New Testament see Vol. I, p. 123. According to Ps. 35the enemies are those who love to forget past favors; according to Ps. 69they are people who cannot bear to be witnesses of the burning zeal which David manifests for the cause of Jehovah. Surely, in both cases the Psalmist himself is being mistreated. His enemies are hating him without a cause. So also (only much more so!) when the enemies of the Christ rejected him, in spite of all his words of grace and miracles of love, they were hating him without a cause! For the meaning of the expression their law see on 10:34. Now what is to be the attitude of the disciples with respect to this world, represented by the God-defying, Christ-hating, Church-persecuting Jews? In the midst of this world they must bear witness, just like the Spirit also bears witness: 26. When the helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, he will testify concerning me. Jesus has been speaking about the hatred which the disciples will have to endure from the side of the world, which hates the Father and the Son. Hence, it is not surprising that in this connection he again comforts these men by reminding them of his previous promise (see on 14:16, 17, 26) with respect to the coming of the Spirit, the Helper. Jesus himself will send this Helper. He will be sent from the Father. Essentially, though with difference in emphasis, this is the same as saying: I will request the Father, and he will give you another Helper (14:16); the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name (14:26). Here in 15:26 the emphasis is on the activity of the Son in the sending of the Spirit, and on the fact that this Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father. The sending of the Spirit was a matter of the future. Pentecost had not yet arrived. Hence, the future tense is used: I will send. The procession was taking place at the very moment when Jesus was speaking (if matters which in reality transcend time may be viewed from the aspect of time); hence, the present tense is used.^[196] Were we to say, The fact that 15:26 states that the Son will send the Spirit proves that the Father does not send him, we would be wrong (see 14:26). Thus also, were we to say, The fact that 15:26 states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father proves that he does not proceed from the Son, we would be wrongActs 5:9; Rom. 8:9; II Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1:19; I Pet. 1:11; where the Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ . After all, is it so strange that Jesus, speaking as Mediator between God and man, himself man, would, during his period of humiliation, speak of the Spirit as proceeding from The Father? The Holy Spirit is here called the Spirit of truth, just as in 14:17; see on that passage. That Spirit will testify (see on 1:7, 8). In the midst of the wicked world he will testify against the world (16:8, 9). In the midst of mankind he will bear witness concerning mankind's need. In the midst of the Church he will comfort the Church. The sphere of his testimony must not be restricted. Whenever a true servant of God bears witness against the world, this witness is the work of the Spirit. Whenever a simple believer, by word and example, draws others to Christ, this too is the work of the Spirit. That Spirit always testifies in connection with the Word, the Word of Christ (14:26; 16:14, 15). By and large, the world that is openly hostile to Christ will not receive him (14:17). Nevertheless, there are exceptions. From among those who today are openly hostile some will be drawn. They will be transferred from the kingdom of darkness to that of everlasting light. Was there ever a fiercer persecutor than Saul (or Paul) of Tarsus? The Spirit was going to change him (and others like him) to become a zealous missionary for Christ! See also on 16:7–11. Now in this work of witnessing the Holy Spirit employs means, as the next verse indicates. 27. And you must also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning. The verb that is used in the original can be read either as present indicative or as present imperative. In defence of the indicative the following arguments have been used: (1) Acts 1:8(cf. 5:32) teaches that the disciples were actually testifying. (2) The reason given namely, for you have been^[197] with me from the beginning sounds strange after an imperative, Testify. But one might answer: (1) Acts 1:8(cf. 5:32) does not teach that the disciples were testifying at this time, but that they were going to bear witness after the Spirit had been poured out. (2) Taken in the sense, You must testify, because you are qualified to do so, since you have been with me from the beginning, the logic of the sentence, far from being strange, is very clear. Other arguments in favor of the imperative are as follows: a. After the future, He will testify, the imperative Also testify, or You must also testify, seems more natural than the indicative. The meaning seems to be, You must also do what the Spirit is going to do. b. It is very logical that the precept, Abide in me (15:4), which indicates what should be the disciples relation to Christ, and the precept, Love one another (15:12), which shows what must be their attitude to one another, should now be followed by, Also testify (15:27), which describes their duty with respect to the persecuting world. Moreover, in a context replete with precepts, expressed or implied, in a setting which makes so much of the disciples duty (see 15:4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20) the imperative seems very natural. (3) There is little in the immediate context that indicates that the disciples were even now doing their duty with respect to the work of bearing witness. On the contrary, during this selfsame night they failed to testify; they were offended in him. Therefore, with E. J. Goodspeed (see his translation) we construe this verb as being imperative: Also testify! Certainly upon the eye-witnesses (those who had been with Christ from the beginning of his ministry) rests the duty of testifying concerning the things which they have seen. To be sure, the Holy Spirit's work of bearing witness is not limited to the witness-bearing of the disciples. Nevertheless, the latter is a very important means whereby the former achieves its purpose. Synthesis of Chapter 15 See the Outline on p. 260. The Son of God Tenderly Instructing His Disciples. A Word of Admonition. I. Abide in me (verses 1 11): the believers relation to Christ. In the night when the Lord's Supper was instituted the supper with its bread and wine it was natural for Jesus to speak about the vine as a symbol of spiritual fruitfulness. He admonished the disciples not to follow the example of Judas (though the latter's name is not mentioned here), but to remain in the vine, that is, in Christ, in his word and in his love. He called himself the genuine vine, described his Father as the vinedresser, and designated all those who come into close contact with himself as branches. These branches are divided into two groups: those which bear fruit, and those which do not bear fruit. In order to bear fruit it is absolutely necessary to remain in the vine. Glorious results of abiding in Christ are: a. effective prayer, b. bearing much fruit to the glory of God, and c. fulness of joy. In such cases each cycle of love (in which his love precedes, accompanies, and follows theirs) produces another, better than itself. Branches that do not bear fruit are thrown away, allowed to wither, picked up, thrown into the fire, and burned. II. Love one another (verses 12 17): the believers relation to one another. Christ's self-sacrificing love for believers is the pattern for mutual love among believers. This love manifests itself in self-denial, to the point of being willing to lay down one's life for one's friends. Jesus was in the process of doing just that. It was for his friends that he offered his life. No longer were they to be termed servants but friends, for he had told them his secrets, and they are glad to please him by keeping his precepts. This friendship is rooted in sovereign, electing love, the kind of love that produces fruitbearing and effective prayer. In order to be able to love one another it is necessary to abide in, and to constantly meditate on, that love of Christ for his friends. III. Also testify (verses 18 27): the believers relation to the world, in answer to the world's attitude to believers: A. The world hates you. 1. Reasons for this hatred: a. Believers are not of the world; and b. Believers belong to Christ, whom the world hates. 2. Inexcusable character of this hatred: By means of his words and works Jesus had revealed himself and his Father to the world (not in the sense in which he discloses himself to the heart of the believer, but) to such an extent that the world's hatred was completely inexcusable: they hated him without a cause. Thus, an ancient prophecy was being fulfilled. B. The Helper, the Spirit of truth, will testify concerning me &And you must also testify. 1. The testimony of the Spirit. This Helper, who proceeds eternally from the Father, and who is sent by Jesus from the Father, will bear testimony with respect to the Son. He is qualified to do this because of his intimate relation to the Son, the two being one in essence. 2. The testimony of the disciples. Who could be better qualified to bear witness than an eye-witness? Because from the very beginning of Christ's ministry these disciples have been eye-witnesses, they too must testify. Their testimony, moreover, will serve as a means which the Holy Spirit employs to bring his testimony. 177 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament. New York and London, 1932, Vol. V., p. 257. 174 The compound conditional sentence in 15:4 is IIIB1; conditional sentence in 15:6 is IIIB3 (with conclusions: aorist passive indicative gnomic, followed by third person plural present active indicative [Greek]; again third person plural present active indicative [Greek]; and third person singular because [Greek] is neuter plural passive indicative [Greek]). These two (15:4 and 15:6) should be reinserted in the lists, Vol. I, p. 44. Conditional sentence in 15:7 is IIIA3; see Vol. I. pp. 42, 43. 175 On [Greek] see Vol. I, pp. 46, 51. 176 IIIA1; see Vol. I, pp. 42, 43. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XVI Preliminary Remarks on Chapter 16 No one who carefully reads the sixteenth chapter will fail to notice the change in the character of the discourse. There is a gradual transition from admonition to prediction. Just as in the fourteenth chapter the tone of comfort was predominant, and in the fifteenth that of admonition, so in the sixteenth that of prediction prevails. The future tense (or its equivalents in meaning), indicating what is going to happen, is definitely in the foreground. Note the following examples (verses 1 14): They will make you outcasts from the synagogue &The hour is coming when whoever kills you will think that he is offering service to God. All these things will they do &I will send him (the Helper) to you. He will convict the world. He will guide you into all the truth. He will glorify me. He will take from what is mine, and will announce it to you. This continues to the end of the chapter; see verses 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32. Nevertheless, there is no abrupt or mechanical division between chapters 15 and 16. On the contrary, the transition is very gradual. Themes introduced in the preceding chapters are taken up again, such as the sorrow because of Christ's departure (cf. 14:1, 18 with 16:7, 22), and the comfort of effective prayer (cf. 15:7, 16 with 16:23). Also, the same subject which Jesus discussed at the close of chapter 15 is dealt with here, namely, the persecution which the disciples will have to endure from the side of the world. But there is a difference in degree of emphasis. Whereas in chapter 15 the disciples were told what they should do, in chapter 16 Jesus predicts what the triune God is going to do for the disciples in view of this spirit of hatred and persecution. Something to this effect had already been stated in 15:26. Now this theme is expanded. The Holy Spirit will convict the world, and will lead the Church into all the truth. The Son will impart joy to the hearts of his disciples (by his glorious resurrection and by sending the Spirit). The Father will continue to love them. Hence, the victory is certain. 16:1–15 16 1 These things have I spoken to you, in order that you should not be caught unawares. 2 They will make you outcasts from the synagogue; indeed, the hour is coming when^[198] whoever kills you will think that he is offering service to God. 3 And these things will they do because they have not come to acknowledge the Father nor me. 4 But these things have I spoken to you in order that when their hour arrives, you may remember that I told you about them. And these things I did not say to you from the start, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going away to him who sent me; and none of you asks me, Where art thou going? 6 But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. 7 Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth; it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you;^[199] but if I go, I will send him to you.^[199] 8 And when he is come, he will convict the world with respect to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 with respect to sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 with respect to righteousness, because I go away to the Father, and you observe me no longer; 11 with respect to judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. 12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he is come, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak of himself, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will announce to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine, and will announce (it) to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said, He will take from what is mine, and will announce (it) to you. 16:1. These things have I spoken to you, in order that you should not be caught unawares. These things things pertaining to the hatred which the disciples would experience from the side of the world (15:18–27) Jesus has spoken in order to forewarn his friends. If he had not made these predictions, they would have been caught unawares (or: ensnared; see on 6:61). In the midst of fierce persecution they would have become disappointed with their Lord. They would have begun to wonder whether it were really true that the reins of the universe were in his hands. They would have said, We had expected so much from him, but we received so little; just as happens when a bird gets caught in a snare: it had expected a delicious morsel, but has become thoroughly disillusioned. In order to prevent such grievous disappointment which would tend to undermine their faith, the Lord told them all these things ahead of their occurrence. Thus they will know that not only the treachery of Judas (see on 13:19) and the departure of Jesus (see on 14:29) but also the hatred of the world was included in God's plan for their own progress in salvation (Rom. 8:28). 2. They will make you outcasts from the synagogue; indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think that he is offering service to God. The fierce hatred which the hostile Jewish leaders would focus upon the disciples would reveal itself in expulsions from the synagogue (see on 9:22, 23). The followers of the Nazarene would be excommunicated from the religious and social life of Israel. They would be cut off from the hopes and prerogatives of the Jews. They would be viewed by their former friends as worse than pagans. They would lose their jobs, would be exiled by their families, and would even lose the privilege of honorable burial. Worse than this even, they would actually be killed. The hour (indefinite, one might translate: the time; cf. 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 16:25, 32) was coming when men would regard the putting to death of a Christian to be a meritorious act, a deed by means of which one offered service to God. The line of reasoning might be as follows: Have we not been taught from the days of our childhood that there is only one true God, and that we must worship him alone? Now these followers of Jesus claim that he too is God. This is blasphemy, and must be punished with death. One immediately thinks of the persecutor Paul, who subsequently testified: I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 26:9). It was a principle which had the value of a dogma among the Jews: Whoever sheds the blood of the wicked is equal to one who brings a sacrifice. 3. And these things will they do because they have not come to acknowledge the Father nor me. The hostile Jews have created their own God. The true God as revealed in Jesus Christ they did not serve. This failure was not due to excusable ignorance. They could have known (see on 15:22, 24). It was the result of refusing to acknowledge (for the meaning of the verb see on 1:10) both the Sender and the Sent, and this in spite of all the signs! Of course, when one rejects the Son, he rejects the Father also, and vice versa (see on 10:30). 4. But these things have I spoken to you in order that when their hour arrives, you may remember that I told you about them. Here the thought of verse 1 is resumed. Lovingly the Master provides for his disciples. When the fiery trial arrives, they must never be able to say, How strange and unexpected! Why did not the Lord prepare us for this? Why did he not warn us? (I Peter 4:12). Now that they have been warned beforehand, their very suffering (when it arrives) will confirm their faith in Jesus. They will remember his words. Hence, they will then say, If his predictions with respect to woe are being realized, those with respect to weal will also be fulfilled. Jesus continues: And these things I did not say to you from the start, because I was with you. To be sure, there had been predictions of coming persecution (Matt. 5:10–12; 10:16–39). But these things (15:18 16:3) the fact that the world hates the disciples because Jesus has chosen them out of the world, that this hatred was in reality directed against Jesus and against the Father, that it was absolutely inexcusable and was rooted in the sinister condition of the heart which deliberately refused to acknowledge the true God, that the time was actually coming when men would regard the putting to death of Christ's followers to be tantamount to an act of worship altogether pleasing to God these things, with that emphasis and in that forthright manner, had never been revealed before. One does nor find these things in (Matt. 5:10–12, which speaks only of persecution in general and of slander in particular, nor in Matt. 10:16–39, which describes the outward forms of persecution (arrest, flogging, death, name-calling), but says very little about the hidden root from which this persecution springsMatt. 10:22, 24, 25, 40; cf. John 15:20, 21). The reason why Jesus had not said these things from the beginning was that it had not been necessary then, because he was still with them. As long as he was physically present, the brunt of the attack was directed against him, not against his disciples. From now on there would be a change. With Jesus crucified, the Sanhedrin would begin to vent its wrath upon his followers. One is reminded of Rev. 12:4, 13, 17: first the dragon seeks to devour the child; next he pursues the woman who had borne the child. Angry with the woman, he makes war on the rest of her seed. The book of Acts shows that this prophecy (15:18 16:4) was fulfilled in every detail. 5. But now I am going to him who sent me; and none of you asks me, Where art thou going? Shortly previous to this, when as yet Jesus had not fully explained the purpose of his departure, there had been many questions with respect to his leaving. Peter had asked, Lord, where art thou going? (13:36) and Thomas had asked something similar (14:5). But these questions issued from a crudely literal conception of Christ's departure. Then Jesus had given a full explanation. He had clearly indicated that he was not leaving for some other place on earth but was going to the Father (14:28), that this return to the Father should have filled their hearts with rejoicing (also 14:28), and that from there he would send another Helper, namely, the Spirit of truth (14:16, 17, 26; 15:26). This was the proper moment for questions, questions as to what that return to the Father would mean for him, and for them. But there were no questions. There was not even a request that he repeat that very instructive information about the place where he was going. In this failure to ask questions there was an element of selfishness. So deeply concerned were these men with the thought of their own impending loss that this sorrow had crowded out every other consideration. Bitterly Jesus complains, And none of you asks me, Where art thou going? He continues: 6. But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. Jesus had spoken about his departure. The disciples concentrated on the fact of this departure, and upon what they thought this would mean for them. They failed to pay sufficient attention to the nature of this departure, and upon what he had said this would mean for them and for himself! So, sorrow had filled their hearts (cf. 14:1, 27); and this in spite of all the grounds of comfort which Jesus had presented (chapter 14), and in spite of the instruction he had imparted with reference to the fruits of abiding in him even after his physical departure (chapter 15). The disciples conceive of their Master's departure as a great loss. So Jesus continues: 7. Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. Here, in plain words Jesus expressed what he had been implying right along. Had he not told his disciples that his departure would be for the purpose of preparing a place for them (14:2); enabling them to do greater works (14:12); imparting richer knowledge to them (14:20); and, in reality, drawing closer to them, namely, in the Spirit (14:28)? Was it not very plain then that the Master's going away would be an advantage for the disciples? Again, as long as the disciples see Jesus in the body, are they able to understand that their relation to him must be of a spiritual character? Strange, indeed, are the ways of God! Christ and his great enemy Caiaphas are both saying the same thing, namely, that it is expedient that Jesus die (see on 11:50), Of course, Caiaphas himself did not mean what Christ meant. The intention of the Spirit, however, was the same in both cases. The basic reason why Christ's departure means triumph and not tragedy, the reason why it is a help and not a hindrance for these men (and for the Church in general) is this, that otherwise the Helper (see on 14:16), namely, the Holy Spirit, will not come to them. Jesus does not explain why the Spirit cannot come unless the Son departs from the earth and returns to his home above. Suggestions which probably point in the right direction are these: the Son's going away is a departure via the cross. By his going away he merits redemption for his people. Now the Holy Spirit is the One whose special task it is to apply the saving merits of Christ to the hearts and lives of believers (Rom. 8; Gal. 4:4–6). But the Spirit cannot apply these merits when there are no merits to apply. Hence, unless Jesus goes away, the Spirit cannot come. Also, it must be borne in mind that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a reward upon Christ's work (Acts 2:33). But a reward is not given until the task for which it is given has been accomplished. Hence, the Holy Spirit cannot be sent until Jesus has finished his task on earth. We are not saying that Jesus had these reasons in mind when he said, For if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. We simply do not know just what he had in mind. The reason why we, nevertheless, offer a few suggestions is to show that this statement of Jesus is entirely in harmony with the body of revelation which we find elsewhere in the New Testament. Note: I will send, here and also in 15:26; but 14:26: The Father will send in my name. There is perfect cooperation in the outgoing works! The Father sends; the Son sends; the Spirit goes. Moreover, the Spirit is sent to you. He chooses the Church as his abode. Nevertheless, his influence is also felt by the world: 8. And when he is come, he will convict the world with respect to sin and righteousness and judgment. The Spirit's work in the world is described in the verses 8 10. Through preaching and the work of the disciples (II Tim. 3:16; 4:2; Tit. 1:9, 13; 2:15) that Spirit, having established his residence in the hearts of believers (Acts 2; II Cor. 6:16), will convict^[200] the world. He will publicly expose its guilt and call it to repentance. He will convict it with respect to three particulars: sin and righteousness and judgment. The result of this operation of the Spirit is not indicated here. From Acts 2:22 41; 7:51–57; 9:1–6; I Cor. 14:24; II Cor. 2:15, 16; Tit. 1:13, we learn that in some cases the result will be conversion; in others, hardening and everlasting punishment. 9. with respect to sin, because they do not believe in me. Through the work of witnessing, which will be carried on by the apostles and their followers (15:27), the Holy Spirit will not only lay bare the world's sin but in the case of some will awaken a consciousness of guilt which leads to true repentance (I John 3:8). There will be genuine sorrow and a fleeing to the Savior for refuge and pardon. There will be many instances of true conversion. Though the world in general will continue to persecute the ChurchActs 7:51ff. , there will be millions of people who in the course of history are awakened to the consciousness of their guilt. As a result of the operation of God's sovereign grace, men from every clime and nation will accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. When the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Gospel, convicts men of their sin, a considerable number will cry out, Brethren, what shall we do? (Acts 2:37). They will feel that the essence of their sin (the one great sin which embraces all others for those who have heard the Gospel) is this: that they have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior but have rejected him (see on 3:18; 12:37, 48). For the meaning of the verb [Greek] see on 1:8; 3:16; 8:30, 31a. 10. with respect to righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you observe me no longer. The expression will convict the world with respect to righteousness must be explained in the light of what follows immediately: because I go to the Father, and you observe me no longer. The world, represented by the Jews, was about to crucify Jesus. It was going to say, He ought to die (19:7); hence, in the name of righteousness it was going to put him to death. It proclaimed aloud that he was anything but righteous. It treated him as an evil-doer (18:30). But the exact opposite was the truth. Though rejected by the world, he was welcomed by the Father, welcomed home via the cross, the cross which led to the crown. No longer were the disciples going to observe his day-by-day activities as he went in and out among them. He was about to die, and he was about to receive his reward (Phil. 2:9–11). By means of the resurrection the Father would place the stamp of his approval upon his life and work (Acts 2:22, 23, 33; Rom. 1:4). He, the very One whom the world had branded as unrighteous, would by means of his victorious going to the Father be marked as the Righteous One (Acts 3:14; 7:52; II Cor. 5:21; I Peter 3:18; I John 2:1; and cf. Luke 23:47). Thus, the world would be convicted with respect to righteousness. And this conviction would result in the world's condemnation (that is, in the condemnation of Satan and of all those men who refused to repent): 11. with respect to judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. Already the prince of this world stood condemned (Col. 2:15). In condemning the Christ (the One welcomed by the Father!) he condemned himself. At the last day this sentence will be made manifest to the entire universe when the devil that deceived them is cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (Rev. 20:10). Hence, the world, by clinging to the advice of Satan in condemning Jesus, stands convicted. Summing up, it has become evident that through the preaching of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit helps the Church, and that he does this by convicting the world with respect to its own sin of not believing in Christ, with respect to the righteousness of Christ, who by his going to the Father is fully vindicated, and with respect to the judgment of God pronounced on the prince of the world. Note how this prophecy of Jesus was actually fulfilled. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) deals exactly with these three subjects: a. sin, the sin of rejecting the Christ ( you by the hand of lawless men crucified and killed him &this Jesus whom you crucified ); b. righteousness, the righteousness of Christ; and judgment, the judgment of those hostile to Christ ( Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet &Save yourselves from this crooked generation ). The result was: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said, Brothers, what shall we do? &And there were added to them that day about three thousand souls. 12. I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. Having spoken about the Spirit's work in the midst of the world, Jesus now proceeds to enlighten the minds of the disciples with respect to the Spirit's influence within the bosom of the Church. The home-base is just as important as the mission-field. Some people make the mistake of emphasizing the importance of the latter while they pay scant attention to the former. But if by giving heed to heresies, by following dishonest practices, or by permitting itself to be governed by clever manipulators, any section of the visible Church is no longer being led into all the truth, how can it expect a blessing upon its mission-fields? Church History furnishes examples. How can those who think lightly of sin serve as the agents of the Holy Spirit in the work of bringing others under conviction of sin? The true Church of God, however, sees the danger, and exercises unceasing vigilance. In its enthusiasm for the glorious cause of missions it does not neglect the home-base! And the Holy Spirit makes use of this God-given watchfulness, and guides the Church into all the truth, strengthening it, sothat it can bear witness to the world. The disciples were sorely in need of this spiritual strengthening. Picture the scene. Jesus is tenderly looking at these men. During this selfsame night they had revealed their sinful pride (Luke 22:24); within a few hours they were going to be offended in him (Matt. 26:31); right now, while the Master was uttering these words of life and beauty, they manifested their slowness of mind (13:36, 37; 14:8, 9, 22; 16:5, 6). Indeed, the great Physician of souls knew how frail and how carnally minded they were. He knew and understood all. Yet, he does not rebuke them; but in tender love he says, I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. Mindful of our human frailty Is the God in whom we trust; He whose years are everlasting, He remembers we are dust. See also Matt. 13:12; I Cor. 3:1, 2; Heb. 5:11–14. They could not bear (see on 10:31) to hear more now. Jesus has almost finished his discourse. In one or two more minutes he will be through. (16:12–33 is all that remains; chapter 17 is addressed to the Father, not to the disciples.) Now for this inability to bear more at this time they were not entirely to blame. There were also factors which involved no blame on the part of anyone. There was, for example, the simple fact that redemptive acts generally precede full redemptive revelation. Thus, the doctrine with respect to the cross does not attain to full development until Jesus has been crucified; the full significance of the work of the Holy Spirit is not made known until the Holy Spirit has been poured out; etc. And this very fact, namely, that the Holy Spirit had not yet taken up his personal abode in the Church, made it impossible to give any further revelation at this time, during this night. When Jesus now states, I have yet many things to say to you, he clearly shows that the later revelation (which was going to be deposited in written form in Acts, the epistles, and the book of Revelation) was his own work. Hence, it is a great error to speak about Paul's Gospel as being opposed to Christ's Gospel! The later revelation, moreover, does not contain truths that are brand-new. On the contrary, springing from the same source, it is the same old truth, gloriously clarified and amplified. 13. But when he is come, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth. Jesus does not indicate the exact time when the Spirit is going to come. He says, When or whenever. Though the word for Spirit is neuter in the original, the pronoun which refers to this Spirit is masculine. Hence, it is clear that the Spirit is thought of as a person. See also on 14:16. For the meaning of the expression Spirit of truth, see on 14:17. The function of the Holy Spirit in the Church is described as that of guiding, literally: leading the way. The Spirit does not use external weapons. He does not drive; he leads. He exerts his influence upon the regenerated consciousness of the child of God (and here, in particular, of the office-bearers), and enlarges upon the themes which were introduced by Jesus during his earthly sojourn. Thus, he guides into all the truth, that is, into the whole (with emphasis on this adjective) body of redemptive revelation. The Holy Spirit never rides a hobby. He never stresses one point of doctrine at the expense of all the others. He leads into all the truth. Moreover, in the carrying out of this task he stands in intimate relationship to the other persons of the Trinity. We read: For he will not speak of himself, but whatever he hears he will speak. Father and Spirit are one in essence. What the Spirit hears from the Father he, in and through the Word, whispers into the hearts of believers. He is ever searching the depths of God. He comprehends them and reveals them to God's children (I Cor. 2:10, 11). In saying what he hears the Spirit is just like the Son, for the latter also speaks what he has heard from (and seen while with) the Father (3:11; 7:16; 8:24; 12:49; 14:10, 24). And he will announce to you the things that are to come. The Spirit will come (16:8); he will lead into all the truth (16:13a); and he will announce the things that are to come (16:13b). For the first, see the book of Acts (particularly chapter 2); for the second, see the epistles; for the third see the book of Revelation. Not as if these three could be so sharply divided. Epistles and Revelation constantly assume the presence of the Spirit; the epistles contain much revelation with respect to the things that are to come (I Cor. 15; II Thess. 2). But by and large the distinction which was made is a good one. Of course, when the Spirit declares the things that are to come, he does not begin to enumerate a long list of specific, day-by-day occurrences, but he predicts the underlying principles.^[201] 14, 15. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine, and will announce (it) to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said, He will take from what is mine, and will announce (it) to you. While the world is busily engaged in the work of rejecting the Christ and persecuting his Church, the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the apostles, will glorify Christ. He will cause the virtues of Christ to be proclaimed, showing forth his power, holiness, love, etc., and causing these to become respendently manifest among the nations. Thus, the Spirit will glorify the Son. He will take that which is Christ's the very substance of his teaching regarding the purpose of redemption, manner of salvation, etc. and will enlarge on it. Whatever Christ has done, is doing, will do (for the Church) is the theme of the Holy Spirit's teaching. Jesus has a right to call this teaching which is based upon the facts of redemption his very own, for as he has himself declared again and again (see on verse 13), he has received it from the Father; sothat he is able to say, All that the Father has is mine, a passage which receives a most striking and beautiful commentary in the words of Matt. 11:27: All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; neither does any one know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. There exists between the persons of the Trinity an eternal, voluntarily assumed relationship of love and friendship, each working for the glory and honor of the others (14:13; 16:14; 17:4, 5). 16:16–24 16 A little while, and you will observe me no longer, and again a little while, and you will see me. 17 Some of his disciples said to each other, What does he mean by saying to us, A little while, and you will observe me no longer, and again a little while, and you will see me: and because I go away to the Father? 18 Accordingly, they kept saying, What does he mean by the little while? We do not know what he means. 19 Jesus knew that they were desiring to inquire of him. So he said to them, Are you searching among each other about this, that I said, A little while, and you will observe me no longer, and again a little while and you will see me? 20 I most solemnly assure you,^[202] You will weep and wail, but the world will rejoice; you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy. 21 Any woman, whenever she is in labor, is in pain because her hour has arrived; but whenever she has given birth to the little one, she no longer remembers her anguish, because of her joy that a human being is born into the world. 22 And, indeed, you too are now in sorrow, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and that joy of yours will no one take away from you, 23 And in that day you will not inquire of me with respect to anything. I most solemnly assure you, whatever you ask the Father he will give you in my name.^[203] 24 Thus far you have not asked anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, in order that your joy may be full. 16:16. A little while, and you will observe me no longer, and again a little while, and you will see me. Jesus has been speaking about the work of the Holy Spirit in the world and in the Church. The prediction found in verses 16 24 concerns the Son. Nevertheless, there is the closest possible relation between the two sections. Jesus is coming again. He is coming again in the Spirit. What Jesus says in the present passage about the little while reminds us of 7:33; 12:35; 13:33; and especially of 14:19: Yet a little while, and the world no longer sees me, but you see me; because I live you too will live. Now it is remarkable that both here in 16:16 and also in 14:19 (see on that verse) the expression with reference to the little while occurs in a context which speaks about the Holy Spirit. The saying recorded in 14:19 (see on that verse) was preceded by, I will not leave you orphans: I am coming to you. It was pointed out that this coming is the return in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. And 16:16 (as has just been shown) was preceded by an entire section setting forth the work of the Spirit in the world (16:7–11) and in the Church (16:12–15). Hence, it would seem to be a safe inference that when Jesus states, And again a little while, and you will see me, he has in mind the dispensation of the Spirit during which the latter would mightily display his works on earth, sothat with the eye of faith the Church would be able to see their Author, namely, the promised Helper, and in the background would discern the Savior who had sent him. Of course, this dispensation of the Spirit, during which the Church by means of him sees the Christ, was a direct result of the latter's going to the Father, as Jesus has clearly set forth. Crucifixion, resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit must never be separated. Jesus himself has shown that they are inseparably linked, sothat the one means nothing without the other. He had said, It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (16:7). Hence, the question, When Jesus says, A little while, and you will see me, is he thinking of his bodily resurrection or of his return in the Spirit? is not entirely proper. In the thinking (and speaking!) of Jesus these two are not so sharply separated. Calvary has no meaning apart from Easter, and Easter has no value apart from Pentecost, which in turn points forward to the coming at the last day. (See also what was said with respect to prophetic foreshortening, in connection with 14:18). Bearing all this in mind we would paraphrase verse 16 as follows: A little while a few more hours!, and I will be taken away from you, for I will be put to death and buried. Hence, you will observe me no longer. But I will not remain away from you. Rising gloriously on the third day, I will usher in the dispensation of the Spirit. In and by means of the mighty works which he will perform on earth, you will see me. ^[204] 17, 18. Some of his disciples said to each other, What does he mean by saying to us, A little while, and you will observe me no longer, and again a little while, and you will see me, and Because I go away to the Father? Accordingly, they kept saying, What does he mean by the little while? Some of^[205] his disciples are confused. They are not able to understand how on the one hand Jesus can say, &Again, a little while, and you will see me, as if his absence would be very brief, yet on the other hand can talk about going to the Father sothat they will see him no more, as if his departure would be definite and final. Note that the words, Because I go away to the Father, are literally quoted from the statement of Jesus in verse 10 (cf. also verse 5: I am going away to him who sent me; and 14:12, 28). But though these men are puzzled, they fear to ask Jesus to help them out of their difficulty; perhaps because he had again and again hinted at the sinful ignorance and carnal-mindedness that came to light in their questions (13:37, 38; 14:5–10, 22, 23); or perhaps because he had just remarked, I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now (16:12). So, with muffled voices and in low tones, they kept asking each other what might be the meaning of this mashal (see on 2:19, 20). 19. Jesus knew that they were desiring to inquire of him. The evangelist paints a vivid picture. He says that the disciples were desiring (imperfect tense) to ask a question, but did not venture to express this desire. He points out that Jesus knew this. He knew both their desire and their hesitancy. But he knew even more than this. His omniscience penetrated not only the hidden corners of the minds but also the secret recesses of the heart. He saw the still continuing and very painful sadness. For the knowledge of Jesus see on 1:42, 47, 48; 2:24, 25; 5:6; 6:64; 16:30; and 21:17. He knew that the solution of the puzzle could wait. Events about to transpire would take care of that. What the disciples did not understand now they would grasp later. But the pressing need of the moment was to dispel their gloom. There must be no waiting here. So, in his tender mercy, taking the initiative in order to help his friends in their embarrassment, he said to them, Are you searching among each other^[206] about this, that I said, A little while, and you will observe me no longer, and again a little while and you will see me?^[207] 20. I most solemnly assure you, You will weep and wail, but the world will rejoice; you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy. For the words of solemn introduction see on 1:51. In order that the comfort which he imparts may be very real, Jesus first pictures to the disciples their very deep grief in connection with his death. The more poignant the grief, the more exultant will be the joy that follows it. Jesus predicts that when he is crucified, the wicked world (see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, meaning 6) think especially of the hostile Jewish leaders would rejoice. It would look upon the death of Jesus as a good riddance, worthy of a celebration. But its joy will be premature. Moreover, the disciples sorrow will not be of a permanent nature. While it is present, it will, indeed, be very painful. The friends of Jesus are going to weep and wail. For the fulfilment of this prophecy see on 20:11, 15; cf. (Mark 16:10; Luke 24:38. For the meaning of the verb translated weep see on 11:35. In the Fourth Gospel that verb is found in 11:31, 33; 16:20; 20:11, 13, 15. For the meaning of the verb rendered wail (or lament) see Matt. 11:17Luke 7:32): We wailed but you did not mourn, and Luke 23:27, which speaks about women who bewailed him. This sorrow will, however, turn into joy. The illustration which Jesus employs in verse 21 seems to indicate that the meaning of the statement here in verse 20 is not merely this, that grief would be followed by joy, but rather this, that the very event which would cause overwhelming grief would afterward be viewed as a sound reason for superlative rejoicing. In the light of Easter and of Pentecost, the source of mourning, namely the cross, becomes the source of exultation, sothat Paul can exclaim, Far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:14; cf. Luke 24:41, 52, 53). 21. Any woman, whenever she is in labor, is in pain because her hour has arrived but whenever she has given birth to the little one, she no longer remembers her anguish, because of her joy that a human being is born into the world. The illustration fits the case exactly. Just as the birth of a child, into the world (realm of mankind), at first produces sorrow and anguish (Gen. 3:16; Is. 26:17), but that selfsame event after a short interval brings about abundant joy; so also one and the same happening, namely, the death of Christ, would first cause the disciples to weep and wail, but in view of Christ's glorious resurrection and in the light of the Holy Spirit's interpretation, would ever afterward be the source of the greatest and most triumphant joy on the part of all God's children. 22. And, indeed, you too are now in sorrow, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and that joy of yours will no one take away from you. At this moment the disciples are sorrowing (cf. 14:1, 27; 16:6). They cannot reconcile themselves to the idea of their Master's imminent departure. However, Jesus declares that he will see them again. This is the counterpart of verse 19, You will see me. That this seeing-one-another-again refers to the entire dispensation of the Spirit (the fruit of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection), and not merely to the physical resurrection. is very clear from the fact that we are distinctly told that, as a result, the hearts of the disciples will rejoice with a joy which no one will ever be able to take away. Besides, the opening words of verse 23 remove any doubt on this score. When Jesus says, And in that day you will not question me with respect to anything, he certainly is not thinking merely of the one day of twenty-four hours when he arose from the grave! The day of verse 23 has already lasted almost two thousand years! To be sure, the rejoicing would begin on the very day of Christ's resurrection, but that day ushers in (and must not be thought of as separate from) the entire dispensation of the Spirit. Why this is true has been explained in connection with 16:7. 23. And in that day you will not inquire of me with respect to anything. In order to grasp the meaning of this passage we must first of all connect it with verse 19 where the same verb inquire is used. See on 11:22. The disciples had been searching each other to find an answer to Christ's dark saying anent the little while. They had been filled with a desire to inquire of him, but they had not dared to interrupt him again. Now, in verse 23 Jesus declares that in the dispensation of the Spirit these men would no longer be at a loss what to do, desiring to ask questions and yet not having the courage to do so. In the light of Christ's resurrection, as interpreted by the Holy Spirit poured out on the day of Pentecost and present with the Church ever afterward, the meaning of all such matters would become perfectly clear. Then these men would know why Jesus had to die, why his death was advantageous for the Church, in what manner the source of gloom had been turned into a source of joy, etc. Peter would no longer have to ask, Where art thou going? (13:36); nor Thomas, How can we know the way? (14:5); nor Philip, Show us the Father, (14:8); nor Judas the Greater Lord, what has happened that thou art about to manifest thyself to us and not to the world? (14:22); nor any of them, What is the little while? (16:18). In this same dispensation of the Spirit the disciples will also receive an answer to the petitions which they send up to the Father. Hence, Jesus continues: I most solemnly assure you, whatever you ask the Father he will give you in my name. For the words of solemn introduction (so very appropriate because the prediction is so amazing!) see on 1:51. The transition from an inquiry (16:23a) to a petition (here in 16:23b) is not as abrupt as it may seem. When one is deeply concerned about a matter, yearning most ardently to receive an explanation of a mystery, the request for information readily turns into the asking for a favor. The words of this promise remind one of 14:13, 14; 15:7; and especially 15:16. See on these passages for the explanation. There is, however, one important difference. We now learn that not only the asking is in Christ's name, but so is also the giving. The Father will give in harmony with his entire redemptive revelation which centers in the Son, and on the basis of his love for the Son and of the latter's sacrifice. The believers union with Christ has two practical results: on the one hand, the friends of Jesus are persecuted for his sake (15:21); on the other hand, they are blessed for his sake. 24. Thus far you have not asked anything in my name. That is, up to this time the disciples, in their prayers, had addressed themselves directly to God, without making mention of the name of Jesus. Not as if the mere mentioning of the name would help any. Certainly, when a believer concludes his prayer by saying, All this we ask in Jesus name, he is not using a magic formula. What he means is, We ask all this on the basis of Christ's merits and in harmony with his redemptive revelation. The disciples had not been basing their petitions upon this ground. According to some this was an error on their part, for which Jesus here, by implication, reprimands them. According to others, there had been no fault on their part, inasmuch as the full work of redemption had not yet been accomplished. The text (16:24) does not settle this question in either direction. The main point is this, that from now on there must be a change. So Jesus continues: Ask and you will receive. Keep on asking, says he. According to the statement which precedes, he means, Keep on asking in my name. The promise, and you will receive, is the same in substance as that found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:7). Anyone who asks in the spirit of Christ's revelation hence, according to God's will, for the furtherance of his glory, on the basis of Christ's merits will receive. And the purpose which the Lord has in mind is this: that your joy may be full. Through constant fellowship with God in prayer and through receiving answers to prayer, whatever was lacking in the disciples joy will be supplied, until the cup of joy is filled to the brim. Thus Jesus here repeats the wonderful statement made earlier (15:11; see on that passage). What a glorious Savior! The cross with all its agonies is just around the corner. A few more hours, and Jesus will give his life as a ransom for many. He knows what is coming. Already he sees the nails that will pierce his hands and feet. He hears, as it were, the jeers and taunts of the leaders, their hellish laughter. Yet O love divine and beyond all comprehension! his ardent desire is this: that your joy may be full. Having shown how in the future the Spirit would convict the world and guide the Church (verses 7 15), how the Son, by means of his resurrection and in the Spirit, would see them again, turning sorrow into joy (verses 16 24), Jesus now indicates how the Father will continue to love his own (verses 25 27). Notice that there are no less than eight references to the Father ( God in verse 30) in this brief paragraph (verses 25 33). 16:25–33 25 These things have I spoken to you in veiled sayings; the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in veiled sayings but shall inform you openly about the Father. 26 In that day you will ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I shall make request of the Father for you; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came out from the Father. 28 I came out from the Father, and am come into the world; again I am leaving the world and am going to the Father. 29 His disciples said, Ah, now thou art speaking openly, not in any veiled saying. 30 Now we know that thou knowest all things, and dost not have need of anyone to inquire of thee. For this reason we believe that thou didst come from God. 31 Jesus answered them, Do you now believe? 32 Note well, there comes an hour yes, it has arrived! when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and you will leave me alone; yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. 33 These things have I spoken to you, in order that in me you will have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good courage, I have conquered the world. 16:25. These things have I spoken to you in veiled sayings. The expression these things refers to all the words which Jesus spoke that memorable night, and (in the light of what follows) probably even to all his previous teaching. There had been veiled saying upon veiled saying, mashal upon mashal. In fact, it can even be said that the dark utterance was the very heart of Christ's teaching. The discourse often centers in (or grows out of) the veiled saying. In the body of such a discourse there are many statements of sufficient clarity to remove every excuse for rejecting Jesus as the Son of God. Perhaps because we have become used to these mashals we often forget how they must have baffled those who first heard them. Nevertheless, this bewilderment was very real. A common reaction was, How can this be? How can that be? Jesus had spoken about raising up the temple in three days, being born again, living water which quenches thirst once and for all, rivers of this water flowing from within believers, people who would never see death; also about himself, as the One whose flesh the believer must eat and whose blood he must drink, as having preceded Abraham in time, as the good shepherd who lays down his own life; about a mysterious betrayer (whose identity remained undisclosed for a considerable period of time); and about an enigmatic little while, which was to be followed by another equally puzzling little while (see on 2:19; 3:3, 5; 4:10, 14; 6:35, 50, 51, 53 58; 7:37, 38; 8:51, 56, 58; chapter 10; 13:18, 21; 16:16–19). For the meaning of the term veiled saying (paroimia) see also chapter 10 (Basic Points III; and 10:6). Now Jesus reveals that a new era is about to dawn: The hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in veiled sayings but shall inform you openly about the Father. At present Jesus is still prevented from speaking fully and openly, He is held back by the incapacity of the hearers (16:12), by the fact that he had not yet given his life as a ransom for many, and by the additional fact that the Spirit had not yet been poured out (16:13). Until the Man of Sorrows has actually suffered and died on the cross and until he is risen, this cross cannot be fully revealed. Until the Helper has arrived, the Father cannot be fully declared. The revelation of the Father's love in delivering up his own Son and in sending the Spirit must for a while remain veiled. But a great change is coming. In the era of the Spirit this revelation (although of necessity adapted to the finite, human mind) will be clear, free, unrestricted, full. It will no longer be characterized by veiled utterances. This promise was fulfilled. Anyone who turns from the teaching of Jesus. as recorded in the Gospels, to the teaching of Jesus (through the apostles), as recorded in the epistles, is immediately aware of the difference. To be sure, the epistles contain many problems with which the interpreter has to wrestle. Our beloved brother Paul is not always easy to grasp (II Peter 3:15, 16). But this teaching is, nevertheless, more direct, open. There is here no longer a purposeful choice of words with more than one meaning. Didactic declaration and explanation more and more take the place of truth set forth by means of mysterious utterances and seeming contradictions. The seed of the Gospel has become the fully developed plant. Openly the teaching with reference to the Father's plan of redemption is set forth in such wonderful passages as Rom. 3:21–25; chapter 5; chapter 8; Eph. 1:3–14; Phil. 2:9, 10; I Peter 1:3–12; I John 3; etc. For the meaning of the word openly ([Greek]) see on 7:26. 26, 27. In that day you will ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I shall make request of the Father for you; for the Father himself loves you because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from the Father. In the dispensation of the Spirit the disciples are going to do what they have not yet done (16:24). They are going to pray in Jesus name, that is, in harmony with his redemptive revelation and on the basis of his accomplished atonement. Verse 26b and verse 27 may be paraphrased as follows: And I do not say to you that I shall continue to regard you like very small children who are not yet able to pray, sothat for that reason others have to pray for them. On the contrary, in that new era you yourselves will pray to the Father; and he will hear you, for he himself constantly loves you. The reason why he loves you is this, that you have loved me, with a love which still continues, and have believed, with a faith that never ceases, that I came from the Father (as his only-begotten Son). For the meaning of in that day see on 16:23. For the distinction in meaning between the verbs ask and make request see on 11:22. The verb for love here in verse 27 is [Greek]. However, either verb ([Greek] or [Greek]) is used in the Fourth Gospel to express the love of the Father for the disciples, and the love of the disciples for Jesus. In such contexts the verbs are probably almost identical in meaning. See on 21:15–17. Does the statement, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me, indicate that our love is first, and his love last? Does it mean that our love is the source of his love? This question has been answered in connection with 7:17, 18; 14:21b; and 15:10; see on those passages. The prediction contained in these two verses does not mean that in the dispensation of the Spirit all intercession for the disciples is going to cease. Far from it! That intercession of the Highpriest, Jesus Christ, will never cease. In short, the believer's entire communion with God &as well the spiritual blessings which he must have from God, as what he brings to God, must and can only be through the mediation of the interceding Highpriest in heaven. The living, exalted Christ is still as he was on earth, the only way to the Father. ^[208] Accordingly, we do not agree with R. C. H. Lenski when he states that after Pentecost the petitions directed by the disciples to the Father in Jesus name will not need the support and intercession of Jesus in order to be granted by the Father.^[209] As we see it, such passages as 14:6; Heb. 7:24, 25; 13:15clearly teach the opposite. What John 16:26, 27does teach is this, that, in the dispensation of the Spirit, the disciples will reach maturity so that they themselves also, in the name of the Son, will approach the Father. Putting it differently, if the question be asked, Is Jesus going to pray for them? the answer is a definite No if by praying for them is meant a request presented to the Father in their behalf because they themselves do not pray and because the Father would not accept their prayer if one were offered. But the answer is a clear Yes, if by praying for them is meant the unceasing intercession of the Highpriest in heaven for his people, on the basis of his atonement. 28. I came out from the Father, and am come into the world; again I am leaving the world and am going to the Father. Truly beautiful and full of majesty is the finale of Christ's Farewell to his disciples. The note of victory prevails. We behold the Son of man in the full consciousness of his triumph. Every word spells exultation over the accomplishment of the task which had been assigned. Every clause is filled with resolute determination to carry out the Father's will. In principle the battle has already been fought. See especially verse 33: I have conquered the world. Note the close connection between this and the preceding passage. There Jesus asserted, You &have believed that I came out from the Father. Here he continues by saying (according to the original), I came out &out of the Father, etc. The passage stresses the fact that the work of redemption is Christ's own work. To save his people was not only a task laid upon him. It was just as emphatically the result of his own free choice. Hence, I came out &I am come &I am leaving &I am going. It is as if Jesus said, I myself do all this. The Father does not compel me to do it. Satan and the world cannot prevent me from doing it. The passage records three central facts or movements in the history of redemption, but due to the fact that the third is viewed from two aspects we have in reality four parts, as follows: First, I came out from the Father. This refers to Christ's perfect deity, his pre-existence, and his love-revealing departure from heaven in order to dwell on the sin-cursed earth. Cf. II Cor. 8:9. (Here we have the aorist tense, one act.) Secondly, I &am come into the world. That describes Christ's incarnation and his ministry among men. (Here the perfect tense is used, indicating the past act together with its present result.) The term world has the same meaning here as in verse 21. Thirdly and fourthly, Again I am leaving the world and am going to the Father. Note the present tense of both verbs. The path of suffering, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension is, from one aspect, a departure from the world; from another point of view, it is a journey to the Father. On the basis of this voluntary obedience which Jesus is in the process of rendering, the Father (in the Spirit) exercises loving fellowship with those who are his own. 29, 30. His disciples said, Ah, now thou art speaking openly, not in any veiled saying. Now we know that thou knowest all things, and dost not have need of anyone to inquire of thee. So impressed are the disciples by the directness and clarity of Christ's words and by his evident knowledge of the whole plan of God, that they imagine that the time has even now arrived in which plain, unhampered, full, and free speaking would take the place of speaking in veiled utterances. In this opinion they were mistaken. Yet, Jesus does not try to correct them. They will correct themselves when the future hour arrives. All in all, however, the answer given by the disciples does credit to them. They have advanced in knowledge. The Upper Room discourses have not been in vain. The experiences of this night of all nights have left their mark on these men. They have begun to reflect on the teaching of Jesus. The result is that they now know (the verb indicates this knowledge of reflection) that Jesus knows (same verb but not same reason: Jesus knows because he is divine; his knowledge is antecedent, not merely subsequent) all things (cf. 21:17). They have once again caught the vision of Christ's deity shining through the veil of his humanity. For the moment at least they are convinced it is the conviction of faith; cf. II Cor. 5:1that Jesus is omniscient. The light is shining brightly now, more brightly, perhaps, than ever before. Within a few hours it will be obscured once more. Yet, the confession which is here made will linger on in the realm of the subconscious, until by and by, when the Lord arises in triumph from the tomb and (a little later) pours out his Spirit, it will bear the fruit of calm and steadfast assurance, and this fruit will abide forever. The key to the interpretation of the words, and dost not have need of anyone to inquire of thee is found in the immediately preceding clause and in verse 19: Jesus knew that they were desiring to inquire of him. He knew it even though they never asked him any question! He had read their secret thoughts. He knew exactly what they were mumbling to each other. In fact, even before any word had been on their tongue, he had known it altogether. And such knowledge had been too wonderful for them (Ps. 139:4). Hence, verse 30a may be paraphrased as follows: Now we know that thou knowest all things, and that thou dost not have need of anyone to inquire of thee, in order that by means of his questions thou mayest discover what he has on his mind. Thou knewest it before he even asked. The disciples draw the only logical conclusion: For this reason we believe that thou didst come from God. Only God is omniscient. Jesus is omniscient. Hence, Jesus must be God. Being God, he must have come from God. For the latter phrase see on 14:23, footnote 168. For the knowledge of Jesus see on 1:42, 47, 48; 2:24, 25; 5:6; 6:64; and 21:17. This was the last confession which the disciples made before Christ's death. It reminds us of the earlier confession by Nathaniel (1:49), by Peter (Matt. 16:16), and the later one by Thomas (20:28). 31, 32. Jesus answered them, Do you now believe? Note well, there comes an hour yes, it has arrived! when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and you will leave me alone. It makes little difference whether we read, You now believe, or, Do you now believe? Either rendering is possible according to the original. If the question-form is adopted, it could mean that Jesus calls into question the genuine character of their faith. Nevertheless, there is another possibility which, in the present connection and in view of the definite statement in 17:8, is far more probable, namely, that the Lord, though accepting their confession at face-value, wishes to put them on guard against over-confidence. It is as if he were saying, I believe that your confession is genuine and that your faith is real; but is it full-grown? Has it reached maturity? Will your anchor hold in the storms of life? Are you sure that you can stand your ground when the foe suddenly makes his appearance? That, more or less, is the sense in which these words have generally been interpreted. We have not found any good reason to depart from this common explanation. Nothing better has been offered. For there comes an hour see on verse 25. For the entire expression, There comes an hour, yes it has arrived, cf. 5:25. The designated season is close at hand. In a way it is still future, for Jesus and the disciples have not yet crossed the brook (in fact, as we see it, are still in the Upper Room), and have not yet encountered the foe (Judas and his band). Yet, in another sense, this season has already arrived, for a. Judas is even now on the way, and b. so certain is it that the predicted event will occur that to the mind of Christ it is already present. Hence, the expression, Note well, there comes an hour, yes it has arrived! describes the situation exactly. And because the prediction is so startling, it is preceded by the exclamation, Note well!. The contents of the prediction is twofold: a. You will be scattered, each to his own home. With this should be compared: 10:12: And the wolf snatches them and scatters (the flock). See on that verse. Matt. 26:31: You will all be ensnared on account of me this night; for it is written, I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered. This was spoken after Jesus and his little company had left the Upper Room. The prophecy which was fulfilled when this happened (Mark 14:27) is found in Zech. 13:7: Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; And I will turn my hand against (or upon) the little ones. ^[210] The phrase to his own home here (John 16:32) in the sentence, And you will be scattered, each to his own home occurs also in 1:11 and 19:27. Jesus came to his own home, but his own people did not welcome him (see Vol. I, p. 80, footnote 27). John took Mary to his own home (19:27). We see no reason to depart from this sense in the present instance. When, in connection with the arrest of Jesus, the disciples were scattered, each man went to his own home (in this case, to his own place of lodging in or near Jerusalem). It is true, of course, that in the case of John and Peter the going home was delayed a little while. Nevertheless, by and by Mary Magdalene knows exactly where she can find Peter, and also where she can find John. Each had gone to his own home (see on 20:2). The prediction probably implies more than this, however. It seems to indicate that united effort would cease; hope would be lost, kingdom-work would be stopped; and fishing (in the ordinary sense of the term) would take the place of preaching (see on 21:3). We turn now to b. And you will leave me alone (literally: And me you will leave alone, with all the emphasis on the pronoun me). These words may be viewed as Christ's own commentary on the disciples confession of a moment ago, Now we know &for this reason we believe (verse 30). The Master does not in any way deny the presence of genuine faith in the hearts of his friends (see also on 17:7); but he stresses the imperfect character of that faith. Perfect faith casts out fear and working through love shows real courage at the critical moment. It never forsakes, never winces, never fails! Such was not the faith of these men. Moreover, by saying, And me you will leave alone, Jesus places the emphasis where it truly belongs, on the theme of his own suffering. More and more he will enter the region of isolation. He will be forsaken by his friends, and at last forsaken by his Father in heaven! But that climax of woe has not yet arrived. At this moment Jesus is still able to say, Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. This had been his comfort right along, as is clearly indicated by 8:29: And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do the things that are pleasing to him. See on that passage. (Although at times reference is also made to 8:16b, yet the sense there is slightly different. See on that verse.) 33. These things have I spoken to you, in order that in me you may have peace. These things includes whatever Jesus told his disciples that night. He had told them about himself, informing them (as he had done so often) that he had come from the Father, had entered the world, was leaving again, and was about to go back to the Father. He had pointed out that he would be betrayed by a man who ate at his table; that he would be denied three times, and this by no one less than Peter; that he was being hated; that the world would rejoice in his death; and that his own disciples would leave him alone in the hour of crisis. The fulfilment of these prophecies would naturally strengthen their faith in him (see on 16:1, 4). And through faith they would obtain the greatest of all blessings, namely, peace. The nature of that peace has been indicated in connection with the explanation of 14:27. It is both objectiveRom. 5:1, 2; II Cor. 5:20b and subjectiveRom. 8:16ff. . In view of the context, the emphasis both here and in 14:27 seems to rest on the subjective side of this peace. It is contrasted with tribulation. Jesus continues, In the world you have tribulation; but be of good courage. I have conquered the world. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XVII Introductory Remarks on Chapter 17 I. Its Close Connection with the Preceding Discourses The apostle John himself indicates this connection when he combines the discourse and the prayer in the words: These things spoke Jesus, and he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said. The prayer may be viewed as the consummation of the discourses. It shows that the firm and solid basis for all the grounds of comfort, admonitions, and predictions is in heaven. It links all the promises to the throne of God. Here all is certain. The chapter contains not one conditional sentence. II. Its Unique Character Is this prayer a model for our prayers? In a certain sense it is; for example, this prayer indicates that the glory of God should be the purpose of our petitions; also, it shows that we should pray not only for ourselves but also for others. Nevertheless, in an even deeper sense, this prayer of the great Highpriest, Jesus Christ, can never become a model for our prayers. It is altogether unique. Of this prayer Jesus never said, After this manner you must pray. It is unique in the following respects: A. Its Author is the second person of the Trinity, who has assumed the human nature (17:5). B. It is addressed to Christ's own holy and righteous Father, the first person of the Trinity (17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25; cf. 1:18; 3:16; 20:17). C. It does not contain a single confession of sin; rather, the exact opposite. The prayer is characterized by the Son's consciousness of perfect obedience to the will of the Father (17:4). Contrast this with the prayer which Jesus taught his disciples to pray (Matt. 6:12). D. This prayer contains requests rather than petitions. See on 11:22. III. Its Parts The prayer is one. The mission of Jesus Christ and of his followers on earth, unto the glory of God, is the theme throughout. Yet, though the prayer reveals a wonderful unity, a unity so organic and real that commentators are not agreed as to where one part ends and another begins, three movements are discernible. First, Jesus makes request with respect to himself (verses 1 5; according to others: 1 8); secondly, with respect (chiefly) to the apostles (verses 6 19; according to others: 9 19); thirdly, with respect to the Church Universal (verses 20 26). 17:1–5 17 1 These things spoke Jesus, and he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father, the hour has arrived; glorify thy Son in order that the Son may glorify thee, 2 even as thou hast given him authority over all flesh, that^[212] to all whom thou hast given him he might give everlasting life. 3 And this is everlasting life, that^[213] they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou didst send. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me in thine own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world existed. 17:1. These things spoke Jesus, and he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father, the hour has arrived. The fact that Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven does not prove that he and his disciples were outside (Acts 7:55). In all probability the little group was still in the Upper Room (see on 14:31). To lift up the eyes to heaven was the common posture in prayer, and very proper too, inasmuch as the One who is addressed has his Throne in heaven. The expression, The hour has arrived shows once more that Jesus is conscious of the fact that for every event in the mighty drama of redemption (yes and for every event that ever takes place in history) there is a stipulated moment in the eternal decree (see also on 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; and Vol. I, p. 46). It is clear from the context that Jesus was thinking of the hour of his death not only but of the entire consummation of his earthly ministry: death, resurrection, ascension, and coronation, his entire going to the Father. In the thought of Jesus, suffering and consequent glory go together (Matt. 16:21; 20:19; 26:28, 29). Christ's death was of such a character that his resurrection, ascension, and coronation had to follow; hence, the hour refers to all four. This was not the first time that Jesus had referred to this hour. The difference was that previously he had said that it had not yet arrived, now it had arrived (cf. 7:30; 8:20). This hour was the moment of crisis. It was the hour in which the Son of man would terminate his labors by rendering the one and only atoning sacrifice for the sin of mankind; the hour of fulfilling prophecies, types, and symbols; the hour of triumph over the prince of the world; the hour of dismissing the old and of ushering in the new dispensation. Jesus continues: Glorify thy Son in order that the Son may glorify thee. The meaning is: Grant that by means of my entire going to thee (death, resurrection, ascension, coronation) I may be glorified, and thou mayest be glorified by me. Jesus is glorified when the radiance of his attributes is displayed. Surely, in the cross of Christ and also in the crown we see this glory. In the cross, viewed as the culmination and climax of the entire work of redemption by which he saves his people, the Son manifests his perfect obedience, his infinite love for sinners, and his power over the prince of this world. This obedience, love, and power reflects glory on himself. So does also the saved multitude's gratitude for the gift of everlasting salvation. That this aspect of glory is not forgotten is clear from the immediately following verse: &that to all whom thou hast given him he might give everlasting life. Not only the cross, however, but also the crown, viewed as the reward upon his suffering, displays his glory. That this too is in the mind of Christ is clear from verse 5. For the concept glory see also on 1:14. But why does Jesus say, Glorify thy Son? We answer, because in that word, Thy Son there is a wonderful plea. The Father loves the One who is his only-begotten Son. He loves him with a love that is infinitely deep and tender, a love from eternity. Surely, he will grant the request of his own, only-begotten Son! Moreover, being the Son, was he not the rightful heir? And had not the Father given ever so many promises to the Son? (Ps. 2:7ff.; 72:15ff.; 84:4ff.; 110:1ff.; 118:22, 23; II Sam. 7:12–14). When Jesus adds, that the Son may glorify thee, he shows that his prayer is not a selfish prayer. Jesus wants to be glorified in order that by means of this glory he may glorify the Father. The cross and the crown reveal not only the Son's but also the Father's virtues. All the divine attributes come to full expression here. From among them all let us single out just one: the Father's righteousness. Had he not been righteous, he certainly would not have delivered up his only-begotten Son. Again, had he not been righteous, he would not have rewarded the Son for his suffering. And also, by means of the praises of the saved multitude, the Father (as well as the Son) is glorified. 2. Even as thou hast given him authority over all flesh that to all whom thou hast given him he might give everlasting life. When the Father, by bestowing upon the Son the power to save his people and by rewarding him for this task, glorifies him, this action is in harmony with the gift to the Son of authority over all flesh. This is clear from the fact that those who are saved are gathered from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, as is the consistent teaching of the Gospel according to John (hence, of Christ himself). See on 1:13, 29; 3:16; 10:16; cf. Rev. 5:9. The phrase all flesh is a Hebraism, indicating all people. It emphasizes man's weakness, as he is by nature. Not only are the elect gathered out of all the nations, but in order to gather them Jesus actually has received authority over everybody, without exception. See Matt. 11:27; 28:18. The human race is a unit. In order to save some (out of every nation) the One who saves them must have absolute authority over all. (For the meaning of the term flesh in John's Gospel see also Vol. I, p. 84, footnote 32. For the meaning of authority see also on 1:12; 10:18.) That the scope and design of the atonement is, nevertheless, limited is clear from the words, that to all whom thou hast given him he might give everlasting life. See also on 6:37, 39, 44; 10:29. Jesus is thinking of all those who have been given to him in the eternal decree of election. For the meaning of everlasting life see on 1:4; 3:16. 3. And this is everlasting life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou didst send. The everlasting life by means of which both the Father and the Son are glorified manifests itself in the true knowledge of the Sender and of the Sent. Verse 3 does not give a definition of everlasting life, but shows how it reveals itself and how wonderful it is. To know the Father and Jesus Christ (for he is the only way to the Father; see on 14:6) refers not to merely abstract knowledge, but to joyful acknowledgment (see on 1:10) of his sovereignty, glad acceptance of his love, and intimate fellowship with his person (through Scripture, that is, through his Word to us; and through prayer, that is, through our word to him). Note the words, the only true God (I Thess. 1:9), not the figment of Jewish imagination, which tried to worship a Father who had not revealed himself in the Son; nor the object of pagan worship, which was directed to the creature rather than to the Creator; but the Father as revealed in the Son. For the concept Jesus, as the One sent from above see on 3:17, 34; 5:36, 37; 8:18, 27, 29 (cf. 1:5). Note also the full title Jesus Christ (as in 1:17). When one experiences everlasting life, he has fellowship with God in his only-begotten Son, who as the Christ or Anointed (set apart and qualified for his task) is Jesus, the Savior. 4. I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do. In sharp contrast with the wicked world, represented by the Jewish leaders, Jesus is able to say that he (the pronoun I is emphatic) glorified the Father. To do the will of his Father had been his chief delight (4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:50). He had accomplished the mission which the Father had assigned him. He had brought this task to its predestined goal. He had fulfilled and finished it (see on 4:34). To be sure, historically speaking, he had not yet suffered on the cross, but he has a right to speak as if also this suffering has already been endured, so certain is it that he will endure it! It must have given comfort to the disciples to hear Jesus say in his prayer that in the accomplishment of the mission to save sinners the Father is glorified! In this work all his glorious excellencies are displayed most radiantly (I Pet. 2:9). 5. And now Father, glorify thou me in thine own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world existed. Here the thought of verse 2 is resumed. Jesus is again requesting that the Father glorify him. This time he is thinking especially of the reward upon his mediatorial work. He yearns to go home to his Father. The erstwhile glory which had been his delight before the foundation of the world (orderly universe; see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, meaning 1) had never been absent from his mind. Throughout his ministry of suffering he, the Man of Sorrows, longed to regain that which he, in the interest of sinners, had voluntarily surrendered (Phil. 2:7). To return again to the very presence of the Father so as to be face to face with him is what he now requests. See on 1:1. In this connection (Heb. 12:2immediately occurs to the mind: For the joy that was set before him he endured the cross. The meaning is that he endured the cross in order that he might exchange it for the crown.^[214] For the meaning of the preposition [Greek] in the phrase in thine own presence see on 14:23, footnote 168. It is hardly necessary to add that in this yearning for future glory (17:5) or for future joyHeb. 12:2) there was not even a trace of vulgar selfishness (cf. 17:1). To be sure, whatever God does he does for his own glory, and Jesus is God! Even in his mediatorial capacity it is the divine person who is speaking his words and performing his deeds. Nevertheless, when we remember that God is love, that (according to the Fourth Gospel) the persons in the Holy Trinity glorify one another, and that the glory and the joy of the exalted Mediator includes also this element that he ever lives to make intercession for those who draw near unto God through him (Heb. 7:25), the problem has been solved. Here in 17:5 the Son is looking forward to the glory of rejoicing in the joy of his saved people, the very people whose salvation he (together with the Father and the Spirit) had planned from eternity, before the world existed. God ever delights in his own works. The Son glories in the Father's glory, and rejoices in the joy of all the redeemed. When they sing, he sings! (Zeph. 3:17). 17:6–19 6 I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have come to acknowledge that all things which thou hast given me are from thee; 8 for the words which thou gavest me I have given them, and they received them, and really acknowledged that I came from thee; and they believed that thou didst send me. 9 I am making request for them; not for the world am I making request, but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine. 10 And all things are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, in order that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, in order that they may have my joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not make request that^[215] thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that^[215] thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Consecrate them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, in order that they also may be truly consecrated. 17:6. I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world. There is a fine, organic transition between the request with reference to himself and the request with reference to the disciples. The development of the one request into the other is natural and very gradual, like the colors of the rainbow which seem to blend where they touch. The glory of Jesus is the salvation of his followers. So, directing his attention to his work for them the Son declares that to them he has manifested or made known the Father's name. For the meaning of the verb manifested see on 21:1. The Son is the Father's Exegete (see on 1:18). Apart from him no one ever gets to know spiritual matters in their real, inner essence and value. The Father's name that is, the Father himself, as he displays his glorious attributes in the realm of redemption is not appreciated apart from the words and works of the Son (Matt. 11:27and I Cor. 2:14). This knowledge concerning the Father means everlasting life (see on 17:3). Not to everyone was this name made known; only to those who in the eternal decree of election had been given (hence, subsequently drawn) to the Son by the Father (see on 6:37, 39, 44; cf. 17:9, 24). Out of the world (see on 15:19) they had been chosen by the Father as a gift to the Son. Probably the best commentary is that which is found in The Canons of Dort (First Head of Doctrine, Article 7, my translation):^[216] Now election is the immutable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, he has, according to the most free goodpleasure of his own will, of mere grace, chosen out of the whole human race, fallen by its own fault from its primeval integrity into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons, neither better nor more deserving than others but with them involved in a common misery, unto salvation in Christ; whom even from eternity he had appointed Mediator and Head of all the elect and the foundation of salvation; and therefore he has decreed to give them unto him to be saved & Jesus continues: Thine they were, and thou gavest them to me. He is thinking of all the elect, but here particularly of the disciples who are with him in the Upper Room, as verse 12 shows. By virtue of the divine decree these men belonged to the Father. In order that this eternal counsel might become effective in their lives, they had been given to Jesus, sothat he by means of his atoning sacrifice might save them. The fruit upon his labor is stated in these words of tender affection: and they have kept thy word. For the meaning of keeping God's (hence, Christ's) word see on 8:51. It should be noted that the same Master who just a moment ago when he addressed his disciples had pointed out the weakness of their faith (16:31, 32), now in addressing the Father has not a word to say with reference to this condition of imperfection. As the real Highpriest, whose heart is filled with love for his own, he simply describes these men of little faith within a few hours all would forsake him, and one would deny him! as those who have kept the Father's word (have guarded his precepts). Truly, love takes no account of evil (I Cor. 13:5). 7, 8. Now they have come to acknowledge that all things which thou hast given me are from thee; for the words which thou gavest me I have given them, and they received them, and really acknowledged that I came from thee; and they believed that thou didst send me. As all of the concepts contained in this sublime passage have occurred previously, we shall not again explain them, but simply paraphrase the whole and give the proper references. What Jesus meant was this: As a result of the words which I spoke to them and which I had received from thee, these men have come to acknowledge that whatever thou hast given me the radiance of thy glory reflected in myself, my words, and my works is from thee. My words (utterances), which thou gavest me and I gave to them, they received (believed and kept); and they acknowledged with genuine acknowledgment that I came from thee, from thy very presence, sothat in my entire mission I truly represent thee; yes, they believed that thou didst commission me. Passage with references: Now they have come to acknowledge (see on 1:10) that all things which thou hast given me are from thee (Matt. 11:27); for the words which thou gavest me I have given them (see on 3:11, 32; 8:28, 38; 12:49; 14:10), and they received them, and really acknowledged that I came from thee (see on 1:12; 16:30); and they believed (see on 1:8; 3:16; 8:30, 31a) that thou didst send me (see on 3:17, 34; 5:36, 37; 8:18, 27, 29; 9:7; cf. 1:5). Note also that there is very little difference between the verbs to acknowledge and to believe. Although it is true that the first verb stresses the idea of true knowledge, while the second emphasizes that of trust, yet this knowledge is not abstract but vital, personal experience; and this trust is no mere emotion but is based on joyful and genuine acceptance of certain basic truths concerning God as revealed in Christ. See also on 7:17, 18 (elements in Christian experience). 9. I am making request for them; not for the world am I making request, but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine. It is with reference to ([Greek]) the elect that Jesus is making request, in order that the full merits of his redemption may be applied to them, namely, to the given ones (see on 6:37, 39, 44; 17:6). It is for these given ones that he lays down his life (see on 10:11, 14); hence, it is also for them for them alone that he makes (is constantly making) this request. See also Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25 9:24; and I John 2:1. All this is particular, not universal.^[217] Nevertheless, the prayer of the Highpriest looks beyond the men who were in the Upper Room that night, as is clear from verses 20 and 21. It is wrong, moreover, to say (as is sometimes done) that Jesus prayed only for believers. Rather, he prayed for all his people, also for those who as yet did not believe in him, but were going to accept him by true faith later on (again, see verses 20, 21), as the result of sovereign grace. However, the prayer for spiritual safeguarding, sanctification, and glorification (see on 17:11, 15, 17, 24) is not for those who until the end of their life basely reject the Savior. The words, Not for the world am I making request are very clear. Between the purpose of the atonement and the purpose of Christ's Highpriestly prayer, there is perfect agreement. And this oneness of divine purpose includes also the decree. In fact, that eternal counsel is the basis of all that follows. Hence, we read, for they (the given ones) are thine (by virtue of election from eternity). Not all were given. Jesus did not die for all. He did not pray that the saving merits of the cross might be applied to all. Here the logic is perfect. We are reminded of the unbreakable chain (Rom. 8:29, 30): For, whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son &and whom he foreordained, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. All those and only those! who were foreknown and foreordained unto salvation reach heaven at last! (On the other hand, the Gospel must be earnestly proclaimed to all; Christ's death is sufficient for all; God draws his people from among all the nations of the world; he exercises authority over all; and is glorified in all.) 10. And all my things are thine, and thine are mine. Jesus is making request with reference to the disciples because they belong not to him alone but also to the Father. It is natural to expect that the Father will cherish that which belongs both to himself and to his beloved Son! So in verse 9 Jesus said, I am making request concerning them (i.e., concerning those given to me) &for they are thine. He now adds that this double ownership pertains to whatever the Son possesses. Note that he says not only, And all my things are thine, but also and thine are mine. This last statement is astounding. It makes sense only if the Father and the Son are one in essence (cf. 10:30). For a creature to say to the Creator or even for a believer to say to God All my things are thine, is not marvelous. But for any one lower than God to add, All thy things are mine, would require explanation. Even this last statement is true in the sense that to him that loves God all things work together for good (Rom. 8:28; cf. I Cor. 3:21). But Jesus has in mind not only the fact that all things promote his glory, but also that he is actually the owner of all and as such has authority over all (cf. 17:2). The One who is here addressing the Father is the same One who was face to face with the Father from eternity (17:5). All things in the entire universe belong both to the Father and to the Son. Hence, what is of interest to the One is of interest to the Other. This is the reason why Jesus is able to pray so fervently for his disciples. They are his, his very own. Hence, he loves them. But whatever is his, is also the Father's. This mutual ownership implies mutual interest, and this mutual interest assures mutual action. It is very difficult perhaps even impossible to make any clearcut distinction in this connection between Jesus as Mediator and Jesus as the eternal Son of God. The character of the ownership may differ (by virtue of his eternal generation and position all things naturally belong to Jesus as Son of God; by virtue of his office, all things have been given to him as Mediator); its scope does not differ. Moreover, whether we view him as Mediator between God and man, or as the eternal Son of God, in either case the I that speaks is the same. Nevertheless, when Jesus adds, And I am glorified in them, he is thinking primarily of the glory which he as Mediator (who is here speaking as if he had already completely finished his task) derives from the salvation of his disciples. The graces which adorn those who have been drawn out of the darkness and into the light reflect his redeeming love and power. Surely, if Paul can call the church at Philippi my joy and crown (Phil. 4:1), and can speak of the brethren at Thessalonica as our glory and our joy (I Thess. 2:20), and this because these congregations display the fruits of his work, Jesus all the more has a right to say that in all things particularly, in those who from eternity are his own he is glorified. 11. And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Jesus here speaks as if Calvary is past; so certain is Calvary! In his thought he is even now on his way to the Father. With this ideal standpoint as a basis for his request, Jesus makes mention of the fact that, as far as his own visible presence is concerned, he is leaving the disciples behind in a wicked world. Hence, the request follows very naturally: Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou has given me. The wicked world is contrasted here with the holy Father. The power of the latter is surely more than sufficient to offset the influence of the former. Being holy, the Father is exalted far above the creatureIs. 6:3: that Holy One is the all-glorious One , particularly above the creature's sin. Jesus makes an appeal to the moral and spiritual qualities which characterize the Father, and by virtue of which he is the cause of these same qualities (however dimly present) in the hearts of believers. He asks the Father to stand guard (see also on 8:51) over these men, and to keep under his divine surveillance whatever might harm them spiritually. He asks that they be kept in the Father's name, his revelation by means of words and works in the sphere of redemption, the very revelation which Jesus had transmitted to them and they had accepted (17:6, 8). And the purpose of this keeping is: in order that they may constantly be one, even as we (are one). The meaning of this much disputed passage is, after all, rather clear if it be seen in the light of its context. Jesus is not requesting that some day all denominations may become one mammoth-denomination (however excellent church-union may be when it can be achieved without sacrificing any basic principle). When he offered this prayer, there were no denominations. Neither is he praying that in some vague manner the essential (or ontological) oneness of the Father and the Son may be duplicated in the lives of the disciples (true though it be that the mystic union between believers and Christ results from and is a reflection of the relation between the persons of the Holy Trinity). The meaning, as we see it, is this: Jesus requests that the disciples may constantly (note the force of the durative present subjunctive) be one in their stand over against the world; in other words, that they may remain united in love and in the defence of the truth, just as also the Father and the Son are constantly one.& and here we probably expect to read: in their relation to the world, in all their outgoing works; but Jesus, knowing that this unity is even deeper, means &one in essence. True, the logic here requires that unity of cooperation be meant. Well, that is meant, but more also. In God the unity of essence is basic to the unity of manifestation (the ontological trinity lies back of the economic trinity). That nothing less than unity of essence is indicated follows from 17:21; see on that passage; see also on 10:30.^[218] 12. While I was with them, I constantly kept them in thy name which^[219] thou hast given me. That is, during his entire ministry, by means of his teaching and by means of his miracles, Jesus had fulfilled his task as the good shepherd of the sheep. Thus from day to day he himself had kept them, holding before them constantly the things which he had heard from the Father (the Father's name which had been given to Jesus; see on verse 11) and I guarded them, and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled. By means of this constant spiritual keeping Jesus had guarded his own, having protected them against apostasy. The result had been: not one of them perished. When Jesus says, And not one of them perished but the son of perdition, he does not mean that with the exception of Judas all those whom the Father had given to the Son had been guarded. He certainly does not intend to convey the thought that in the case of Judas he had failed miserably to carry out the assignment given to him. On the contrary, what we have here is another instance of abbreviated expression. See on 5:31. More fully stated what Jesus means is this: And I guarded them, and not one of them perished. But the son of perdition did perish. However, far from proving that in this one instance the plan from eternity was defeated and prophecy left unfulfilled, this happened in order that the scripture might be fulfilled. The son of perdition (Matt. 23:15; II Thess. 2:3) is the utterly lost one, designated unto perdition. That Judas was meant is clear from a comparison of passages: 6:71; 13:2, 18, 26, 30; 15:2, 6. Certainly, the Father, who is addressed here, knew who was meant; so did the Son; so did the readers of the Fourth Gospel. And that is sufficient. Whether every disciple in the Upper Room had also finally caught on that this man was Judas is not important in this connection. See, however, on 13:28, 29. Though, on the one hand, Judas was fully responsible, on the other hand, this deed was included in the divine decree from eternity, and in prophecy. See on 13:18. Hence, when the disciples hear Jesus speaking to the Father about the accomplishment of his task with respect to them, and the fulfilment of prophecy even in the case of the son of perdition, they are strengthened in their faith, and begin to realize that nothing and no one ever defeats the divine purpose! Thus, as Calvin so aptly remarks, that which might otherwise have caused feeble hearts to waver was taken away.^[220] See also on 16:1, 4. 13. But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, in order that they may have my joy made full in themselves. Jesus is conscious of the fact that the hour has come that he must now depart from the earth and go to the Father. Here again, just as in verse 11, the meaning is not: I am coming to thee with a request, but (as also the immediate context indicates): I am leaving the world; hence, I am on my way to thee. That this is the correct interpretation is also seen when this statement is compared with the one in verse 11. Note the sequence: I am no longer in the world.& I am coming to thee. Jesus is speaking these things in the world (or, as we would say, while still on earth; see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, probable meaning 1; see also on 21:25) in order that the disciples may possess in full measure the joy which he imparts. See on 15:11; cf. 14:27. Certainly, the thoughts expressed in the immediately preceding context would have the effect of filling to the very brim their cup of spiritual joy. They would now be able to sing the first century a.d. equivalents of lines which have endeared themselves to our hearts: I am in my Father's keeping (cf. 17:11) Also: That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake, I'll never, no never, no never forsake (cf. 17:12a) And: How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, Is laid for your faith in his excellent word! (cf. 17:12b). 14. I have given them thy word, says Jesus. He himself has given to these men an abiding (note the tense) and incomparable gift, namely, the Father's own word, his message. See on 17:6, 8. That word fills the heart with joy unspeakable and full of glory (see 17:13b). But it also has another effect: And the world hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. It would be entirely superfluous to give any further explanation of these words. There is nothing new in what Jesus is here saying. It has been said before. See on 15:19, 20. The new and very comforting element is this, that what Jesus had previously said to them he now says about them, to the Father. What a joy must have streamed into the hearts of these men to hear their Master say with reference to themselves, They are not of the world. But it must have taken all of that comfort to offset the terrible truth: And the world hated them. Not so much what the disciple thinks or speaks or does (taken by itself) causes wicked men to hate them, but what (by means of his attitudes, words, and deeds) he proves himself to be turns them into persecutors. The world hates the disciple because he is so totally different. He is not of the world, just as also Jesus does not belong to (has not derived his character from) the world. 15. I do not make request that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. For the verb to make request see on 11:22. On the surface, one might have expected that the mention of the intense hatred which the disciples would have to endure from the side of the world would have been followed by a request that the Father remove them from the world. Yet, Jesus refuses to make this request. The reason is that the disciples have a task to perform. The nature of that task is not clearly indicated here, not even in verse 18, unless we take that passage in connection with all that precedes it. It was, however, clearly indicated in 15:27: And you must also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning (see on that verse). Naturally, therefore, Jesus cannot now pray that the witnesses be removed! What he does request is this, that the Father keep the disciples from the evil one, or from evil. Both translations are possible. We prefer the former, for the following reasons: (1) Again and again, during this night, Jesus has spoken about Satan, the prince of this world (12:31; 13:27; 14:30; 16:11): that he would be cast out; that he had entered into Judas; that he was on his way; and that he had been judged. Judas had fallen a prey to the evil one. Why, then, is it unreasonable to suppose that Jesus would pray that the others might be protected against the wiles of Satan? (2) I John 5:18is, to a certain extent, a parallel passage. Here the keeping has as its result, that the evil one does not touch the man who is born of God. (3) It is almost impossible to suppose that Jesus, in speaking of keeping his (and the Father's) own, was not thinking of the allegory of the shepherd watching over and guarding his sheep. Hence, 10:29 occurs to the mind immediately. Now the enemy referred to in 10:29 is definitely personal; it is not just evil in general, but Satan, the false prophet, the persecutor, etc. Hence, also here in 17:15 we think of the evil one, Satan. (4) The fact that back of all sinister influences stands Satan himself, sothat it is especially against him that the believer needs protection is the prevailing New Testament view (both in the teaching of Jesus and in that of the apostles); see in addition to the passages listed under (1) and (2) above, also: Matt. 4:1; 13:19, 38, 39; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 5:3; II Cor. 12:7; Eph. 2:2; 4:27; 6:11, 12; I Thess. 2:18; Jas. 4:7; I Peter 5:8; Rev. 12:3; 20:2.^[221] 16. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Here the thought of verse 14 is repeated. See on 15:19, 20. The difference is that it is now no longer a dependent clause but a sentence that stands by itself. Literally, we read: Of the world they are not, even as I am not of the world. All the emphasis is, accordingly, on this phase which both begins and ends the sentence, namely, of the world. In connection with what precedes we may now interpret the entire request as follows: Grant that these disciples may not enter the domain of Satan, for they definitely do not belong to his domain. They are thine and mine; they do not belong to the wicked world. 17. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. Here is the positive side of the request. It is as if Jesus said, Not only keep them from the evil one, but also consecrate them in the truth. Keep them from the one, and confirm them in the other. In the original the adjective holy (in the expression Holy Father, verse 11) and the verb to sanctify are derived from the same root. Hence, by combining these two ideas one might translate: Holy Father, make them holy in the truth. More fully stated, the verb here employed means to set apart from the world by actual sanctification of life, sothat in heart and mind, in thought, words, and deeds, one begins to live more and more in accordance with the law of God. This sanctification can take place only if the entire personality is desirous of being governed by the truth; i.e., by God's redemptive revelation in Christ, as the ultimate standard of life and doctrine. This truth is embodied in Christ, in him alone. He is the truth (see on 14:6). However, the word of the Father, which had been given to the disciples, must be the source of truth for these men when Jesus is no longer personally with them. That word is truth. It is wholly infallible. Without it the work of sanctification is entirely impossible. Jesus requests, therefore, that the Father may cause these men, in an ever increasing degree, to love that word, and to live according to the truth of God revealed in this message which they had received from him, and which he, in turn, had received from the Father. 18. Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world. Jesus is still thinking of the word, the message of redemption in Christ to the glory of God. It is in this connection that he makes a double comparison; that is, between the Father as Sender and himself as Sender; and between himself as Sent and the disciples as having been sent. The two comparisons blend into one idea, which is this: just as the Father has sent Jesus into the world with a message, so also Jesus has sent the disciples into the world with a message. The message, moreover, is the same, that of redemption in Christ. By comparing the present passage with verse 20 it becomes clear that here in verse 18 Jesus is thinking particularly of the little company of eleven men whom he is addressing. They had been divinely commissioned. They had received a charge, a task with the authority to carry it out. They had been made Christ's apostles (a term which has the same root as the verb which is used in this verse). For the term world as here used see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, meaning 4 (in all probability). 19. And for their sake I consecrate myself, in order that they also may be truly consecrated ones. If the disciples are going to perform their task in a worthy manner, they must offer themselves up willingly. Basic to this is the consecration of Christ for their sake (for the meaning of the preposition see on 10:11). Although the verb in verses 17 and 19 is the same, there seems to be a slight difference in meaning. With reference to Christ it cannot indicate a gradual process of spiritual cleansing (a dying to sin and increasing in every spiritual virtue). It must refer to his self-offering (cf. 1:29), more precisely, to his self-dedication to the sacred task for which he had been set apart by the Father, namely, the task of rendering active and passive obedience, thereby obtaining for his people (and here particularly, for his disciples) complete salvation, which also includes that work of the Holy Spirit whereby they are consecrated. See on 10:36. Hence, one act of consecration (that of the Highpriest) is intended to produce another (that of the disciples). Jesus offers himself willingly in order that the disciples may be truly (not merely ceremonially or outwardly) set apart and qualified for the exalted task of proclaiming the Gospel to a world lost in sin; in other words, in order that they may be truly consecrated persons. The nature of the task assigned to the disciples is set forth in 15:27 (see on that passage). The disciples must testify, sothat those given to the Son by the Father may be brought in, and God may receive all the glory. 17:20–26 20 Neither concerning these only do I make request, but concerning those also who believe in me through their word, 21 that^[222] they all may constantly be one; even as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that^[222] they also may constantly be in us, in order that^[222] the world may believe that thou didst send me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them, in order that they may constantly be one even as we are one. 23 I in them and thou in me, in order that they may become perfectly one, in order that the world may acknowledge that thou didst send me and lovedst them even as thou lovedst me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom thou has given me, be constantly with me where I am,^[223] in order that they may gaze on my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, though the world has not acknowledged thee, yet I have acknowledged thee; and these men have come to acknowledge that thou didst send me; 26 and I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, in order that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. 17:20. Neither concerning these only do I make request, but concerning those also who believe in me through their word. In this, the third division of the prayer, Jesus makes request for the Church Universal. Even in the verses that have preceded we found statements so general in character that, as far as their form and contents were concerned, they were applicable not only to the eleven but also to others. It was only in the light of the entire context (particularly, in the light of the key-passage which we are now discussing, 17:20) that we viewed them as having reference (at least mainly) to the apostles. But engraved upon the breastplate of the great Highpriest are the names not only of those chosen out of the tribes of Israel but also of those drawn from the world of heathendom. In addition to the sheep that are led out of the fold of the Jews there are also other sheep (see on 10:16; cf. 3:16). All must become one flock, with one shepherd (see on 17:21). Because of the resemblance in phraseology between the last statement of 10:16 and 17:21a it is hard to believe that this distinction (between Jews and Gentiles) was completely absent from the mind of the Lord when he spoke the words of 17:20. But although that distinction may have influenced the form and sense of the present request, it is not exactly what is meant by the present passage. Nor is it entirely correct to say (as is often done) that Jesus is differentiating here between two groups, namely, on the one hand, those already saved, and on the other, those who were going to be saved through their word. Strictly speaking, the distinction is between the eleven, on the one hand, and on the other, all those who are brought to genuine faith in Jesus Christ through their word. Some had already been gathered by them (see on 4:38). In times to come (down through the entire new dispensation) ever so many others were going to be converted through their word and the word of those who were to follow them. The eye of Jesus scans the centuries, and presses to his loving heart all his true followers, as if they had all been saved even at this very moment. Also here, in the third division of the prayer, the standpoint of the prayer is ideal, viewing future events as if they had already happened. For the distinction between requesting and asking see on 11:22. Literally what Jesus requested was: Neither concerning (note the preposition) these only do I make request, but also concerning the ones believing through their word in me. The form of the expression believing in me indicates that genuine faith is meant, the fruit of saving grace (as has been shown in connection with 8:30, 31a; see also on 1:8; 3:16). The means that is used in order to bring about faith is, as always, the word (their word, not as if they had invented it, but because they heard it, accepted it, preach it), the message of salvation (Eph. 2:20). It is when the Spirit applies this Word to the heart that a person obtains faith unto salvation, faith in the person of Jesus Christ and in the facts of redemption which center in him. Cf. Acts 4:4; Rom. 10:14, 15. The contents of the request for the Church Universal is stated in the next verse: 21. That they all may constantly be one even as thou, O Father (art) in me, and I (am) in thee, that they also may be in us, in order that the world may believe that thou didst send me. Carrying upon his heart all the members of the Church Universal, those born and those not yet born, and viewing them all as already really existing, Jesus prays that spiritually they may all be (and may all continue to be) one. See on 17:11. What in verse 11 was the purpose of a request is here the request itself: the unity of all believers. The unity for which Jesus is praying is not merely outward. He guards against this very common misinterpretation. He asks that the oneness of all believers resemble that which exists eternally between the Father and the Son. In both cases the unity is of a definitely spiritual nature. To be sure, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in essence; believers, on the other hand, are one in mind, effort, and purpose. See also on 17:22, 23. These two kinds of unity are not the same. Nevertheless, there is a resemblance. God is love. What is true with respect to each divine attribute holds also with respect to love: it constitutes the very essence of God (I John 4:8). Now it is exactly in loving one another that the oneness of all believers comes to expression (cf. 13:34; 15:12, 17). Hence, we now understand how Jesus can say &that they may all be one, even as thou, O Father (art) in me, and I (am) in thee. Moreover, there is more here than a mere comparison between the oneness of all God's children, on the one hand, and the oneness of the persons of the Holy Trinity, on the other. The latter is not merely the model; it is the foundation of the former; it makes the former possible. Only such men as have been born from above, and are in the Father and in the Son, are also spiritually one, and offer united opposition to the world. Now this oneness of all believers which, in turn, has its root in their oneness with the Father and the Son, and which is patterned after (but not identical with) the oneness which exists eternally between these two divine persons, has as its glorious purpose that the world may believe that thou didst send me. When believers are united in the faith and present a common front to the world, they exert power and influence. When they are torn asunder by strife and dissension, the world (ethical sense: mankind in need of salvation) will not know what to make of them, nor how to interpret their so-called testimonies. Believers, therefore, should always yearn for peace, but never for peace at the expense of the truth, for unity which has been gained by means of such a sacrifice is not worthy of the name. When believers show in their lives that they have been with the Lord, their actions and attitudes, which speak even louder than words, will point to Christ as the source of their moral and spiritual strength. Thus, those on the outside, who formerly despised the Christ, will begin to think highly of him! When this changed thinking on the part of men who heretofore belonged to the world is applied to their hearts by the Holy Spirit, they will believe that the wonderful stories anent the character and mission of Jesus Christ are really true. The world will then believe that thou didst send me. For the meaning of Jesus as the One sent by the Father see on 3:17, 34; 5:36, 37; 8:18, 27, 29; 9:7; cf. 1:5. 22, 23. And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them, in order that they may constantly be one even as we are one. I in them and thou in me, in order that they may become perfectly one, in order that the world may acknowledge that thou didst send me and hast loved them even as thou lovedst me. When believers are in Christ (cf. that they also may be in us, verse 21), then Christ is in them. This is their glory. By the glory which thou hast given me Jesus refers to the fact that the Father manifested himself in the Son ( thou in me, verse 21). By I have given them he means that he (i.e., Jesus) manifested himself in the lives of believers. To be able to say, Christ only, always, living in us, is their glory. Believers become partakers of Christ, and in that sense, of the divine nature (I John 3:2; II Cor. 3:18; Heb. 12:10; II Pet. 1:4). The glory which Jesus gives to believers means that they have become one plant with him; that he cannot be conceived of apart from them; that he is the source of all the blessings which they will ever receive; and that they, in turn, earnestly desire and strive to do everything to please him. When God dwells in the Son, and he (through the Spirit) dwells in those who have placed their trust in him, then, naturally, these believers become partakers of all the riches that are in Christ: pardon, righteousness, love, joy, knowledge, wisdom, etc. And when all the members of the Church Universal have become partakers of these blessings, the Church, of course, will be one, just as Father and Son are one (see on verse 21). And this is the very reason why Christ gave all this glory to believers, namely, in order that they may become perfectly one. The oneness for which Christ makes request is more than an ethical unity. It is a oneness so intimate, so vital, so personal that it is patterned after, and based on, the relations which exist between the persons of the Holy Trinity: it is a oneness not only of faith, hope, and love but of life itself. Together, believers constitute one Body, of which Christ is the exalted (organic and ruling) Head. Cf. Eph. 1:22, 23; 4:4–6. The Church, thus united by means of Word and Spirit, exerts a powerful influence upon the world. In speaking of this influence Jesus virtually repeats^[224] the words of verse 21 (see on that verse), and then adds: &and lovedst them even as thou lovedst me. Hence, the additional purpose which Jesus has in mind when he prays for oneness is that the world may regard it to be the product of the Father's love, a love which, barring differences in the objects loved, is the same as that which the Father has for the Son. For a discussion of the possible difference in meaning of verbs meaning to love see on 21:15–17. 24. Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, in order that they may gaze on my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. Can anything equal the ineffable tenderness of this final request? Father (see on 1:14), I desire &it is my pleasure, my delight. ^[225] This type of desiring is not weaker than willing. It is useless to object to the translation I desire of the A.R.V. and the R.S.V., and to say that I will of the A.V. is better.^[226] The Greek [Greek] as here used, combines the delight element in the verb I desire with the deliberation and determination element in the verb I will. The desire of Jesus is: that they also whom thou hast given me, be constantly with me where I am. A strictly literal translation might be: that which thou hast given me, I desire that where I am, also they be constantly with me. This sounds rather awkward in English. Nevertheless, this more literal translation must not be ignored. It brings out one point, namely, the Highpriest's deeply rooted love for his own, viewed first as a unit (that which), then severally (they), just as in 17:2, for in the original this clause is placed at the very beginning of the sentence, for the sake of emphasis. This request puts a foundation under the promise of 14:3. Rather, the foundation was always there, but now it is revealed to the disciples in the Upper Room. The Son requests that the Father cooperate with him in carrying out the promise which had been made to the disciples, and which is now extended so as to include all the given ones. Jesus is fond of that expression: the given ones; see on 6:39; 17:2, 9, 11; cf. 6:44. From eternity they had been entrusted to him, in order that in time they might be the reward for his atoning sacrifice. Hence, he desires that all these given ones shall dwell forever in his immediate presence, in order that they may delight forever in the vision of the glory of God in Christ, a vision which begins here on earth (II Cor. 3:18), and reaches its climax in heaven. The glory of which Jesus speaks is his own. He calls it the glory which thou hast given me. The Son desires that all believers shall gaze forever ([Greek]) on him, that is, on the radiance of his divine attributes as these are reflected in his exalted human nature (though, of course, they never become a part of that human nature) and in the transformed character, the inexpressible joy, the unquenchable love, and the perfect peace of all those who enter into the rest that remains for the people of God. This is the glory which the Father has given to the Son. This vision of God in Christ is the transporting bliss of all the people of God. See (Ps. 17:15; 27:4; 90:16; and I John 3:2; cf. also II Cor. 3:18. As they gaze upon him, they, like perfect prisms, refract the light which beams forth from his glorious countenance, and show its exquisite beauty of color in lives wholly dedicated to him. Truly, the lamp of the new Jerusalem is the LambRev. 21:23). How blessed, Lord, are they who know the joyful sound, Who, when they hear thy voice, in happiness abound! With stedfast step they walk, their countenances beaming With brightness of the light that from thy face is streaming; Exalted by thy might from depths of desolation, They praise fore er thy name, thy justice and salvation. Father of Jesus, Love Divine, What rapture will it be, Prostrate before thy throne to lie, And gaze and gaze on thee! Like a sublime musical composition which, after having stirred the innermost depths of the soul, finally comes to rest in an unforgettable climax, so the final request of this touchingly beautiful prayer of the great Highpriest reaches its zenith of infinite tenderness in the words, &for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. It is natural and altogether fitting to regard this clause as a modifier of the immediately preceding clause.^[227] It was because the Father loved the Son from before the foundation of the world (i.e., from eternity) that he gave him this glory. Cf. 17:5 and Eph. 1:4. For the verb to love and its chief synonym see on 21:15–17 (see the Chart on p. 498, which shows the exact verb which is used in each passage; also read the discussion for the meaning of this verb). 25, 26. O righteous Father, though the world has not acknowledged thee, I have acknowledged thee; and these men have come to acknowledge that thou didst send me; and I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, in order that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. The requests are ended. What follows in verses 25 and 26 may be considered the ground or plea upon which the final request (and in a sense, the entire prayer) is based. But it is even more than that. It breathes the spirit of confidence and assurance, the Son's conviction that the Father will hear him. O righteous Father. Because the Father is righteous, he will certainly apply the full merits of the Son's redemption to the hearts and lives of the given ones. Though the world has not acknowledged thee, yet I have acknowledged thee; and these men have come to acknowledge that thou didst send me.^[228] The acknowledgment by the disciples (see on 16:30) of the fact that Jesus was, indeed, the One sent by the Father (as also the acknowledgment of the Father by the Son) was all the more striking because it was in open defiance of the uncompromising opposition from the side of the wicked world (for the meaning of the latter term see on 1:10, 11; Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, meaning 6). For the idea Jesus as the One who was sent by the Father see on 3:17, 34; 5:36, 37; 8:18, 27, 29; 9:7; cf. on 1:5. I have acknowledged thee. This acknowledgment (for the verb employed see on 1:10) is elucidated by the clause, And I made known to them thy name, and will make it known. See on 17:6 for the meaning of the first clause; and for the meaning of the second, see on 16:12–15. Jesus will declare the Father's name (his revelation in the sphere of redemption), in order that the infinite love with which the Father loved the Son may be shed abroad (Rom. 5:5) in the hearts of the disciples (and, of course, in the hearts of all believers). And when both the Son and all those who place their trust in him are comprehended in the same love (namely, the Father's love), the Son himself will be living in them. See also on 17:23: I in them. This is the hope of glory, fully realized (Col. 1:27). Synthesis of Chapter 17 See the Outline on p. 260. The Son of God Committing Himself and His Disciples to the Father's Love and Care The Prayer of the Highpriest I. For Himself: glorification (verses 1 5) II. For His Immediate Disciples (verses 6 19): A. Preservation B. Sanctification III. For the Church at Large (verses 20 26): C. United Contemplation of Christ's glory, in loving fellowship with him. Although there is progress in the prayer, and although it does advance from one theme to the next as indicated, nevertheless, there are no definite boundaries between the three parts. So, for example, verse 24, which belongs to the prayer for the Church Universal, is also a request with respect to the Son himself, and with respect to the immediate disciples. The reason why there are no clearly-drawn dividing lines is because the interests of the one are also those of the other: so close is the unity between and among them. Hence, the best (not perfect) way to represent the relation of the parts to each other is by means of three concentric circles. The mission and eternal destiny of Jesus Christ and his followers is the center of these circles. Jesus prays that, as a reward upon the accomplishment of his mission, he himself may be glorified, and that in connection with this the disciples, in carrying out their mission, may be kept and sanctified, and, together with all other members of the Church Universal, may abide everlastingly in his company, in order to gaze upon his glory. The inner circle represents Christ's request with respect to himself. The middle one represents his request for his immediate disciples, but includes constant references to himself (see verses 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19). Hence, the middle circle is larger than the inner one and includes the latter. The outer circle represents Christ's request for the Church Universal, but this is the largest circle of all, and includes the other two, as has already been shown. Accordingly, we get this Diagram of the Contents of Chapter 17: Contents of Circle 1 = verses 1 5; contents of circle 2 = verses 6 19; contents of circle 3 = verses 20 26. The diagram is not perfect; for example, as has been shown in our exegesis, when the Son prays for himself, he is not forgetting his people! We proceed now to the discussion of an entirely different circle, one that concerns not the form (division into parts) of this prayer but its contents. When love runs its full course, it represents a circle, as is very clear from the opening verse of chapter 17: Glorify thy Son in order that the Son may glorify thee. More fully stated this means: Do thou glorify thy Son in order that the Son may glorify thee. The glory which proceeds from the Father returns to him again, having done its work. See also verses 4 and 5 for a similar circle. Thus also when the love of God descends from heaven to dwell in the hearts of men, it should be returned to him again in the form of thanksgiving. Woe to the man who, having received blessings from the Lord, fails to return them in the form of praise and gratitude. Woe to the man who breaks the circle! The first chapter of Ephesians contains three complete circles. Try to find them. This idea of love running its full course may be represented by the following: Diagram of the Circle of Blessing and Thanksgiving: Prominent in chapter 17 are the following: the Father, the Son, and believers (for the present we shall not distinguish between immediate disciples and all other followers of Christ in the Church Universal). In the background, but constantly present to the mind of the Son, as he prays, is the wicked world and its evil prince (verses 9, 16, 25). Against these the disciples must be guarded. Now, in a striking manner the Highpriestly Prayer brings out the oneness which characterizes these three: the Father, the Son, believers, the bond which unites them, their intimate fellowship with one another. In the abstract six love-relationships are possible; as follows: I (the Son) love thee Thou (the father) They (believers) (the Father) lovest me love me I love them (the believers) Thou lovest them They love thee Now, it is striking that in this chapter all six actually occur, though often, in the place of the term love, another verb is found, one which shows how this love makes itself felt. If that be borne in mind, we obtain the following: Diagram of the Course of Love: I love thee: I glorified thee on the earth (17:4) Thou lovest me: the love with which thou hast loved me (17:26b) They love me: they acknowledge that I came from thee (17:8c) I love them: I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world (17:6a) Thou lovest them: (thy) love &in them (17:26c) They love thee: and they have kept thy word (17:6d). 212 On [Greek] see Vol. I, pp. 46, 52. 213 On [Greek] see Vol. I, pp. 45, 52. 214 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XVIII Outline of Chapters 18, 19 Theme: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God During His Private Ministry: Dying As A Substitute for His People I. 18:1–11 The Arrest II. 18:12 19:16 The Trial and The Denial A. Before Annas (18:13–17), trial and denial 1. Jesus is led before Annas (18:13, 14) 2. Peter's first denial (18:15–18) 3. Jesus is tried before Annas; is sent to Caiaphas (18:19–24) 4. Peter's second and third denial (18:25–27) B. Before Pilate (18:28 19:16), trial 1. Jesus is called an evil-doer. Pilate's first attempt to rid himself of responsibility with respect to Jesus: Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your own law (18:28–32) 2. Jesus kingship is examined. Pilate's second attempt to rid himself of responsibility: You have a custom that I release a man for you at the Passover (18:33–40) 3. Jesus is scourged. Pilate's third attempt to evade the issue: in an endeavor to arouse the pity of the people he exclaims, Look! The man! (19:1–7) 4. After further attempts on the part of Pilate (to release Jesus if it could be done without discomfort to Pilate!), he succumbs to intimidation, and hands Jesus over to be crucified (19:8–16) III. 19:17–37 The Crucifixion A. Jesus carrying the cross; nailed to a cross between two criminals (verses 17 and 18) B. The dispute about the superscription (verses 19 22) C. The division of the garments (verses 23 and 24) D. The word to Mary and to John (verses 25 27) E. Jesus thirst; his death (verses 28 30) F. The piercing of his side (verses 31 37) IV. 19:38–42 The Entombment 18:1–11 18 1 When he had said these things, Jesus together with his disciples went out across the winter-brook Kedron, where was a garden, into which he went, he and his disciples. 2 Now also Judas, who was betraying him, knew this place; for Jesus often met^[229] there with his disciples. 3 So Judas took the cohort and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and went there with torches and lanterns and weapons. 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, came out and said to them, For whom are you looking? 5 They answered him, For Jesus, the Nazarene. He said to them, I am he. Now Judas also, the one who was betraying him, was standing (there) with them. 6 Then when he said to them, I am he, they lurched backward and fell to the ground. 7 So he again requested of them, For whom are you looking? And they said, For Jesus, the Nazarene. 8 Jesus answered, I told you that I am he. Therefore, if you are looking for me, let these men go their way.^[230] 9 (This happened) in order that the word which he had spoken might be fulfilled, Of those whom thou hast given me, I have lost none. 10 Then Simon Peter, who had a short sword, drew it and struck the servant of the highpriest, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus. 11 Jesus, however, said to Peter, Put the sword into the sheath. The cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it? 18:1. When he had said these things, Jesus together with his disciples went out across the winter-brook Kedron, where was a garden, into which he went, he and his disciples. At the conclusion of the prayer Jesus and the little company of eleven left the house (see on 14:31). Proceeding in an easterly direction, they went out of the city (which is probably meant here in 18:1) across the winter-brook Kedron. The valley of the Kedron is located between Jerusalem's eastern wall and the Mount of Olives. During the hot season the channel is dry. Only during the winter and even then only after a heavy shower does anything resembling a brook actually appear. Hence, it is called (literally) a winter flow-er (a stream which flows during the winter-season). The name Kedron itself (according to what is probably the best reading) means dark, turbid. It was here that devout king Asa had burned the abominable image which his wicked mother had set up (I Kings 15:13). At the command of another pious ruler, Josiah, idolatrous vessels had been burned in this vicinity (II Kings 23:4). And under King Hezekiah the Levites had carried to this valley the unclean things that had been left in the temple by the former administration (II Chron. 29:16; cf. 30:14). This was the valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes (Jer. 31:40). But the one outstanding event which had occurred here was David's passing over this same brook, while fleeing before his rebellious son Absolom (II Sam. 15:23). Was he not, in this act of humiliation and suffering, a type of Christ? Now just east of this brook there was a garden which is elsewhere called Gethsemane (oil-press). It seems to have been a grove of olive-trees, furnished with a press for the purpose of squeezing oil from the fruit. It was at the foot of the Mount of Olives. The site which is pointed out to travelers today is slightly east of the bridge by which the road from the gate of St. Stephen crosses the Kedron.^[231] It must, however, be stressed that no one knows the exact location of the grove which Jesus entered that night. Something similar is true with respect to many of the sites where Jesus taught and performed his miracles. The general vicinity is often rather well established; the exact place is another matter! Deeply rooted within the heart of many people is the desire to know the precise spot! Others are glad to satisfy this yearning, usually for a consideration. The record of the agony which Jesus suffered in this garden is found in the other Gospels. John takes it for granted that the readers are not in need of any further information with respect to that subject. All he says is, &where was a garden, into which he went, he and his disciples. The leisurely addition of the words in italics serves to picture the scene and to show its pathos. While John is writing this, he vividly recalls what happened that night. He (and Peter and James) had seen more than some of the others (Mark 14:33). 2. Now also Judas, who was betraying him, knew this place; for Jesus often met there with his disciples. It must be considered within the realm of possibility (Luke 21:37; 22:39) that Jesus and his disciples had spent Tuesday-night and Wednesday-night in Gethsemane. Was there, perhaps, a grotto here or a small house, sleeping-quarters of some kind, and was the owner of the grove a follower of Jesus? Gethsemane was, in any event, a customary gathering-place (note the verb: met; literally: was gathered) for the Master and his disciples. It was a quiet place of prayer and probably of teaching. And Judas knew this! He had been there with Jesus. It was, therefore, relatively easy for him to lead a detachment of soldiers and a squad of temple-guards to the place where they could find Jesus. At this very moment Judas was on his way. The evangelist pictures this in vivid colors: Judas was betraying him. See on verse 3. Not only did Judas know the place, but Jesus knew that Judas knew it! Nevertheless (shall we not rather say, Because of that very fact?), Jesus went there! The good shepherd is not going to be caught. No, he is going to lay down his life as a willing sacrifice (see on 10:11).^[232] 3. So Judas took the cohort and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and went there with torches and lanterns and weapons. At the request of the Sanhedrin (Matt. 27:62–66) a cohort had been secured, probably from the tower of Antonio. This fortress was situated at the north-west corner of the temple-area. It had been repaired and strengthened by Herod the Great. In this castle the Roman government kept a number of soldiers. During the Jewish festivals, when Jewish patriots streamed to Jerusalem in great numbers and enthusiasm ran high, the garrison was enlarged, in order to be ready for all emergencies (see Josephus, Antiquities XVIII, iv, 3). The exact number of soldiers in this detachment is not known. Though a cohort ordinarily consisted of six hundred men (the tenth of a legion), it would seem that the term is used in a less restricted sense here, as is often the case with respect to such terms (even today). At any rate the band must have been rather large. It seems well-nigh certain that permission for its use had been obtained from Pilate, the governor (Matt. 27:62). Matt. 27:18, 19clearly proves that he knew about the case of Jesus before the accused was actually brought to him. The Synoptics make no mention of the soldiers in this connection. In addition to these soldiers there were temple-guards sent by the Sanhedrin, which counted among its members many chief priests the acting highpriest, ex-highpriests, and members of highpriestly families (but this is not certain; another interpretation of the term is given by A. Sizoo, Uit de Wereld v.h. N.T., pp. 70–72) and Pharisees. As the chief priests were mostly Sadducees (cf. on 1:24), the Pharisees are mentioned separately. According to Luke 22:52there were also members of the Sanhedrin. Had they postponed the eating of the Passover-supper? See on 18:28. The soldiers and the policemen from the temple were fully armed. They were equipped with torches and with lanterns. With respect to the latter, think of the oil-fed lamps carried by the ten virgins of the well-known parable (Matt. 25:1–3). John mentions weapons. He refers probably to the swords carried by the soldiers, as well as to the cudgels in the hands of the policemen (Matt. 26:47). Torches and lanterns &to search for the Light of the world! And it was full moon! Swords and cudgels &to subdue the Prince of peace! This was a cruel insult. It proved how thoroughly his mission had been misinterpreted. For the Man of Sorrows, the very sight of this band of ruffians, which considered him their quarry, meant indescribable suffering. They had come out against him as if he were a criminal, a robber for instance. This was agony. He felt the bitter insult, as is clear from the words he spoke (Matt. 26:55). He saw the approach of the power of darkness (Luke 22:53). In describing what the soldiers did, how the guards treated him, in speaking about Judas, Peter, Caiaphas, Annas, Pilate, and others, the main purpose must ever be to show what each contributed to his suffering! Judas took this detachment of soldiers and this posse of temple-police. The meaning is that he served as guide, for he was thoroughly acquainted with the object of the search and with the latter's familiar haunts. See on 13:27. 4. Then Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, came out and said to them, For whom are you looking? From the mind of Jesus nothing was hid. For this knowledge of Jesus see on 1:42, 47, 48; 2:24, 25; 5:6; 6:64; 13:1, 3; 21:17. The agony of Gethsemane (the prayer that the cup might be taken away, the bloody sweat, etc.) was past. Now there is nothing but calm resolution, sublime majesty. So Jesus came out. Out of what? The answer is not given; hence, certainty is lacking. Some say out of the garden-gate; out of the grotto; or out of the house. To others (and we are inclined to agree with them) the meaning is out from among the trees in this grove; that is, out of relative darkness he stepped into the light, into the open, striding forward until he stood right in front of the band. Just as he did this (or was it at some other juncture; but if so, when?), Judas performed that act which has caused all later generations to recoil with horror at the mere mention of his name. Embracing Jesus, he kissed him repeatedly, while he said, Hail, Rabbi! See Matt. 26:49(the original). That was the pre-arranged sign. How mean, how devilish! For the foulest deed that was ever committed Judas selected the most sacred night (that of the Passover), the most sacred place (the sanctuary of the Master's devotions), and the most sacred symbol, a kiss! And also, how utterly ridiculous! As if Jesus would have failed to identify himself! Finished with Judas, Jesus demanded of the band (particularly, of its leaders): For whom are you looking? He was standing in full view of everyone. He was giving his soul as a ransom in exchange for many. The Master of winds and waves was also fully in control of the present situation. 5. They answered him, For Jesus, the Nazarene. The answer was given by several (not only by the commander verse 12; the verb is plural). It was probably stated in the exact language of the official order which the band had received from the authorities. Jesus, the man from Nazareth was to be the object of the search.^[233] He said to them, I am he. Unnecessary were all the kisses given by Judas! See on verse 4 (above). Here we see Jesus as the great Prophet, making himself known. In verse 6 we see him as the King of kings. In verses 7 and 8, as the sympathetic Highpriest, who lovingly provides for his own. Now Judas also, the one who was betraying him, was standing (there) with them. Why does not John record the kissing-episode? Was it merely because he knew that the readers were already sufficiently acquainted with this, having read it in the Synoptics? Or was it also because he shuddered to dwell on this black deed? Yes, Judas, the treasurer (shall we say ex-treasurer?), the man in whom the others had put their trust, he too was now standing with the powers of the prince of darkness. Hence, it is but natural to include also him in the event which is described in the next verse: 6. Then when he said to them, I am he, they lurched backward and fell to the ground. What a spectacle is presented now! Suddenly (note the aorists), at the word of Jesus, the would-be captors lose their footing. They lurch backward and fall to the ground. The unexpectedness of Christ's behavior (the fact that of his own accord he strode forward), the manner in which he had taken the entire situation into his own hands, the majesty of his voice and of the look in his eyes, all this may have helped to produce the effect that is here pictured. Nevertheless, these factors cannot account for it. Here is another sign (see on 2:11). Here is Christ Jesus, the King! 7, 8. So he again requested of them, For whom are you looking? And they said, For Jesus, the Nazarene. Jesus answered, I told you that I am he. Therefore, if you are looking for me, let these men go their way. Note the striking contrast. Their most undignified behavior was followed by his very dignified question: he requested of them. See on 11:22. He interrogates these stricken warriors. The question was the same as before. And so was the answer.^[234] But now Jesus brings home the purpose of his inquiry. Having twice compelled them to repeat their orders, he by the sound of their own voice and by the contents of their own answers, has impressed upon them the fact that Jesus, the Nazarene, he indeed, but also he alone, must be led away. If you are looking for me as, of course, you are then let these men (the disciples) go their way (or: withdraw themselves). The Highpriest lovingly protects his own. 9. (This happened) in order that the word which he had spoken might be fulfilled, Of those whom thou hast given me, I have lost none. At first glance, this passage seems very strange. The word which Jesus had spoken is found (in one form or another) in 6:39; 10:28; and 17:12. See on these passages. But in all of them it refers to that act of Jesus whereby he stands guard over the spiritual welfare of his own, keeping them, with a view to everlasting life in the mansions above. How then can this saying be suddenly robbed of its precious import and seemingly degraded into a reference to the manner in which Jesus provided for the physical escape of his disciples?^[235] The only answer which satisfies us is the one given by Calvin, Luther, Stalker, Evans, Lenski, and others. It amounts to this: had the disciples at this time been captured by these soldiers and temple-guards, it would have been too severe a test for their faith. They were not ready for this extreme ordeal, this torture. Jesus knew this. Hence, he sees to it that they are not arrested. Note also that here the same formula that the word &might be fulfilled is employed with respect to a saying of Jesus which elsewhere is used with reference to the inspired authors of the Old Testament. The legitimate inference is certainly this, that John regarded the sayings of Jesus as being, in their infallible character, on a par with those of the prophets of old. 10. In his pride and arrogance Peter chooses not to avail himself immediately of the opportunity for physical safety which Jesus had provided. We have here the over-confident Simon of 13:37; see on that passage. What John tells in the next few verses has its parallel in the Synoptics (Matt. 26:51–54; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50, 51). Then Simon Peter, who had a short sword, drew it and struck the servant of the highpriest, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus. Although this incident is related in all four Gospels, only John mentions the names of the two persons who (in addition to Jesus himself) figure most prominently in it. When John published his Gospels, it was no longer possible to punish the assailant. Hence, his name, and also the name of the person assailed can now be mentioned. The assailant was Peter, who is mentioned here (and frequently in the Fourth Gospel) by his full name: Simon Peter. See on 1:40–42. Emboldened perhaps by the marvelous triumph of Jesus over the men who had come to capture him, greatly encouraged by the spectacle of these soldiers and policemen who just a moment ago lay sprawled all over the ground and by his own previous boast which he had to make good, Simon drew from its scabbard his short sword ([Greek] Was this a knife, with a blade five or six inches in length, for gutting fish (as some suggest), or perhaps one that had been used in connection with the Passover-meal? More probably it was actually a kind of dagger, the kind of weapon the soldiers also carried. It is hard to believe that in Matt. 26:47the term would have one meaning (sword), and in 26:51 another meaning (knife). The armor of the disciples, here in the olive-grove, consisted of two of these swords (Luke 22:38). Naturally, Peter carried one of them! See on 13:9 and on 13:37. How could it have been different? The disciples had asked, Shall we smite with the sword? (Luke 22:49). Impulsive Simon could not wait for the answer. Peter, then, having drawn this sword (for the verb see on 6:44), sprang at the (specially commissioned) servant of the highpriest, and probably because the servant quickly jumped to the side cut off his ear.^[237] Both John and Luke inform us that it was the right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Here is the touch of an eye-witness. The Fourth Gospel is full of such details. See Vol. I, pp. 18, 19. In this connection it must also be borne in mind that the author was acquainted with the highpriest (18:15). It is, therefore, not surprising that he also knows the name of his servant. 11. Jesus, however, said to Peter, Put the sword into the sheath. The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it? Luke (Doctor Luke, remember!) mentions the fact that Jesus touched the servant's ear and healed it (Luke 22:51). Jesus sharply reprimands his wilful disciple, and tells him to sheathe his sword (Jer. 47:6). The reasons for this command may be summarized as follows: (1) The one given here, The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it? The struggle in Gethsemane is over. Jesus no longer prays that the cup of most bitter suffering and eternal death on the cross may pass from him (Matt. 26:39). He is fully determined to drink it (that is, naturally, its contents). It is the cup which the Father (see on 1:14) has given him. Hence, the enemy must not be put to flight by means of the sword. The good shepherd must lay down his life. He must voluntarily offer himself. Simon's deed is at variance with this determination. Cf. also Matt. 26:54. (2) Jesus must be able to say to Pilate: My kingship is not of this world. If my kingship were of this world, my attendants would have been fighting in order to keep me from being handed over to the Jews; but now my kingship does not spring from that source (18:36). (3) If it had been the wish of Jesus to defend himself, he had other means at his disposal, for example, more than twelve legions of angels (Matt. 26:53). Peter's rash and awkward act was entirely unnecessary and uncalled for. (4) All they that take the sword will perish with the sword (Matt. 26:52). Before Jesus surrenders himself to this band, he first avails himself of the opportunity to point out the cowardly character of this base onslaught upon him, far away from the public eye, and in the middle of the night. He also emphasizes that his surrender is according to plan. It was in order that the scriptures might be fulfilled (Matt. 26:55, 56). Hence, this yielding was, in reality, no surrender at all. It was victory! As Jesus is being (or is about to be) taken and bound, the disciples scamper away. One of the Master's followers not one of the twelve, a man who had quickly thrown a linen cloth about himself, was seized. However, he left the linen cloth in the hand of his pursuer, and fled away naked. For these details see Matt. 25:56; Mark. 14:51, 52. Synthesis of 18:1–11 See the Outline on p. 374. The Son of God Dying as a Substitute for His People. The Arrest. Having left the house, Jesus, in the company of eleven disciples crossed the Kedron. This reminds one of David's flight before Absolom, but there is this great difference: Jesus was in complete control of the situation. He was not fleeing. His entire procedure was voluntary. He knew that Judas would meet him there. So he went there! The company of captors consisted of the following: a. Judas, the guide b. The military tribune (chiliarch) c. The soldiers from the Tower of Antonia (probably in front) d. The temple-police (behind the soldiers, perhaps) e. Chief priests and elders (members of the Sanhedrin, perhaps many of them). See Luke 22:52. These probably held themselves somewhat in the background. Soldiers carried swords, police cudgels. There were torches and lanterns. As prophet Jesus, stepping into the light, declared himself; as king he ruled, causing the band to fall to the ground; as priest he protected his own. When Peter showed by an act of rashness (cutting off the ear of the highpriest's servant) that he did not understand the nature of Christ's kingdom, Jesus by word and deed revealed its spiritual character. Jesus then permitted himself to be seized and bound (see the next section). 18:12–40 12 Then the cohort and its commander^[238] and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him, 13 and they led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was highpriest of that year. 14 Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man die for the people. 15 Now Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the highpriest, and he entered with Jesus into the court of the highpriest. 16 But Peter was standing outside, in front of the gate. So the other disciple, the one known to the highpriest, stepped out and spoke to the girl who kept the gate, and brought Peter inside. 17 Then the girl who kept the gate said to Peter, You surely are not also one of this man's disciples, are you? He said, I am not. 18 Now the servants and the officers had made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. And there with them was also Peter, standing and warming himself. 19 Then the highpriest questioned Jesus concerning his disciples and concerning his teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught at synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews are in the habit of congregating, and in secret I said nothing. 21 Why are you questioning me? Question those who heard what I said to them. Of course^[239] they know what I said. 22 Now when he had said these things, one of the officers who was standing by slapped Jesus in the face,^[240] saying, Is this the way you answer the highpriest? 23 Jesus answered him, If I spoke wrongly, testify with reference to the wrong, but if rightly, why do you strike me? ^[241] 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest. 25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, You surely are not also one of his disciples, are you? He denied it and said, I am not. 26 One of the servants of the highpriest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, Did I not see you in the garden with him? 27 Peter, however, again denied, and instantly, a rooster crowed. 28 Then they led Jesus Christ from Caiaphas to the governor's residence. It was early; and in order that they might not be defiled but might eat the Passover, they themselves did not enter the governor's residence. 29 Pilate then went out to them and said, What charge do you prefer against this man? 30 They answered and said to him, If this man were not an evil-doer, we would not have handed him over to you. ^[242] 31 Pilate said to them, Take him yourselves, and judge him in accordance with your own law. The Jews said to him, We have no right to execute anyone. 32 (This happened) in order that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he had spoken, signifying by what death he was about to die. 33 Then Pilate again entered the governor's residence, and he summoned Jesus and said to him, Are you the king of the Jews? Jesus answered, Are you saying this of your own accord, or have others said it to you about me? 35 Pilate answered, Surely I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done? 36 Jesus answered, My kingship is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my attendants would have been fighting^[243] in order to keep me from being handed over to the Jews;^[244] but now my kingship does not spring from that source. 37 Then Pilate said to him, So you are a king? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. For this purpose was I born, and for this purpose have I come into the world, in order that I might testify to the truth. Whoever is of the truth listens to my voice. 38 Pilate said, What is truth? And having said this, he went out to the Jews again, and said to them, No crime whatever do I find in him. 39 But you have a custom that^[245] I release a man for you at the Passover. So, do you wish that I release for you the king of the Jews? 40 Then they cried out once more, saying, Not this man but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. 18:12. Then the cohort and its commander and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him. Finally, the band of soldiers and temple-guards (Acts 4:27) goes into action. The man who in all likelihood was in command of the entire band (not only of the soldiers) is now mentioned for the first time. He was a chiliarch, literally: commander of a thousand; but the term is used here in a secondary sense, to indicate the Roman military tribune who was the leader of the cohort (Acts 21:31 33, 37; 22:24–29; 23:10, 15, 17 19, 22; 24:7, 22; 25:23; see, however, also Mark 6:21; Rev. 6:15; 9:18). At his order some of the soldiers now seized Jesus. The verb employed is the technical term for making an official arrest (Matt. 26:55; Mark 14:48). In doing so, they actually took hold of him, and then bound him. He, the One who had come into the world to bring freedom, and apart from whom freedom is absolutely impossible (see on 8:31–36), was himself bound. He was bound, however, in order that we might be loosed from our sins. The fact that the cohort and its commander are mentioned first probably indicates that they took the leading part in this action of arresting and binding Jesus. This is also what we would have expected. 13. And they led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was highpriest of that year. The soldiers and temple-police lead Jesus, bound, to Annas. The rather common opinion (also among commentators) is that Jesus was led to Annas for preliminary examination. However, no less an authority than Dr. F. W. Grosheide, the author of one of the best works on the Fourth Gospel, is among those who challenge this conclusion. He presents his arguments in Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, Vol. II, p. 449 (also p. 454, footnote 1). As he sees it, there was no such a thing as a preliminary hearing before Annas. The trial recorded in 18:19–23 took place before Caiaphas; it was not a preliminary examination before Annas. This is also the position of A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, Volume II, p. 548. The most formidable argument in favor of this position is the one derived from a comparison between verses 13, 14 (together), and then 19: And they led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was highpriest of that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man die for the people (verses 13, 14). What follows concerns Simon Peter, his first denial (verses 15 18). Verse 19 states: Then the highpriest questioned Jesus concerning his disciples and concerning his teaching. Cf. also verses 15 and 16: the highpriest. Who, then was this highpriest by whom Jesus was examined? The answer would certainly seem to be, Caiaphas, of course, for he is the only one who is distinctly called highpriest in the preceding verses. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that for this reason (and for other reasons, which are not as strong, as we see it), the theory that there was no preliminary hearing before Annas is favored by certain commentators. When we, nevertheless, respectfully disagree, it is because we consider 18:24 to be an insuperable obstacle to its acceptance. (In passing, it should be remarked that there is no evidence at all to support the idea, held by some, that there has been a displacement of the text, either here at verse 24 which some place immediately after verse 14 or anywhere else in the chapter.) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the highpriest (before whom the trial recorded in verses 19 23 was held) was Caiaphas, what intelligible meaning can anyone ascribe to verse 24, which records what happened at the end of this trial? We read: Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest. Surely, a prisoner who has been standing in front of Caiaphas all through verses 19 23 cannot now be sent to Caiaphas! Verse 24, according to the clear meaning of the words, takes for granted that the trial of verses 19 23 has been before Annas, and that it is this Annas who now sends the prisoner to Caiaphas. We do not see how it is possible to escape this conclusion. Yet, attempts are made to escape it. For example, there is the translation found in the A.V.: Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest. It is true, of course, that in the original the aorist tense (sent) is used at times where we would employ the pluperfect (had sent), but in the present situation this is improbable, as will be explained in a footnote.^[246] This, however, still leaves us with the riddle of explaining how (in view of verses 13, 14) the highpriest to which verse 19 refers can be Annas? The solution is probably not too difficult. In the four New Testament references to Annas he is twice called highpriest, and this name is applied to him even though it was well-known to the inspired author that he was no longer the actual highpriest. Note: Luke 3:2: In the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John. Acts 4:6: And Annas, the highpriest was there, and Caiaphas & The only other New Testament references to Annas are right in this chapter: John 18:13, 24. John, who probably assumes that the readers have read the earlier Gospels (see Vol. I, pp. 31–33), takes for granted that they know that Annas was still called highpriest. His main thought, here in verse 13, is that the band led Jesus to Annas. The rest (in verse 13 and all of verse 14) is secondary. It is important, to be sure, but not of primary significance. It simply gives the reason why Jesus was led before Annas, namely, because he was father-in-law to (stood in close connection with) the titular highpriest of that year. This is followed by a parenthetical remark about the son-in-law of Annas. The main idea is still that Jesus was brought to Annas first! Let not the reader begin to think that the trial about which he has read in the other Gospels, namely, the trial before Caiaphas, was the only one. No, first, says John, Jesus was brought before Annas! Hence, the reader has been led to expect that John will say something about this trial. And he does in verses 19 23. Who was this Annas? The chief sources which one should read in order to form an opinion of the man are the following: (Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6; John 2:14 16Matt. 21:12, 13); 18:13, 24; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, ii, 2; XX, ix, 1, 2; Talmud, Pes. 57a. Combining all of this information, one arrives at the following picture: Annas (or Ananus, as Josephus calls him; the name is from the Hebrew Hananiah, meaning Jehovah is gracious) had been appointed highpriest by Quirinius in the year 6 a.d., and was deposed by Valerius Gratus, about 15 a.d. Though deposed, he remained for a long time the ruling spirit of the Sanhedrin. He was the dominant member of the Jewish hierarchical machine. There have been somewhat similar machines since that day. It generally takes a clever manipulator to be the virtual head of one. Annas was just such a man. Five sons (Eleazer, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus), one son-in-law (Caiaphas), and a grandson followed him in the highpriesthood. When Annas had been deposed, someone not of his family had succeeded him, but almost immediately afterward a son of Annas had been appointed. After another intermission, Annas son-in-law (Caiaphas) had been given the title. He was the highpriest now. Next the highpriesthood would go to a second son of Annas; then to a third; after still another brief intermission, to a fourth; and then after several others would have been tried out, to the fifth son. Thus, during the entire period of Christ's ministry and for a long time afterward, Annas was the man who was responsible, to a large extent, for the actions of the Jewish Sanhedrin. Someone else might be the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin, Annas was the man to consult. One can imagine how, whenever a priest would come up with a plan or idea, and would broach it, another would immediately reply, Have you cleared this with Annas? He was very proud, exceedingly ambitious, and fabulously wealthy. His family was notorious for its greed. The main source of his wealth seems to have been a goodly share of the proceeds from the price of sacrificial animals, which were sold in the Court of the Gentiles. See on 2:14. By him the house of prayer had been turned into a den of robbers. Even the Talmud declares: Woe to the family of Annas! Woe to the serpent-like hisses (probably the whisperings of Annas and the members of his family, seeking to bribe and influence the judges). John adds that Annas was father-in-law of Caiaphas! And in character these two were twins. See on 11:49, 50 for a description of the character of Caiaphas. Hence, from Annas, Jesus could expect the same treatment as from his son-in-law. Let Annas get some preliminary evidence in the case of Jesus. He will probably be able to give some good (?) advice to his son-in-law. Meanwhile, there will be an opportunity to gather the members of the Sanhedrin, as many as can be assembled at this hour of the night! 14. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man die for the people. The intent of this parenthetical remark is this: Caiaphas had been plotting Christ's death for a long time. His father-in-law, the real power behind the throne, would cooperate heartily. In fact, he may even have been the instigator. With respect to Caiaphas see also on 11:49, 50. Here the account leaves Jesus for a while, as he is brought before Annas, and returns to Peter (see on 13:36–38). 15. Now Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the highpriest, and he entered with Jesus into the court of the highpriest. The story of Peter's denial is told in all four Gospels. It is important to see how these various accounts, which differ in so many details but never clash, harmonize. One fact must be well understood: not only Matthew (26:34), and Mark (14:30), and Luke (22:34), but also John (13:38) definitely expects three denials. Hence, when it appears that John has nothing that corresponds with that denial which by the others is counted as the second one, we are led to conclude, either: 1. That he reports only on what he also considers the first and the third denials, and simply assumes that the readers (already acquainted with the account of the denials in the Synoptics) need no further information about the second denial; or, 2. That he also reports on three denials, but counts differently, splitting up into two denials that which by the others is considered the third denial. In the latter case, what by the others is presented as the third denial is by John counted as the second and the third. Something can be said in favor of either of these theories. The first is favored by Lenski.^[247] It may be correct. We simply do not know. Yet, if a choice must be made, we would feel inclined to favor the second of these alternatives, and this for the following reasons: a. John has recorded the fact that Jesus predicted three denials (13:38). Hence, he has caused the reader to expect that three denials will be described, in fulfilment of the prediction. b. In this expectation the reader is not disappointed. Note how the Fourth Gospel reports on the denials: He said, I am not (18:17). He denied it and said, I am not (18:25). Peter, however, again denied (18:27). This means, of course, that Peter again said, I am not, or something similar. Will it not be natural, then, for the reader to see in these three not two nor four I am not -statements the fulfilment of the prediction with reference to the three denials? Though admitting that the first theory may be the correct one, we shall, for the reasons given, proceed on the assumption that the second is right. As to the material, there is no clash here of any kind. All the accounts (whether in John or in the Synoptics) are fully inspired and without error. We suggest the following harmony: First Denial: Matt. 26:58, 69, 70; Mark 14:54, 66 68; Luke 22:54 57; and John 18:15 18. Second Denial (according to Matthew, Mark, Luke): Matt. 26:71, 72; Mark 14:69, 70a; Luke 22:58; not in John Third Denial (according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke): Matt. 26:73–75; Mark 14:70b 72; Luke 22:59 62; John 18:25(the second denial, as counted by John); 18:26, 27 (the third denial, as counted by John). When Jesus predicted that Peter was going to deny him three times, he surely did not mean that exactly three times (and no more) Simon would say, I know not the man, or something similar. There were, indeed, three separate situations in connection with which Peter was going to deny the Master, three and no more. But the last time, while several are speaking, one accuser, namely, a relative of Malchus, attracts special attention. Hence, the author of the Fourth Gospel singles him out for separate mention, thus dividing the third denial (of the other Gospels) into two denials. The question may be asked, Why is it that John gives such a detailed account of the denials, though these had already been related by the earlier Gospel-writers? The answer is probably: (1) His Gospel is going to contain an account of Peter's restoration. Hence, the reason for the necessity of this restoration must be fully recorded. Besides, no one must be able to say, This Gospel covers up Peter's sin. (2) The beloved disciple probably felt that he himself was partly responsible for Peter's fall. It was he who brought Peter inside the courtyard! Being a very humble man, John wants his readers to know this, sothat the blame may not be placed entirely on Peter. (3) Of all the apostles only John had returned with Peter to the highpriest's palace. Hence, he was able to supply certain details which the others had not furnished. Though all the disciples had fled, two soon rallied, and began to follow the band which was leading Jesus to the highpriest's palace. Still fearful, Peter was following (imperfect tense) from a considerable distance (Matthew, Mark, Luke). With him was someone who is simply called another disciple. That this unnamed person was no one else than the author of the Fourth Gospel we have tried to prove (Vol. I, pp. 3–31). The other disciple (John) was known though not of necessity intimately to the highpriest. How it was that Annas (see on verse 13) hence, probably also his son-in-law knew John remains a mystery. Theories such as, that John was a distant relative, or that his father's firm delivered fish to the highpriest's palace (the view of Nonnus, an Egyptian scholar, about 400 a.d.) are nothing but guesses. It is important, nevertheless, to bear in mind the fact as such (that John was known to the highpriest). See also on 18:10. This explains why, without difficulty, John who, having by this time regained courage, had shortened the distance between himself and the band entered with Jesus into the court of the highpriest. It is not certain whether the term [Greek], as here used (see also on 10:1, 16), indicates the entire palace (a meaning which, according to J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, op. cit., p. 92, lacks papyri support) or refers to the open courtyard around which the Oriental house or palace was built. It is, however, clear that at least in Matt. 26:69; Mark 14:66; and Luke 22:55it must refer to the open courtyard. But where was this courtyard? That it was in the house or palace of Caiaphas is clearly implied in Matt. 26:57, 59. That it was, nevertheless, also in the palace occupied by Annas seems clear by comparing with this passage from Matthew, John 18:13, 15, 24. The reader should see this for himself, in order to appreciate the problem. Hence, we print the two references in parallel columns: Matt. 26:57, 58: John 18:13, 15, 24: And those who had seized Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the highpriest, where the scribes and the elders had assembled. But Peter followed him at a considerable distrance, to the court (or courtyard) of the highpriest &And they led him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was highpriest of that year &Now Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the highpriest, and he entered with Jesus into the court (or courtyard) of the highpriest &Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest. Is it not very natural (cf. M. Dods, op. cit., p. 848) to assume that these two very close relatives (Annas and his son-in-law), who, besides, were kindred souls they were two of a kind! lived in the same palace? In spite of all the objections that have been urged against this view, we still believe it to be the most natural solution. Probably one wing of the palace was occupied by Annas; another by Caiaphas. This is also the conclusion reached by A. Sizoo, Uit De Wereld van het Nieuwe Testament, pp. 81, 82. That in such a palace, occupied by the most important persons in all Judea, there would, indeed, be a room or hall big enough to accommodate a large assembly may be taken for granted. A prisoner could easily be sent from one wing to another, across the courtyard. 16. But Peter was standing outside, in front of the gate. So the other disciple, the one known to the highpriest, stepped out and spoke to the girl who kept the gate, and brought Peter inside. It seems that Peter was not known either to the highpriest or to his servants. So, he is waiting outside, though John has already been admitted. What follows cannot be understood apart from a knowledge of the construction of an Oriental palace or house of the well-to-do. Such a house looks into its own interior; that is, its rooms are built around an open courtyard. An arched passage leads from the heavy outside door or (better) gate into this inner court. In this passage there is a place (in some houses a little room) for the gate-keeper. Sometimes, as also in the present instance, the court was lower than the rooms which ranged around itMark 14:66: Peter was beneath in the court . It is not entirely impossible that the room to which Jesus had been led was a kind of gallery, from which what happened in the court could be seen and heard.^[248] This theory has its objections, however. One might ask, Would not the loud conversations of the men who stood in the open court-yard have been a cause of annoyance to the priests who conducted the trial? When John had been admitted by the gate-keeper, he secured admission for Peter also. John spoke to the girl who kept the gate. Apparently, not only the highpriest but also his servants (this girl and Malchus) knew John and were known by him. Hence, they must have known that he was a follower of Jesus (see on verse 17). But it seems that in John's case there had been no strict enforcement of the rule mentioned in 9:22. Probably the Sanhedrin had relaxed somewhat, thinking, Once Jesus is out of the way, his disciples will no longer adhere to his teachings. We know from the book of Acts that when this proved to be an erroneous assumption, the persecution was resumed with undiminished vigor. John, in securing Peter's admittance, made a tragic error, as is shown by the verses which follow: 17. Then the girl who kept the gate said to Peter, You surely are not also one of this man's disciples, are you? He said, I am not. What happened to John is not related. He probably crossed the courtyard and entered the room (or hearing hall) to which Jesus had been led. By this time the men who had taken Jesus into the palace of the highpriest and into the hearing hall had finished their task. For them (probably with a few exceptions, cf. 18:22) it was no longer necessary to remain in the immediate presence of the prisoner, in order to prevent his escape (as if this had ever been necessary!). Most of the soldiers had probably returned to the fortress of Antonia. As to the palace-servants and the temple-guards (policemen), these had by this time entered (or re-entered) the large courtyard, where, because it was cold, they had made a charcoal fire (Mark 14:54; Luke 22:55). Peter, having entered the passage-way which led from the gate into the courtyard, was ill at ease. It must be borne in mind that it was he who had struck the servant of the highpriest, cutting off his right ear! See on 18:10. It may have been for this reason that he did not dare to proceed as far as John. Or it may have been for other reasons. So he entered the courtyard, and sat down in the midst of the servants and officers (Luke 22:55). It would seem that the very moment when Peter entered, the portress had her suspicions. The very fact that she had admitted him at the request of John seemed to indicate that Peter too must be a disciple of Jesus. His failure to enter the hearing hall with John, and the general uneasiness which characterized all his movements and which could be read on his countenance, confirmed her suspicions. So, about to be relieved by another gate-keeper, she stepped a little closer and fixed her eyes on Peter, studying him a long time (Luke 22:56). Then, stepping right up to him and giving him that piercing look, she said, You surely are not also one of this man's disciples, are you? There must have been a bit of malice in her voice, as the very form of the question seems to indicate. The question was put in such a way that a negative answer was expected.^[249] But this is irony: she knew better. In her heart she was fully convinced that Peter was, indeed, a disciple of Jesus. Peter, shocked by the suddenness and the boldness of the question, to which he must give an immediate reply, is caught off guard. In spite of all his loud boasts of a few hours ago (see on 13:37), he is now thoroughly frightened. I am not, he blurts out. Had he failed to take to heart the admonition recorded in (Matt. 26:41Mark 14:38)? 18. Now the servants and the officers had made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves. And there with them was also Peter, standing and warming himself. Most of this has been explained in connection with verse 17; see on that passage. See also on 18:13, footnote 245. It is true that (Matt. 26:69Mark 14:54; Luke 22:55) pictures Peter as sitting with the officers, while John says that he was standing with them. This surely need not be a contradiction. Is it not reasonable to assume that after sitting down a little while, he had arisen? Perhaps, at the moment when the portress from her place in the archway was looking him over, he was sitting down; but when she started to address him, he man of action that he was had arisen. We may also safely assume that after the first denial he remained standing a while, looking for an avenue of escape. Then he started for the archway. What happened there (as counted by the Synoptics, the second denial) is related in Matt. 26:71, 72and parallels. When John resumes the story of Peter's denial, he is back in the courtyard, standing and warming himself, just like before (see on 18:25). 19. Then the highpriest questioned Jesus concerning his disciples and concerning his teaching. The highpriest here is probably Annas (see on verse 13). By combining the Gospel-accounts it becomes clear that Jesus had to undergo two trials. The first has been called the ecclesiastical; the second the civil.^[250] The first contained three stages, and so did the second. We may distinguish as follows: 1. Ecclesiastical Trial a. Preliminary hearing before Annas, while Peter in the court of the highpriest denied the Master. For the hearing see (John 18:19 24(the present paragraph); for this denial see 18:15–18. The second denial second, as the Synoptics count them is not recorded in the Fourth Gospel, but (as well as the first) must have occurred during Christ's trial before Annas. Between the first and the second denial a little while elapsedLuke 22:58); between the second and the third (as the Synoptics count them), about an hour elapsed (Luke 22:59). b. Trial before Caiaphas and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes (Mark 14:53). It took place in the highpriest's house (Luke 22:54). This trial is recorded in (Matt. 26:57–68; Mark 14:53 65Luke 22:54, 63, 64). During this trial what is regarded by the Synoptics as the third (by John as the second and the third) denial took place. The place was, as in the first denial, the court of the highpriest (as is clear by comparing 18:15, 18 with 18:25). For this denial see Matt. 26:73–75; Mark 14:70b 72; Luke 22:59 62; John 18:25(as John counts, the second denial); 18:26, 27 (as John counts, the third denial). This trial before Caiaphas and the members of the Sanhedrin over which he presided must have ended about (or shortly before) 3 A. M., Friday. c. Trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (hence, the same body as b. above) just after day-break (Luke 22:66). It is recorded in Luke 22:66 71; cf. Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1.^[251] 2. Civil Trial a. Trial before Pilate b. Jesus before Herod (Luke 23:6 12) c. Trial before Pilate resumed In the Fourth Gospel the trial before Pilate is found in the section 18:28 19:16. Returning now to the first stage of the trial before the Jews, to which stage we assign the name Preliminary Hearing before Annas, it must not escape our attention that John purposely jumps from the story of the denial to that of the trial, and then back again to the denial. He does this in order to show that in connection with both of these Jesus suffered intensely. He suffered by being denied. He suffered also by being tried, as if he were a criminal. Between the two (denial and trial) there was this contrast: while Peter denied, Jesus confessed the truth! For the absolutely sinless One to be subjected to a trial conducted by sinful men was in itself a deep humiliation. To be tried by such men, under such circumstances made it infinitely worse. Greedy, serpent-like, vindictive Annas (see on 18:13), rude, sly, hypocritical Caiaphas (see on 11:49, 50), crafty, superstitious, self-seeking Pilate (see on 18:29); and immoral, ambitious, superficial Herod Antipas; these were his judges! In reality, the entire trial was a farce. It was a mis-trial. There was no intention at all of giving Jesus a fair hearing in order that it might be discovered, in strict conformity with the laws of evidence, whether or not the charges against him were just or unfounded. In the annals of jurisprudence no travesty of justice ever took place that was more shocking than this one. Moreover, in order to reach this conclusion it is not at all necessary to make a close study of all the technical points with reference to Jewish law of that day. It has been emphasized by various authors that the trial of Jesus was illegal on several technical grounds, such as the following: a. No trial for life was allowed during the night. Yet, Jesus was tried and condemned during the hours of 1 3 A. M. Friday. b. The arrest of Jesus was effected as a result of a bribe, namely, the blood-money which Judas received. c. Jesus was asked to incriminate himself. d. In cases of capital punishment, Jewish law did not permit the sentence to be pronounced until the day after the accused had been convicted. Such and similar points of law have been mentioned again and again and used as arguments to prove the illegality of the entire procedure against Jesus of Nazareth. Attempts have also been made to refute them, one by one.^[252] But to any fair-minded individual it must be evident at once that all these technicalities are but so many details. They do not touch the heart of the matter. The main point is nothing less than this: it had been decided long ago that Jesus must be put to death (see on 11:49, 50). And the motive behind this decision was envy. The Jewish leaders just could not take it that they were beginning to lose their hold upon the people and that Jesus of Nazareth had denounced and exposed them publicly. They were filled with rage because the new prophet had laid bare their hidden motives, and had called the temple-court from which they derived much of their profit a den of thieves. On the surface, the dignified chief priests, elders, and scribes might try to put on an act by the seeming imperviousness of their demeanor; underneath they were vengefully nettled, convulsively agitated. They were thirsting for blood! Hence, this is not a trial but a plot, and the entire plot is their own. They have devised it, and they see to it that it is carried out. Their officers take part in the arrest of Jesus. They themselves were present! They seek the witnesses false witnesses, of course! against Jesus, in order that they may put him to death (Matt. 26:59). They all condemn him as being deserving of death (Mark 4:64). They (by means of their underlings) bind him and lead him away (Mark 15:1). They deliver him to Pilate (John 18:28). Before Pilate they stir up the people to get Barabbas released in order that Jesus may be destroyed (Matt. 27:20). They intimidate Pilate, until at last the latter delivers Jesus up, to be crucified (John 19:12, 16). And even when he hangs upon the cross, they mock him, saying, He saved others, himself he cannot save (Mark 15:31). Hence, this in reality is no trial at all. It is murder! Church History offers other sad examples of leaders who were cast out by judges who were filled with envy, and who themselves instigated the witnesses (false witnesses, of course!), in order that certain men whom they (the leaders) hated might be thrown out. The day of judgment will reveal some startling matters! But among all the travesties of justice, none even begins to compare with the one in which the heavenly Highpriest, Jesus Christ, stood before the earthly highpriests, Annas and Caiaphas. For the spotlessly Holy One to be arrayed before such wicked scoundrels, that was suffering! And in the courtyard stood a man for whom he suffered all this. And that man Simon Peter was saying again and again that he had never heard of Jesus! It is not at all surprising that Annas questioned Jesus first of all concerning his disciples, and then concerning his teaching. At least, the disciples are mentioned before the teaching. That is exactly what one can expect from Annas! He was far more interested in the success of Jesus how large was his following? than in the truthfulness or untruthfulness of that which he had been teaching. That is ever the way of the world. 20, 21. Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught at synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews are in the habit of congregating, and in secret I said nothing. Why are you questioning me? Question those who heard what I said to them. Of course, they know what I said. Though Annas had placed the emphasis where it did not belong, namely, on the outward success of Christ's ministry, Jesus says not a word about this. He places the emphasis where it does belong, namely, on the teaching; for if the teaching is right, the teacher has the right to gather disciples! The words in verses 20, 21 which have been placed in italics are those which receive emphasis in the original. At synagogue (especially in Galilee) and in the temple (located at Jerusalem, in Judea) Jesus has always taught openly. Even though his teaching had often been cast in the form of parables and paroimias (see on 16:25), nevertheless, he had kept back no central truth. His speaking had been open and non-secretive. Whoever wanted to listen, whether at synagogue or in the temple, was welcome. What a contrast between his open teaching and the strictly executive sessions and secret plottings of the Sanhedrin! For the meaning of the adverb openly see also on 7:26. Jesus had spoken to the world (the general public; cf. the use of the word in 7:4 and in 14:22; and see Vol. I, p. 79, footnote 26, probably meaning 3). Of course, though attendance at the meetings in the court of the Gentiles of the temple was not entirely restricted to the Jews, yet Jesus is thinking especially of them; note: where all the Jews are in the habit of congregating. Jesus demands that information with reference to his teaching should be obtained from those who heard it. It is as if today someone under investigation would answer: I decline to be a witness against myself, and I demand that you produce honest witnesses as the law requires. 22. Now when he had said these things, one of the officers who was standing by slapped Jesus in the face, saying, Is this the way you answer the highpriest? While Jesus, as a prisoner, was standing with his hands bound before Annas, a certain miserable underling, who belonged to the temple-guards (see on 18:3), sought to exploit the situation for his own petty advantage. The man may have been dreaming about a promotion! So, he gave Jesus a blow in the face (Mic. 5:1). As he did this he said in a tone of scornful rebuke, Is this the way you answer the highpriest? Had Jesus been an ordinary man, and had he been guilty of a crime, he would not have deserved such treatment. After all, even a guilty person has his rights. By Hebrew law he was not compelled to testify against himself. Here, however, is no ordinary man, but the Son of God, the real Highpriest. And he was not guilty, but completely innocent. He was more than merely innocent; he was holy. The underling had had ample opportunity to discover this. Hence, his deed was thoroughly despicable. He was the kind of man who, in a controversy, likes to get on the band-wagon. He has had his followers. 23. Jesus answered him, If I have spoken wrongly, testify with reference to the wrong, but if rightly, why do you strike me? One is especially impressed with the dignity and majesty of this reply. Had Jesus given an answer similar to that which Paul returned in a somewhat analogous situation (Acts 23:1 5), no fault could have been found. The deed of the officer was completely unjustified. He had not even been ordered to strike Jesus. It is exactly as the Lord points out: if he had spoken wrongly, this should have been proved by adequate testimony. Now that he had spoken rightly, the blow in the face was all the more reprehensible. The verb which refers to the officer's base deed probably has the ordinary, colloquial sense: to beat or to strike (rather than to bruise or to flay.)^[253] 24. Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the highpriest. From the point of view of Annas the preliminary investigation had been unsuccessful. No incriminating evidence had been presented. The investigation had merely served the purpose of allowing time for the members of the Sanhedrin to hurry to the palace of the highpriest. In complete consistency with the verses which precede, we now read that Annas sends Jesus, still bound, to Caiaphas; not, of course, to him as an individual but to him as president of the Sanhedrin, which by this time is ready to receive him. For further explanation of verse 24 and for comment on the problem which arises already in connection with verse 13, see on 18:13, especially footnote 245. For the place where this Sanhedrin-meeting was held see on 18:15. 25. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, You surely are not also one of his disciples, are you? While Jesus was being tried before Caiaphas (see on 18:19), and proclaimed himself to be the Son of God, a declaration which was called blasphemy by those who heard it, and while he, as a result, was being subjected to insult and injury, his suffering was aggravated by Peter's wicked behavior. This was the third situation in connection with which Peter denied his Lord. The first was recorded in 18:15–18. John says nothing with reference to the second. According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, when the erring disciple had been ensnared in his first denial, he tried to get out of the building. He got as far as the arch-way. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIX 19:1–16 19 1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and threw a purple robe around him; 3 and they kept on marching up to him and saying, Hail, King of the Jews! and they kept on slapping him in the face.^[259] 4 And Pilate went out again and said to them, See here, I am bringing him out to you in order that you may know that I find no crime in him. 5 So Jesus came outside, still wearing the thorny crown and the purple robe. And he said to them, Look! The man! 6 Then when the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify (him), crucify (him)! Pilate said to them, Take him yourselves and crucify (him); for I, on my part, do not find any crime in him. 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. 8 Now when Pilate heard this word, he was the more afraid, 9 and he entered into the governor's residence again, and said to Jesus, Where are you from? But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate said to him, To me you do not speak? Don t you know that I have the authority^[260] to release you and that I have the authority^[260] to crucify you? 11 Jesus answered, You would have no authority^[260] at all over me if it had not been given to you from above.^[261] Therefore the one who delivered me up to you has the greater sin. 12 As a result of this, Pilate was making efforts to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying, If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor.^[262] Whoever makes himself king rebels against the emperor. 13 Then Pilate, on hearing these words, led Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat, in a place called The Stone Pavement, in Aramaic: Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the Preparation of the Passover.^[263] The hour was about the sixth. And he said to the Jews, Look! Your king! 15 Then they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate said to them, Your king shall I crucify? Answered the chief priests, We have no king but the emperor. 16 So he then handed him over to them in order to be crucified. 19:1. Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him. Once more Pilate, foiled in his previous attempts to evade his clear duty, seeks to compromise. He orders Jesus to be taken and scourged (for both verbs are, of course, causative). Such scourging was hideous torture.^[264] The Roman scourge consisted of a short wooden handle to which several thongs were attached, the ends equipped with pieces of lead or brass and with sharply pointed bits of bone. The stripes were laid especially (not always exclusively) on the victim's back, bared and bent. The body was at times torn and lacerated to such an extent that deep-seated veins and arteries sometimes even entrails and inner organs were exposed. Such flogging, from which Roman citizens were exempt, often resulted in death. Or it preceded execution, and was ordered as a sign to indicate that the person to whom it was administered was about to be crucified. It seems, however, that in the present case Pilate ordered this scourging not as a signal for crucifixion, but in order to avoid the necessity of sentencing Jesus to be crucified. We arrive at this conclusion upon the following grounds: 1. The passage 19:12 clearly shows that even after the scourging Pilate was still trying desperately to release Jesus. 2. Another passage, 19:5, seems to indicate that the governor was trying to arouse pity for the prisoner. See on that verse. 3. The interpretation which we favor is in harmony with the requirements of consistent character-portrayal, which has been mentioned before. See Vol. I, p. 165. Pilate was consistently trying to evade the issue. He desired to get Jesus off his hands. He was trying hard, very hard, to find a way by which he could, on the one hand, avoid ordering Jesus to be crucified, and yet, on the other hand, escape the revenge of Annas, Caiaphas, and company. One can picture Jesus after the scourging, covered with horrible bruises and lacerations, by wales and welts. We are not surprised to read that Simon of Cyrene was compelled to bear the cross after Jesus had carried it a little while (Luke 23:26). It must, however, be borne in mind that the suffering of the Man of Sorrows was not only intense but also vicarious; cf. Is. 53:5. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 2, 3. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and threw a purple robe around him; and they kept marching up to him and saying, Hail, king of the Jews! and they kept on slapping him in the face. The flagellation was followed by mock-coronation and mock-salutation in the courtyard of the Praetorium (Mark 15:16). Somewhere in the vicinity the soldiers found some thorny twigs. Many commentators, in agreement with the opinion of the crusaders, mention as the plant from which the torture crown was plaited the Spina Christi or Palinrus Shrub, whose branches have ugly spikes and whose leaves resemble the ivy which was used in crowning emperors and generals. This plant still thrives in Judea. However, it has been pointed out by several archaeologists that few countries of the size of Palestine have so many varieties of prickly plants. See also such biblical passages as (Judg. 8:7, Ps. 58:9; Hos. 9:6; Mic. 7:4. Hence, the identity of the species which was used by the soldiers cannot be established. It is of little importance. More significant is the fact that thorns and thistles are mentioned in Gen. 3:18in connection with Adam's fall. Hence, here in 19:2, 3 Jesus is pictured as bearing the curse that lies upon nature. He bears it in order to deliver nature (and us) from itRom. 8:20, 21). With fiendish cruelty the soldiers pressed down this crown upon his head, causing rivulets of blood to run down his face, neck, and body (still aching sorely from the scourging). They wanted to torture him. They also wanted to mock him. The crown of thorns satisfied both ambitions. They aggravated the bitter insult and the ignominious suffering by another bit of contemptuous mimicry: they threw around Jesus what was probably a discarded and faded soldier's mantle, of a hue resembling the royal purple. In his hand they placed a reed, as a mock-scepter (Matt. 27:29). Then they kept marching up to him, probably filing past him, in order to give him their mock-salute: Hail, king of the Jews. As they did so, they kept on giving him blows. To say that also this mockery had been ordered by Pilate^[265] is hardly warranted, it would seem to us. The record before us does not sustain this interpretation. It is Pilate who orders the scourging (19:1). He does not seem to have been responsible in the same degree (though certainly to some extent, for he might have prevented it!) for the mockery. Where was Pilate while all this was going on? Evidently inside his residence. See the next verse: 4, 5. And Pilate went out again and said to them, See here, I am bringing him out to you in order that you may know that I find no crime in him. So Jesus came outside, still wearing the thorny crown and the purple robe. And he said to them, Look! The man! When Pilate appears before the public once more, he states the reason why he is bringing Jesus before them, namely, in order that you may know that I find no crime in him (see also 18:38; 19:6 for a similar verdict). Of course, he should have immediately released his prisoner. But again he dilly-dallies. This time, in complete harmony with all his previous attempts to get rid of the case, he tries to work on the sympathy of the people. He exposes to their view a pathetic spectacle: Jesus, covered with gashing wounds, blood streaking down his face, neck, back; the horrible crown still upon his head; the purple robe still around him. Then Pilate exclaims, Look! The man! Has he not suffered enough? Is it really necessary to inflict more punishment upon him? And does he look like a dangerous rebel? That this was actually what Pilate had in mind when he uttered these words would seem to follow from the reply given by the chief priests and the officers. They seem to have been of the opinion that what the governor meant was this. Is any further action necessary against this person in whom I have found no guilt, who has suffered so much already, and who does not at all look like an insurrectionist? Is not this enough? 6. Then when the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify (him), crucify (him)! Pilate said to them, Take him yourselves and crucify (him), for I, on my part, do not find any crime in him. Hardly has Pilate's dramatic appeal ended, when the most hardened individuals of all, (note: not the mob, but) the chief priests and their officers, upon seeing the object of their ghoulish envy, begin to shriek, Crucify, Crucify! Over and over again these terrible words are yelled until they become a monotonous refrain, an eery, ominous chant: Crucify &crucify &crucify &crucify & In thorough exasperation the governor answers, Take him yourselves and crucify (him), for I, on my part, do not find any crime (any cause of indictment) in him. Of course, Pilate knows very well that without his order they cannot crucify Jesus! In a veiled manner he is reminding them of their political impotence. He hates these Jews, who have caused him so much trouble. And at the same time he fears them. Otherwise he would have released the prisoner long ago. Moreover, they know that he is afraid of them! It is rewarding to count the number of times the governor uttered the words, I do not find any crime in him. In the Fourth Gospel it is found in 18:38; 19:4; 19:6. But to this should be added: Matt. 27:23; 27:24; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:4; 25:13–15; 23:22. Even when due allowance is made for parallel (duplicate) passages, the fact remains that Pilate stresses and constantly re-iterates the truth that in Jesus there is no cause of indictment. And by means of Pilate, it was God himself who declared his Son's perfect innocence. Nevertheless, in a few more moments this same Pilate is going to succumb to the persistent clamor of the Jews, and is going to sentence Jesus to die the accursed death of crucifixion. No guilt in him &no guilt in him &no guilt in him &no guilt in him... So then he handed him over in order to be crucified. Thus reads the sacred record. But how could a righteous God permit this? There is only one solution. It is found in Is. 58:6, 8, Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all &He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due. Cf. Gal. 3:13. 7. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. Full well do the Jews (probably especially the leaders) realize that Pilate is trying to evade the issue, and is attempting to return Jesus to them. This, of course, they do not want. Hence, the gist of what they now say is this: After careful examination we have found him guilty, that is, guilty when judged by the standard of our own law. In fact, we have found him to be deserving the death-penalty because he is a blasphemer (Lev. 24:16). Again and again he, though merely a man, has called himself the Son of God (Matt. 26:63). Hence, you, Pilate, are now duty-bound to sentence him to death. It was true as the references given clearly indicate that Jesus had again and again declared himself to be God's Son, his only-begotten Son, his Son in a very unique sense. See on 1:14. This was either the most horrible blasphemy, or else it was the most glorious truth. Sin-hardened Sanhedrists wickedly chose the first alternative. On this ground their council had condemned him (Matt. 26:63–66). The issue was becoming very clear at last. But why at last? Why had they not advanced this accusation immediately, that is, at the very beginning of the trial before the governor? Probably, because they had felt that such a purely religious charge might make very little impression upon a pagan. But now, when every other method has failed, and Pilate is once more saying, I find no guilt in him, they present the one and only charge which was official. Perhaps at this juncture they spoke so boastfully about their law because Pilate had reminded them of the fact that they were a subjugated people (see on verse 6). It is as if in reply they now wish to say, But has not the Roman government left us a considerable measure of freedom to regulate our own affairs? Do we not enjoy Home Rule? And is it not your duty, Pilate, to respect our laws anent such matters? We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. 8, 9. Now when Pilate heard this word, he was the more afraid, and he entered into the governor's residence again, and said to Jesus, Where are you from? But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate was more afraid than ever. This new fear was caused not so much by the dogged determination of the Jews to have things their own way as by the item of information which he had received just now. What! This mysterious prisoner a son of the gods? Was that, perhaps, the reason why Pilate's wife had endured such agonies when she dreamed about him? See Matt. 27:19. So, shaken to the bottom of his soul by these superstitious uncertainties, the judge, with Jesus, re-enters the residence. Where are you from? he asks anxiously. He received no answer, and he deserved none. Surely, a man who was so utterly corrupt that he had ordered Jesus to be scourged almost to death, even though he knew (and declared again and again) that this prisoner was innocent, was not worthy of a reply. Besides, if Pilate had paid more attention to the words of Jesus spoken previously (18:36, 37), he could have discovered the answer to his question! 10. So Pilate said to him, To me you do not speak? Don t you know that I have the authority to release you and that I have the authority to crucify you? What Pilate does now is altogether natural in cases of this kind. It must be borne in mind that he is trembling all over (see on 19:8, 9). Hence, in order to conceal his fear he begins to boast! Indignantly he fumes, To me (note the position of this pronoun at the very beginning of the question) you do not speak? How dare you? Don t you realize who I am? And don't you understand that I have the authority (see on 1:12; 10:18) to release you and I have the authority to crucify you? Pilate speaks of releasing before he mentions crucifying, probably because releasing Jesus was uppermost in his mind, that is, if it could be done without injury to Pilate; otherwise not, of course! 11. Jesus answered, You would have no authority at all over^[266] me if it had not been given to you from above. Jesus impresses upon Pilate the fact that the latter's vaunted authority had been delegated to him. It was a sacred trust, a responsibility for the discharge of which Pilate was answerable to God. Jesus continues, Therefore the one who delivered me to you has greater sin. Pilate, indeed, had been given authority to pronounce sentence in this case. Failure to realize that this authority had been given to him and that he was accountable to God for the manner in which he exercised it, rendered him culpable. But Caiaphas who, as ruling highpriest, had wickedly condemned the Righteous One and had delivered him up to Pilate with the request that he be sentenced to die the accursed death on the cross, had not received any authority from God to commit such baseness. Besides, Pilate, though thoroughly corrupt, did not fully realize what he was doing. But Caiaphas acted with knowledge and grim determination (see on 11:49, 50). Therefore the sin of Caiaphas was greater than the sin of Pilate. There are gradations in sin (Luke 12:47, 58). Unto whom much is given, from him much will be required! 12. As a result of this, Pilate was making efforts to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying, If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Whoever makes himself king rebels against the emperor. From the answer of Jesus (verse 11) one fact was clear to Pilate: this prisoner was no rebel. Of course, the governor had felt this right along; he was certain about it now. This man had regard for Pilate's authority (see verse 11). Hence, having gone outside once more where the people could see and hear him, Pilate intensified his efforts to release Jesus. That he did not succeed in these repeated attempts was due to his own moral weakness, his unwillingness to do the right no matter what the cost. When the Jews finally began to scream, If you release this man (or this fellow), you are no friend of the emperor, Pilate capitulated to their wishes. It was this outcry that floored the governor. In his feverish imagination he saw how he was about to lose his prestige, his position, his possessions, his freedom, even his very life perhaps. The manner in which the Jews delivered this final blow must have done as much as anything else to discomfit Pilate. They merely said, If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. ^[267] But Pilate understood immediately that such a statement implied much more than it actually expressed. It implied: You will then be the enemy of that very suspicious emperor Tiberias. We will, of course, lodge a complaint against you. We will tell the emperor that you condone high treason against the government; that you have released a man who was guilty of continuous sedition, and who allowed himself to be called king of Israel (Mark 11:10; Luke 19:38). We will accuse you of softness toward rebels. Then where will you be? This was the last straw. One can imagine the rage which these words kindled in the heart of Pilate! He knew that these Jews were liars, and that they had no love whatever for the Roman government or its emperor. He was thoroughly convinced of the fact that deep down in their hearts they themselves were most unloyal. Yet, here they were, apparently deeply disturbed about the political loyalty of One who had never so much as spoken a single word against the Roman government. Despicable hypocrites they were, but they had him cornered. 13. Then Pilate, on hearing these words, led Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat, in a place called The Stone Platform, in Aramaic Gabbatha. The moment for which the entire history of redemption had been waiting has now arrived. Pilate has made up his mind to deliver Jesus over to be crucified. John, who in his account of Christ's passion had frequently abbreviated, becomes very circumstantial in his description of what now occurred. He led Jesus out (or: caused him to be led out). Then he, Pilate, sat down. The meaning is not that he seated Jesus on the judge's seat, adding to the mockery. Though that translation is favored by eminent authorities (Moffatt, Goodspeed, Montgomery), the verb used does not need to have that meaning. Moreover, it is very improbable that Pilate would thus degrade himself and his official tribunal.^[268] This time Pilate sits down with the purpose of passing sentence. He sat down on his official chair which was standing on a platform reached by stepsActs 7:5is related to the verb to step, walk . For the noun see also Matt. 27:19; Acts 12:21; 18:12, 16, 17; 25:6, 10, 17; Rom. 14:10(tribunal of God); II Cor. 5:10(tribunal of Christ). The place of the tribunal was The Stone Pavement (in Aramaic Gabbatha). This may be the one that was recently excavated in the neighborhood of the Tower of Antonia.^[269] See also on 18:28 (the location of the Praetorium). 14. Now it was the Preparation of the Passover. This does not mean, It was the Preparation for the Passover, as if John wanted to indicate that Jesus was sentenced before the day of the Passover. Such a day of preparation (cooking the food to be used on that day, etc.) preceded sabbaths, not feasts. The expression simply means that it was the Friday of the Passover-week. See also on 13:1 and on 18:28. One finds a very clear commentary in Luke 23:54, And it was the day of the Preparation, and the sabbath drew on; and in Mark 15:42, the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath. John, in complete harmony with the other Gospels, teaches that Jesus was sentenced and crucified on Friday, which was the day of Preparation for the sabbath. In this particular case it was the day of Preparation of (belonging to) Passover-week. The hour was about the sixth. Much has been written with reference to this brief note of time. Bible-critics cite this passage as proof-positive that Scripture contains errors and contradictions. Does not Mark 15:25state that Jesus was crucified at the third hour, that is, at nine o clock in the morning? Surely, he was sentenced before he was crucified. Yet, according to John (say the critics), the sentencing took place at noon. But it has been shown that in other passages the author of the Fourth Gospel in all probability used the Roman civil day time-computation. See on 1:39; 4:6; 4:52. If there, why not here? Now the two statements the one from John, namely, that Jesus was sentenced at about six o clock in the morning; and the one from Mark, that he was actually nailed to the cross at nine o clock in the morning, can hardly be said to be in hopeless conflict with each other.^[270] It must be borne in mind that John does not say six o clock but about six o clock. Let us suppose that it was actually half past six. We grant that even this leaves a difficulty, but the difficulty is not great. It is difficult for us to understand how the trial before Pilate (in reality the Pilate-Herod-Pilate trial) was so speedy, how everything transpired so rapidly. On the other hand, does it not seem probable that the Sanhedrin had been doing all in its power to rush Pilate to a decision? Is it not true that this august body had been rushing the case from the very moment when Jesus was captured? The morning-meeting of the Sanhedrin may have been very early, indeed! It may have taken only a few minutes. After all, everyone knew in advance what was going to be decided. The real decision had been agreed on long before. Once the sentence had been pronounced by Pilate, the heat was off. So, three hours intervened between the sentencing and the crucifixion; or, let us say two hours and a half. Why so much time elapsed between the two events we do not know. And he said to the Jews, Look! Your king! This exclamation must have been uttered with stinging ridicule. It was born of sullen resentment. Such is your king, O Jews, shackled, weak, defenceless, bloody, sentenced to a horrible death, at your own request! Pilate rubs it in. How he hates these people! 15, 16. Then they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate said to them, Your king shall I crucify? Answered the chief priests, We have no king but the emperor. So he then handed him over to them in order to be crucified. The priests and the priest-ridden mob felt the sting of Pilate's plaguing question. So in answer to his spitefully nettling remark they scream back: Away with him, away with him, crucify him. The governor jabs them once more with, Your king shall I crucify? (note the order of the words, which is true to the original.) With unabashed, but all too transparent, hypocrisy the chief priests answer, We have no king but the emperor. In a way, they were right! Having rejected their Messianic hope when they said, Away with him, away with him, crucify him, (a hope which in the case of the chief priests, mostly Sadducees, had never been fervent) they surely have no right to claim Jesus as king (spiritual ruler, in the sense of 18:36, 37). The only one whom they now recognize as king is Tiberius. And even that recognition is definitely faked. They forget, however, that God, as king of the universe, is not through with them. In a certain, terrible sense, he is still their king. Indescribable punishments were not far away. They have continued ever since. See Rom. 11:25. While avowing their unswerving loyalty to the emperor, they at the same time hinted at the governor's possible disloyalty. It was as if they said, We have no king but the emperor. What about you, Pilate? Where is your loyalty? That this was in their mind can hardly be doubted (see on 19:12). So Pilate then handed him over to them; not as if they the Jews were now going to crucify him, but in the sense that he surrendered to their wishes. Humanly speaking, jealousy had won the day, the jealousy of the leaders. Since that time, envy has often triumphed; yet, what happened here is unique. Here it succeeded in casting out the Righteous One. But in (seemingly!) winning this battle, it lost the war. In connection with 19:15, 16 the following stirring passages should now be read: Luke 23:24, 25and Matt. 27:24, 25. Synthesis of 18:12 19:16 See the Outline on p. 374. The Son of God Dying as a Substitute for His People. The Trial and the Denial. The rather detailed Outline which we have given on p. 374 is in itself of the nature of a Synthesis. In addition, note the following: A. Before Annas, trial and denial The real Highpriest, Jesus Christ, is led before the corrupt highpriests, Annas and (a little later) his son-in-law Caiaphas. The former, though no longer the official highpriest and Sanhedrin-chairman, was still the ruling spirit. He was proud, ambitious, wealthy. While Jesus was given a preliminary hearing before him, Peter, having been brought into the palace by John, aroused the suspicions of the portress. Stepping right up to him, she said (with malice in her voice), You surely are not also one of this man's disciples, are you? Shocked by the suddenness and boldness of the question, Peter was caught off guard and in spite of all his previous promises of loyalty, he answered bluntly, I am not. Thus, as if the humiliation which Jesus was experiencing before Annas were not sufficient, this affliction was added to his bitter suffering, that one of his leading disciples disavowed him. The preliminary hearing itself was a farce, as was the entire trial before the Jews. It was a farce in the sense that no serious attempt was made of getting at the truth. Christ's death had been decided on long ago. The verdict was a foregone conclusion! Annas, moreover, was more interested to discover the size of Christ's following than to know about his teaching, except only in so far as this teaching might serve the purpose of providing material for formulating the terms of an unfavorable verdict. Jesus was asked to testify with reference to himself. When he refused to do this and asked that witnesses be produced, a miserable underling slapped him, and asked him an impudent question. With majesty the Lord defended his own request that witnesses be heard. Still bound, Jesus was then sent to Caiaphas. While, before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, Jesus made his good confession, which resulted in insult and injury to himself; Peter, having returned to the courtyard from which he had sought escape, was again pelted with questions, such as, You surely are not also one of his disciples, are you? I am not, he answered, lying again. A relative of Malchus then asked, Did I not see you in the garden with Jesus? Again Peter denied, and instantly the rooster crowed! B. Before Pilate, trial For the synthesis of this section we refer to the Outline. A clarifying remark is necessary, however. In the Outline we have called the gesture of Pilate that in connection with a Passover-custom a prisoner be released, and that in the present case that prisoner be Jesus, the governor's second attempt to rid himself of responsibility. It was indeed the second attempt as far as the Gospel of John is concerned. As a matter of actual history, it was the third, for it was preceded by the attempt on Pilate's part to have Herod assume responsibility for the case. But that is not recorded in the Fourth Gospel. The chief lesson to be learned with respect to the trial before Pilate is that one can never be neutral with respect to Jesus. One always sides either for him or against him. Pilate's neutrality failed completely. He succumbed at last to intimidation, and handed Jesus over to be crucified. Again and again Pilate proclaimed Christ's innocence. Then he sentenced him! It is clear that Jesus suffered punishment not for his own but for our sins (he had none), and that he suffered all this willingly. In discussing the details of the Passion the eye should remain fixed upon him, his suffering, his love! 19:17–37 17 Then they took Jesus along; and carrying the cross by himself he went out to (a place) called The Place of The Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha; 18 where they crucified him, and with him two others, on this side and on that, and in the middle Jesus. 19 Now Pilate also had a title written, and had it put on the cross. There was written, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. 20 Now this title many of the Jews read, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. 21 Then the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, Do not write, The King of the Jews, but that he said, I am king of the Jews. 22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. 23 Then, when the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and made four parts, for each soldier a part, and (they took) the tunic. Now the tunic was seamless, woven all the way from top to bottom. 24 So they said to each other, Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it (to see) whose it shall be. (This was) in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, They divided my garments among themselves, And for my vestment they cast lot. These things, indeed, the soldiers did. 25 Now there were standing near the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the (wife) of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 Then when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, Woman, look! Your son! 27 Then he said to that disciple, Look! Your mother! And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. 28 After this, since Jesus knew that everything was now finished, he said, in order that the scripture might be accomplished, I am thirsty. 29 A vessel full of vinegar was lying there. So they stuck a sponge full of vinegar around a hyssop-stick and brought it to his mouth. 30 Then when Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished. And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 31 Then the Jews, since it was the Preparation, in order that on the sabbath the bodies might not remain on the cross for great was the day of that sabbath asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be removed. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they did not break his legs, 34 but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and immediately there came out blood and water. 35 And he who has seen it has testified, and genuine is his testimony, and he knows that he is telling the truth, in order that you also may come to believe. 36 For these things took place in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Not a bone of him shall be broken. 37 And again another scripture says, They shall look upon him whom they pierced. 19:17, 18. Then they took Jesus along; and carrying the cross by himself he went out to (a place) called The Place of The Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha; where they crucified him, and with him two others, on this side and on that, and in the middle Jesus. Verse 17 contains all that John has to say about what happened on The Sorrowful Way. For a much more complete account see Luke 23:26 32. The soldiers took Jesus and, though his back was torn by many a gaping wound as a result of the scourging to which he had been subjected, they made him carry his own cross. He carried it as long as he was physically able to do so. Then Simon of Cyrene was requisitioned to take over the arduous task (Luke 23:26; cf. Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21). Much has been written about the form of the cross. Did it resemble the letter X (the St. Andrew's cross), the letter T (the St. Anthony's cross), or the dagger (the Latin cross)? In the light of the fact that the title (see on verse 19) was written above Christ's head (Matt. 27:37; Luke 23:38) it is well-nigh certain that artists are correct when they adopt the last of these three possibilities, the so-called dagger-type or Latin cross. It would seem that the entire cross (upright post and cross-beam) was laid upon Christ's back. At least, there is nothing in the text that suggests otherwise. The idea of the intended victim carrying the cross on which he himself will be suspended reminds one of Isaac, carrying the wood of the burnt-offering (Gen. 22:6). The words, And carrying the cross by himself he went out, imply a fourfold curse: 1. Death by crucifixion was in itself regarded as a curse (Gal. 3:13); he that is hanged is accursed of GodDeut. 21:23, true even if it applies merely to the hanging of the dead body; how much more so when it has reference to the living person . That the cross was a term of horror is also clear from verse 31 of the present chapter; from I Cor. 1:23; and from Phil. 2:8. 2. Compelling the sentenced person, in this case Jesus, to carry the cross added to the shame. 3. Carrying it by himself, meaning: carrying it all alone although it was heavy and although his body had already been subjected to terrible punishment, stresses the fact that the Suffering Servant was being led into complete isolation. 4. Going outside the city to be crucified adds still another element to the curse, as is clearly taught in Heb. 13:12, 13, on the basis of Ex. 29:14; Lev. 4:12, 21; 9:11; 16:27; Num. 19:3. The spot where the crucifixion occurred was called The Place of the Skull. To remain as close as possible to the sound (as well as the meaning) of the original one might give as the English equivalent: The Place of the Cranium. The Greek-from-Aramaic term Golgotha means the skull. The Latin Calvaria (from which we derive our Calvary) also means skull. It is related to calvus, calva (cf. German kahl, Dutch kaal, meaning bald; hence, calva: the scalp without hair).^[271] But why was this spot called The Place of the Skull? Various answers have been given: a. because it resembled a skull; b. because according to a widely accepted legend (found in the writings of Origen, Athanasius, and Epiphanius) the skull of Adam had been discovered there; c. because it was a place of execution; and (closely related) d. because it was a place where skulls could be seen lying about. Some of these theories are objectionable on the very surface. Even a. (cranium-like shape) is by no means certain. Epiphanius, writing in the fourth century, already rejected this view, saying that the place did not resemble a skull at all. (But Cyril of Jerusalem seems to indicate that there was a resemblance, Catechetical Lectures XIII, 39.) The best answer is that we do not know why the spot was called The Place of the Skull. Where was Calvary? Some who have made a trip to Palestine locate it about 250 yards n.e. of the Damascus gate. This is Gordon's Calvary. The hill really resembles a skull. It is outside the gate, near a highway. In its neighborhood are rock-hewn tombs and gardens. As some see it, this just about settles the matter. Other interpreters, however, object to this theory, for the following reasons: 1. The skull-like shape of the place (eye-holes, rounded top) may be due to artificial excavation since the time of Christ. And even if not, how do we know whether the name Place of the Skull means skull-like place? 2. This place lacks the support of tradition. About a third of a mile to the's.w. of Gordon's Calvary, and inside the walls of the modern city, is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. This is the site supported by early tradition. If any credence is to be given to this tradition, it must first be proved a. that this site was actually outside the gate in the days of Jesus ministry on earth (Heb. 13:12, 13); b. that it was, nevertheless, near to the city-wall (19:20); c. that it was near a road or highway (Matt. 27:39); and d. that in its immediate vicinity there was a garden (John 19:41). To this moment these things have not all been proved with respect to any site (whether the traditional site, or Gordon's Calvary, or any other). Because of the general physiography of Jerusalem and its surroundings, it is, however, well-nigh certain that neither of the two most favored sites can be very far away from the actual spot where the Lord was crucified.^[272] Here, then, they crucified him. The pronoun refers to the soldiers, as is clear from 19:23. In the original the most glorious fact in the history of redemption is expressed in just three words. This mode of execution existed in many ancient nations; such as Macedonia, Persia, Syria, Egypt, the Roman Empire. (The Jews used other methods, especially stoning.) Rome generally (not always!) reserved this form of punishment for slaves and those who had been convicted of the grossest crimes. Just what it was that led Pilate to crucify two others with Jesus, one on either side, has not been revealed. It may have been in order to insult the Jews, as if he wanted to say. Such is your king, on the level with other gross criminals. But, from the divine point of view, this was a place of honor, for Jesus had come into the world, sinners to save. More over, in this crucifixion between two malefactors (Luke 23:33) prophecy was being fulfilled, Is. 53:12: He was numbered with the transgressors. It has been well said that the person who was crucified died a thousand deaths. Large nails were driven through hands and feet (Luke 24:40). Among the horrors which one suffered while thus suspended (with the feet resting upon a little tablet, not very far away from the ground) were the following: severe inflammation, the swelling of the wounds in the region of the nails, unbearable pain from torn tendons, fearful discomfort from the strained position of the body, throbbing headache, and burning thirst (19:28). In the case of Jesus the emphasis, however, should not be placed on this physical torture which he endured. It has been said that only the damned in hell know what Jesus suffered when he died on the cross. In a sense this is true, for they too, suffer eternal death. One should add, however, that they have never been in heaven. The Son of God, on the other hand, descended from the regions of infinite delight in the closest possible fellowship with his Father (1:1; 17:5) to the abysmal depths of hell. On the cross he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matt. 27:46). 19, 20. Now Pilate also had a title written, and had it put on the cross. There was written, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. Now this title many of the Jews read, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. Above the head of Jesus Pilate caused a titleMatt. 27:37: accusation; Mark 15:26and Luke 23:38: superscription to be written. With respect to this title (a title, indeed, for in the case of Jesus no crime was recorded!) critics have found another contradiction in the Bible. They point to the fact that the words of which it was composed differ in all four Gospels. But this argument is rather easy to refute. It certainly was not necessary for each Gospel-writer to write down all of the words. Each gives the gist, as he sees it. The full title must have been about as follows: THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. So Matthew says that the accusation written over the head of Jesus read: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS (Matt. 27:37). Mark states that the superscription was: THE KING OF THE JEWS (Mark 15:26). Luke's version of the superscription reads: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS (Luke 23:38). And according to John, who was himself present and must have seen it, the title was: JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. Where, just where, is the discrepancy? Is a person who has witnessed an accident a liar because he does not report everything that occurred? Now because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city (and there were so many Jews in and just outside the city, having streamed to Jerusalem from every direction in order to attend the Passover feast) this title was read by many. Moreover, even those who had come from far away places and had forgotten their Aramaic but were able to read Greek could interpret the title. It was written in Aramaic, which was the language spoken by the Jews of Palestine (and by some others besides!), in Latin, the official language of the government, and in Greek, the world-language of commerce and culture. The king of the Jews crucified at the request of the Jews; let the whole world know this. By rejecting him they have rejected themselves. And that latter rejection means the reconciliation of the world (God's elect from every tribe and nation). See Rom. 11:15. Hence, the whole world must be able to read this title! Here is a Savior who has international significance. 21, 22. Then the chief priests and the Jews were saying to Pilate, Do not write, The King of the Jews, but that he said, I am king of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. It was God himself who in his wonderful providence had directed the hand of Pilate. This does not in any way make God responsible for Pilate's motives in writing the superscription. Nor does it mean that God interpreted the title as the governor interpreted it. But the words, as such, were, nevertheless, true. They were true in this sense that the king of the Jews is crucified in order that he may be the king of a spiritual kingdom (see on 18:36, 37) which recognizes no national or racial distinctions, a kingdom in which the Aramaic-speaking Jew, the Roman, and the Greek yes, the elect from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation (Rev. 5:9) are the citizens. See on 1:29; 3:16, 17; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 8:12; 9:5; 10:16; 11:52; 12:32. To the chief priests this title is an insult. In all probability Pilate had intended it as such. These Jewish dignitaries contact the governor with the demand, Do not write, The King of the Jews, but that he said, I am king of the Jews. For the chief priests (and perhaps even more so for the Pharisaic members of the Sanhedrin) the idea that The King of the Jews, The Hope of Israel, was being crucified, was a bitter pill to swallow. It became even more bitter when they reflected on the fact that this curse had been pronounced upon him at their own request! This must not be. Pilate must by all means change the title into a description of the crime which Jesus had committed. Had he not committed the crime of claiming to be king of the Jews? But this time Pilate refuses to yield. Still filled with wrath because of the major defeat which he had suffered, he will at least achieve a minor victory. Curt and crisp is his answer What I have written I have written. It remains! And it seems as if we hear the voice of God confirming this terse statement. He too is saying, What I have written I have written. 23, 24. Then, when the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and made four parts, for each soldier a part, and (they took) the tunic. Now the tunic was seamless, woven all the way from top to bottom. So they said to each other, Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it (to see) whose it shall be. (This was) in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, They divided my garments among themselves, And for my vestment they cast lot. As was customary, the garments that had been worn by the condemned man were divided among those who carried out the sentence. Cf. Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34. Especially in the light of Mark 15:24 it would seem that the idea is not that one garment was torn or cut into four parts (or that several garments were cut into equal parts) in that case why cast lots at all? but rather that there were four pieces of apparel, and that each of the soldiers received one of these. These garments were of unequal value; hence the soldiers (as is clear from the Synoptics) cast lots (throwing dice, perhaps). It has been suggested that these four pieces were: head gear, sandals, belt, and outer garment. But there was also a fifth garment, namely, the seamless tunic, woven all the way from top to bottom. This was the garment worn next to the skin. Had there been only four garments, there would have been no problem, for there were four soldiers; hence, one for each. But what to do with the fifth? That was the problem. To tear this garment and give each soldier a piece would have served no useful purpose. One could do very little with a torn-off piece. So they decide not to do this. Instead they decide that the inner garment, all of one piece (not sewed together but woven all the way from top to bottom), must also be put into the lottery even though this may mean that thus one man will receive more in value that the others.^[273] Now, in all this, a prophecy was being fulfilled, the prophecy found in Ps. 22:18(quoted exactly from the LXX, Ps. 21:19). It is a well-known fact that David endured much suffering for the sake of God's kingdom. This however, does not necessarily mean that all the passages of this moving Psalm refer directly to what he had himself literally experienced, and only indirectly to the cross and its agonies. If the reference is throughout to David's own suffering, one will have to conclude that full use was made of the figure of speech called hyperbole; see especially verses 12 18. A more reasonable view would seem to be this, that the woes that are described in these verses have reference directly to Christ, and were fulfilled in him alone, though in the life of David they were dimly foreshadowed. It is clear that the prophecy of Ps. 22refers both to the division of the garments and to the casting of the lot. Some commentators believe that the singular noun in the second line (vestment) refers exclusively to the seamless tunic. However, owing to the parallelism, it is probably better to look upon this singular as a collective synonym for garments. The fulfilment of the prophecy in connection with the distribution of Christ's clothing excites our wonder even without introducing any over-refinements in exegesis. Dr. J. P. Free in his excellent book Archaeology and Bible History, p. 284, calls attention to the fact that according to Canon Liddon there are three hundred thirty-two distinct prophecies in the Old Testament which have been literally fulfilled in Christ, and to the additional fact that the mathematical probability of all these prophecies being fulfilled in one man is represented by the fraction: The clear implication of the passage which we are studying must not escape us. It is this: Jesus bore for us the curse of nakedness in order to deliver us from it! Cf. Gen. 3:9–11, 21; then II Cor. 5:4; Rev. 7:13, 14. Surely if what Ham did to his father Noah is singled out for special mention because of its reprehensible character, what the soldiers did when they disrobed Jesus and then divided his garments among themselves, casting lots, should cause us to pause with horror. Such a pause is suggested by the words: These things, indeed, the soldiers did. They did that which was shameful. Yet, by means of that shameful deed God's eternal plan (hence, also prophecy) was fulfilled. Hence, we pause in abhorrence &and adoration! 25. Now there were standing near the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the (wife) of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. From among the many women (Matt. 27:55) that were standing near (see on 14:23, footnote 168) but not too nearMatt. 27:55; Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49: afar off ^[274] the cross of Jesus, John selects four for special consideration. It is interesting to compare John's list with similar lists in Matthew and Mark: Matthew 27:56Mark 15:40John 19:25 1. Mary Magdalene 1. Mary Magdalene 1. His Mother 2. Mary the mother of James and Joses 2. Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses 2. His mother's sister 3. The mother of the sons of Zebedee 3. Salome 3. Mary the (wife probably) of Clopas 4. Mary Magdalene Why just these four are mentioned here in 19:25 has not been revealed. It is not improbable that they stood in closer relation to the Lord than other women. Thus, for example, the mother of Jesus is mentioned, and also the mother of the sons of Zebedee (who were disciples of Jesus, belonging to the inner three). A comparison between Matthew's list and that of Mark would seem to indicate that the name of the mother of James and John was Salome. We cannot accept the theory^[275] according to which John mentions only three women. If that were true, two sisters (Jesus mother and his aunt) would have the same first name (Mary). Besides, in that case John, though not mentioning by name the mother of Jesus, would not only mention by name her sister but would also inform the readers that she stood in some relation to Clopas (being probably his wife). This is not at all reasonable. Far more likely to be correct is the view that the mother of the sons of Zebedee and Salome and his mother's sister were the same person.^[276] It may even be that the three lists are identical, with the one exception, namely, that John adds the mother of Jesus (without mentioning her by name). If this be true, we get the following harmony: The mother of Jesus Her sister, who according to Mark was Salome, the mother of James and of the author of the Fourth Gospel (see Vol. I, p. 28, last paragraph, continued on p. 29) Mary, the wife of Clopas. She if this harmony be correct is the mother of James the Less and of Joses Mary Magdalene. It must be stressed, however, that this harmony, though not improbable, cannot be proved. Taking these four in the order named, and assuming the harmony given to be correct, the New Testament references to them are as follows: (1) The mother of Jesus. Her name was Mary. She was the wife of Joseph. Other references to her are found in the following passages: Matt. 1:16, 18, 20; 2:11; 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 1:27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41, 46, 56; 2:5, 16, 19, 34; John 2:1, 3, 5, 12; 6:42; 19:25, 26, 27; Acts 1:14. See also Vol. I, pp. 113–121, 238. (2) Salome. See Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; John 19:25. (3) Mary, the wife of Clopas. See Matt. 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25. (4) Mary Magdalene. See Matt. 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1, 9; Luke 8:2; 24:10; John 19:25; 20:1, 2, 11 18. While hardly anything is known about Salome and Mary, the wife of Clopas, more has been recorded with reference to Mary Magdalene. She resided at Magdala, located on the's.w. coast of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus had performed a wonderful act of mercy, having cast seven demons out of her. Hence, it is not surprising that she became a most grateful disciple of the Lord.Luke 7:36 50. The identification does her an injustice. She was one of those women who, having once become a follower of Jesus, helped him in his ministry by giving him of her substance. We are not surprised to find her at the cross, at the tomb when Jesus was buried (together with Mary, the wife of Clopas), and again at the tomb on the third day (together with Mary, the wife of Clopas, and with Salome). For further information concerning her see on John 20:1, 2, 11 18. Although the faith of these women was not what it should have been, their love for the Lord is certainly evident throughout. It would seem that of the entire circle of eleven men only one was at the cross. That one was the apostle John. But there were several women. All honor to them, to their courage, and to their love. 26, 27. Then when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing (there), he said to his mother, Woman, look! Your son! Then he said to that disciple, Look! Your mother! And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. Of the seven words from the cross John records three. The seven with their references are as follows: (1) Father, forgive them: for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34) (2) Today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43) (3) Woman, look! Your son! &Look! Your mother! (John 19:26, 27) (4) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34) (5) I am thirsty (John 19:28) (6) It is finished (John 19:30) (7) Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit (Luke 23:46). Hence, what we have here in 19:26, 27 is the third word from the cross. It was suffering for Jesus to see his mother among those who stood near the cross. He suffered because of her suffering. Standing at her side was the apostle John. The participle standing is masculine, and refers to John alone. Hence, one might paraphrase the sentence as follows: Then when Jesus saw his mother, and when he saw the disciple whom he loved standing (by her side), he said to his mother, etc. On the phrase the disciple whom he loved see Vol. I, pp. 3–31; also on 13:23; and for the verb in distinction from its synonym see 21:15–17. No one understood Jesus better than did John. Moreover, the Lord's love for him evoked the response of love. Hence, we see him here at the cross. Jesus, then, taking note of these two said to his mother, Woman, look! Your son! It was very kind of him to say, Woman, and not, Mother. The word Mother would have driven the sword even more deeply into the soul of Mary, that sharp and painful sword of which Simeon had spoken (Luke 2:35). Here at the cross, exactly as at Cana's wedding (see Vol. I, p. 115), it was very kind of Jesus to emphasize by the use of the word woman that Mary must no longer think of him as being merely her son; for, the more she conceives of him as her son, the more also will she suffer when he suffers. Mary must begin to look upon Jesus as her Lord. Yes, even then she will suffer, but this suffering will be of a different nature. She will then know that though indescribably terrible, his agony is, nevertheless, glorious because of its purpose. She will then begin to concentrate on its redemptive meaning. Hence, not mother but woman. Mary's merely emotional suffering as any mother would suffer for her son who was being crucified must be replaced by something higher and nobler, that is, by adoration! By saying, Woman, look! Your son! Jesus is committing Mary to the care of John, who, as has been shown (see on 19:25), may well have been her own nephew, the son of her sister Salome. It seems that John had a lodging in Jerusalem (so did Peter; see on 20:2), though his real home was in Galilee. The question might be raised, But why was not Mary committed to the care of one of her other children? The answer is: probably because they as yet had not received him by a living faith (see on 7:5). And besides, who could be expected to take better care of Mary than the disciple whom Jesus loved? To that disciple Jesus said, Look! Your mother! John immediately understood, and from that hour took her to his own home. That a lesson in the responsibility of children (think of Jesus) toward their parents (think of Mary) is implied here is true. But certainly that is not the main lesson. The suffering of Jesus in seeing Mary suffer, and especially his wonderful love a Savior's concern for one of his own, far more than a son's concern for his mother these are the things on which the emphasis should be placed. 28. After this, since Jesus knew that everything was now finished, he said, in order that the scripture might be accomplished, I am thirsty. Having spoken words (1) (4), Jesus knew that his work for others had now been completely accomplished. Throughout his earthly sojourn and especially on the cross he had suffered the wrath of God against sin so as to deliver his people from it and to merit for them everlasting salvation. The task had been brought to completion. Jesus knew this, for he knew all things both in their totality and one by one. For the knowledge of Jesus see also on 1:42, 47, 48; 2:24, 25; 5:6; 6:64; 16:30; 21:17, Hence, turning now to his own need, he said, I am thirsty. He said this in order that also with respect to his thirst prophecy might be fulfilled. Scripture was constantly being accomplished in the life and death of the Lord. See on 19:23, 24. In the present instance the prophecy of Ps. 22:15and of Ps. 69:21b was being fulfilled. For Ps. 22as a Messianic Psalm see on 19:23, 24; for Ps. 69similarly see on 2:17 and on 15:25. It has been suggested that Jesus desired to slake his agonizing thirst in order to be able to utter the loud cry recorded in Luke 23:46(the seventh word; see on 19:26, 27). It is possible, but the text does not say anything to this effect. Here also, as before, the emphasis is on the infinite love of the Lord, revealed in being willing to suffer burning thirst in order that for his people he might be the everlasting fountain of living water. For the physical suffering of Jesus see also on 19:18. For Jesus as the source of living water see on 4:10–15; and on 7:37–39. 29, 30. A vessel full of vinegar was lying there. So they stuck a sponge full of vinegar around a hyssop-stick and brought it to his mouth. And when Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished. And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. The vessel full of vinegar, sour wine such as soldiers drank, was the source by means of which the thirst of Jesus was assuaged. Even in the process of satisfying, in a small way, this raving physical need, Jesus was mocked. But John does not tell that part of the story. See Matt. 27:48, 49. He does, however, make mention of the fact that they (probably referring to the centurion and one of the soldiers, the latter acting as ordered by the former), having dipped a sponge into the vinegar-vessel (this is clearly implied), stuck it around a hyssop-stick and brought it to his mouth, sothat this liquid might bring some relief to his parched lips and throat. Much has been written about this hyssup. Some see an error and would substitute a shorter and very similar term for the one that is translated hyssup. (Instead of [Greek] they [Greek] They point to the fact that hyssup is an herb which does not provide a long enough stalk to serve as a reed (Matt. 27:48) on which to affix a sponge. Hence, they correct the text and use the shorter Greek term, which means pike. But this is certainly not necessary. The hyssup or hyssup-stick to which John refers may have been the marjoram (Origanum maru), whose woody stalks are sufficiently sturdy and sufficient in length to satisfy all the requirements. It did not have to be very lengthy to reach the lips of Jesus, for the cross was probably not very high above the ground. Having received the vinegar Jesus said, It is finished (or consummated). As Jesus saw it, the entire work of redemption (both active and passive obedience, fulfilling the law and bearing its curse) had been brought to completion. And if someone should object that the burial had not yet taken place and that this too (as well as the repose in the tomb until the moment of the resurrection) was part of Christ's humiliation, the answer would be very simple: in the mind of Christ the burial is so certain that he can speak as if that too had already been accomplished. See also, in this connection, on 17:4 and on 17:11. Having said this, Jesus bowed his head just before doing so, speaking one more word, Luke 23:46and gave up his spirit. He gave it. No one took it away from him. He laid down his life. See on 10:11; also on 19:34–37. For the meaning of the term spirit see on 13:21, especially footnote 139. 31 33. Then the Jews, since it was the Preparation, in order that on the sabbath the bodies might not remain on the cross for great was the day of that sabbath asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be removed. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they did not break his legs. At times the Sanhedrists could be very scrupulous in observing the details of the ceremonial law. Was it not true that the land would be defiled if a body was hanging all night upon a tree? See Deut. 21:23. Such defilement would be even worse if bodies remained on the cross on the sabbath. It was getting later in the afternoon (the afternoon of the Preparation, that is, of Friday; see on 19:14, 42); it was going toward sun-set, that is, toward sabbath. Moreover, this particular sabbath was very great, for it was the sabbath of the Passover-feast, a feast of seven days. So the Jews (probably the chief priests) asked Pilate that the legs of the crucified persons might be broken, in order that death might result immediately. Then the bodies could be removed and everything could be over before sabbath. Such breaking of the bones (crurifragium, as it is called) by means of the heavy blows of a hammer or iron was frightfully inhuman. It caused death, which otherwise might be delayed by several hours or even days. Says Dr. S. Bergsma in an article to which I shall refer more in detail a little later (see on verses 34 37): The shock attending such cruel injury to bones can be the coup de grace causing death. Pilate readily granted permission. John saw how the soldiers crushed the bones of the two malefactors. He also saw that upon noticing that Jesus had already died, they did not break his bones. It is altogether probable that they refrained from doing so upon orders from the centurion, on whom the central Sufferer had made such a deep impression (Luke 23:47). Does it not seem probable also that Joseph of Arimathea (see on verse 38) had already made known to the centurion that he was going to ask Pilate for permission to take down the body of Jesus? 34 37. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he who has seen it has testified and genuine is his testimony, and he knows that he is telling the truth, in order that you also may continue to believe. For these things took place in order that the scripture might be fulfilled: Not a bone of him shall be broken. And again another scripture says: They shall look upon him whom they pierced. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XX Outline of Chapters 20, 21 Theme: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God During His Private Ministry Triumphing Gloriously: Resurrection and Appearances 1 The Visit of Peter and John to the Tomb. Within the Tomb the Evidences of the Resurrection Appearance to Mary Magdalene Appearance to the Disciples except Thomas Appearance to the Disciples, Thomas Also Present; Conclusion: Statement of the Purpose of the Gospel Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias A. The Miraculous Catch of Fishes and the Breakfast on the Beach (verses 1 14) B. Peter's Reinstatement; Prediction concerning Peter; Correction of a Misunderstanding regarding Jesus Statement about John; Concluding Testimonial (verses 15 25) 20:1–10 20 1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and noticed the stone removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and she said to them, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him. 3 Then Peter came out and that other disciple, and they were coming toward the tomb. Now these two came running side by side. 4 But that other disciple started to run ahead, faster than Peter, and arrived at the tomb first. 5 And as he stooped, he noticed the linen bandages lying (there); however, he did not go inside. 6 Then Simon Peter also came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he observed the linen bandages lying (there), 7 and the sweat-band, which had been around his head, not lying with the linen bandages but folded up in a place by itself. 8 So then the other disciple, who had arrived at the tomb first, also went inside, and he saw and believed; 9 for they had not previously understood the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went back again to their homes. 20:1. Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and noticed the stone removed from the tomb. It is Sunday-morning, the first day of the [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 ([Greek] While it is still dark some women leave their homes (or temporary lodgings) bringing the spices which they had preparedLuke 24:1). They came in order that they might anoint the corpse (Mark 16:1). Compare 12:1–8; contrast 19:38–40. Who were these women? Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James are mentioned by name in the other Gospels (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). Mark adds Salome (Mark 16:1). Luke adds Joanna, and seems to indicate that there were othersLuke 24:10; cf. also Luke 23:55and 24:1 . See on 19:25. John probably assumes that the readers are acquainted with the other Gospels and confines his story to Mary Magdalene. See Vol. I, pp. 31, 32. However, he implies that other women had accompanied Marywedo not know . Although it was still dark when the women started out, the sun had risen when they arrived at the tomb. As they trudged sorrowfully out of Jerusalem's gate, they were worried about the huge stone (Mark 16:3) which had been placed at the tomb's entrance. For the appearance and location of the tomb see on 19:41, 42. But suddenly they saw probably at a turn in the path that the heavy slab had been turned away already; no, not merely turned away but actually removedliftedout of its groove , sothat it was lying flat on the ground! Nowhere is it stated that this stone had to be removed in order that Jesus might arise from the grave. That the resurrection-body of the Lord was such that he was able to leave the tomb even though the stone was not removed seems to be clearly implied in 20:26; see on that verse. Nevertheless, the stone had to be removed. This was necessary for two reasons: 1. In order to indicate that the grave had been conquered, that the victory had been achieved. 2. In order that Peter and John might be able to enter (see on 20:6, 8), and that everyone might be able to see that the tomb was empty! While the mother of James the Less, the mother of James and John, Joanna, and the other women entered the tomb but did not find the body of the Lord Jesus (Luke 24:3), Mary Magdalene started to run away in order to get help in this terrible situation. She was convinced that the tomb had been rifled by enemies. For Mary Magdalene see on 19:25. 2. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and she said to them, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him. It is not at all surprising that Mary, greatly alarmed (Mark 16:8), ran to Peter and to John. These two were probably regarded as the chief apostles. They were often seen together (see on 21:7). Nevertheless, although it is grammatically possible that they were lodging at the same address, the more natural interpretation of the original is that each had his ownhome in Jerusalem. See also 19:27 and 20:10. Both would be deeply concerned about Mary's baffling report. John was, moreover, the disciple whom Jesus loved. For the meaning of this expression see on 13:23, 24; for the identity of this apostle see Vol. I, pp. 3–31; and for the verbloved;here in 20:2 the original employs the less usual verb, as is indicated in the Chart on p. 498 see on 21:15–17, especially footnote 306. In terrified distress Mary exclaims, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him. For Mary's state of mind see p. 470. The opened tomb was to Mary a reason for alarmed dismay. She thinks, The enemies have been busy again. Having murdered the Lord, they have added to their crimes by rifling the tomb. Nownot even the body of Jesus is left. It is interesting, nevertheless, that Mary is still calling Jesus the Lord. See on 1:38 and on 12:21. This indicates at leastthat she had learned to regard him as her great Benefactor. This is not surprising; see on 19:25. 3, 4. Then Peter came out and that other disciple, and they were coming toward the tomb. Now these two came running side by side. But that other disciple started to run ahead, faster than Peter, and arrived at the tomb first. Peter and John, perplexed by Mary's report, start out at once toward the tomb. At first they are pictured as merely walking;then as runningside by side; finally, as still running, but now John is outdistancing Peter and therefore arrives at the tomb first. John in his old age recalls the scene as if it had happened yesterday. That is why the description is so lively. Two questions are asked. The first is, What caused these two men to change from walkingto running?Was it, perhaps, a message of the women who by this time had left the tomb and had something very startling to say to the apostles? See Matt. 28:1, 5 8and parallels. We do not know. The next question is, What caused John to outrun Peter? The answer could be: he has youth in his favor. But again, we do not know. It is useless to speculate. 5. And as he stooped, he noticed the linen bandages lying (there); however, he did not go inside. Some prefer a different translation here. But the rendering Having glanced he saw, sounds awkward. It may be granted that the verb employed in the original does not always and necessarily mean (to stoop. Nevertheless, when it is used in connection with sawnoticed), this is surely the most natural meaning. The entrance, as in many similar Oriental tombs today, was probably low. Hence, two actions were necessary: first, one had to stoop. Having stooped, one was able to lookinside. It is not true that stooping would have made it impossible to see the linen bands in the declivity in which the body of Jesus had been placed. That would have been true only if the place for the body had been very deep. As John stooped and looked, he saw the linen bandages. See on 19:40; also on 11:44 (where a synonym is used). The significance of these bandages lying there is discussed in connection with verses 6 and 7. John did not go inside. He was filled with alarm. Any idea of a resurrection is completely absent from his mind. 6, 7. Then Simon Peter also came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he observed the linen bandages lying (there), and the sweat-band, which had been around his head, not lying with the linen bandages but folded up in a place by itself. It is entirely in line with Peter's usual conduct that although he has been outdistanced by John, once at the tomb he enters before John does. See on 13:9. What John, from the outside looking in, had merely noticed,Peter, once inside, observed. He naturally saw morethan John, and saw more clearly. And what he saw was truly marvelous. Here were the linen bandages lying very orderly, and the sweat-band, which had been around Christ's head, lying in a place by itself. For the bandages see on 19:40; also on 11:44 (the synonym). For the sweat-band see on 11:44. (In countries where the climate is hot even a handkerchief used by the living is called a sweat-band.) Just what did all this mean? It is necessary to stress at this point that not more must be read into the text than is actually there. Ideas such as these, namely, that the headband was lying there as if it had not been removed from the head, and that the bandages were lying there just as if the limbs of Jesus were still enclosed by them, or as if the body had been abstracted from them, are foreign to the text. We do not even know exactly wherethe linen bandages and the sweat-band were lying. Neither John nor Luke (in his Gospel, 24:12) says anything about such matters. What Luke emphasizes is that the bandages were lying there by themselves,which, again, does not mean that they were being held in position mysteriously and in violation of the laws of gravity; but simply indicates that they were lying there without the body. The facts which are actually related are wonderful enough without exegetical (?) embellishments. What they indicate is this: everything was orderly in the tomb. The body of the Lord was no longer there. No disciple had been there to remove it, nor had any enemy visited the tomb in order to pillage it. In either case the bandages would no longer have been present. Could it be that the Lord had himself removed the bandages and the sweat-band, had provided for himself a garment such as is worn by the living, had calmly and majestically put everything in its place in the tomb, putting the bandages hereand the sweat-band there(neatly folded or rolled up in a place by itself), and had then departed from the tomb, gloriously alive? It is not stated in so many words that Peterimmediately drew this conclusion, namely, that Jesus was risen from the grave. It would seem, nevertheless, that he did soon reach this level of faith. He reached it a little later than John, perhaps after the two had discussed the matter together. See verse 9. 8, 9. So then the other disciple, who had arrived at the tomb first, also went inside, and he saw and believed; for they had not previously understood the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. John now also enters the tomb. For a description of the tomb see on 19:41, 42. He saw and believed. What did he see? Exactly what Peter had seen. What did he believe? That Jesus was actually risen from the dead, and was the real Messiah, the Lord of Glory, the Son of God in the most exalted sense. This is nothing less than living faith in the act of embracing the truth of the resurrection. At this point some commentators seem to think that the purpose of the text is to emphasize the weaknessof the apostles faith, as if the meaning were on this order: the faith of these men was but a step removed from unbelief, for they needed to seebefore they were willing to believe. However, that is probably not the sense of the words. What is meant is this: they nowsaw and believed. They sawthe things which the Lord had arranged in such a manner as to arouse and strengthen faith. Scripturealso began to take on a new meaning now. Previouslysuch beautiful passages as Ps. 16:10, 11; Ps. 110:1, 4; Ps. 118:22–24; and Is. 53:11, 12passages which referred to Christ's resurrection had meant very little to them. Nowthese same passages were beginning to assume significance! They now understood that Christ's glorious resurrection was a divine must. Cf. Luke 24:26. On and after Pentecost all this would become even clearer. 10. Then the disciples went back again to their homes. (The climax has been reached. In the heart of John there is rejoicing, and this Isaiahis soon to be) true also with respect to Peter, as he himself testifies (I Pet. 1:3). So each goes to his respective lodging-place. At the home of John there is someone who must have been overjoyed to hear the story. That someone was the apostle's aunt, namely, Mary, the mother of Jesus. See on 19:27; then on 19:25. 20:11–18 11 But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping. Then as she was weeping, she stooped to look into the tomb, 12 and she saw two angels sitting (there) in white garments, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 And they said to her, Woman, why are you weeping? She said to them, They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him. 14 On saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing (there), but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, Woman, why are you weeping, for whom are you looking? Thinking that he was the gardener, she said to him, Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will remove him. [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] 16 Jesus said to her, Miriam. She turned and said to him in Aramaic, Rabboni. 17 Jesus said to her, Do not keep clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, I have seen the Lord, and (she told them) that he had said these things to her 20:11, 12. But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping. Then as she was weeping, she stooped to look into the tomb and she saw two angels sitting (there) in white garments, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. The story now returns to Mary Magdalene. See on 19:25 and on 20:1, 2. It is reasonable to suppose that she was a little slower in arriving at the tomb than were Peter and John. There are those who think that on her way back to Joseph's garden Mary met the two apostles, who related to her what they had seen in the tomb; and that, as a result, Mary's fear that robbers had stolen the body of Jesus vanished, sothat she now imagined that friendly hands had removed it. However, if such a meeting took place, we would be forced to conclude that the thrilling conviction, which had been instilled in the hearts of Peter and John as a result of what they had seen, had made little impression on Mary. This, of course, is possible. Nevertheless, since nothing in the record suggests a conversation between the apostles, on the one had, afterthey had been in the tomb, and Mary, on the other hand, it is better to abandon this theory entirely. It is probably safe to state that Mary returned to the tomb all alone, and that on the way she did not stop to engage in conversation with anyone. So Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping. For the meaning of this verb see on 11:31, 32 (and compare with the verb used in 11:35; see also on that verse). Her poignant grief expressed itself in constant, unrestrained sobbing. While she was giving vent to her bitter sorrow, she stooped to peer into the tomb (see on verse 5). She saw two angels sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. It must be deemed probable that these two angels appeared in the form of young me (Mark 16:5). Their white garments indicated holiness (perhaps also joy and victory). They symbolized the triumph of life over death, of light over darkness, of grace over sin. For the general appearance of the tomb and the place where the angels sat see on 19:41, 42. But why did these angels appear to the women and not to Peter and John? Was it because the faith of the women was so much weaker than that of the men that it was in need of the extra support of the ministry of angels? This answer has been suggested, but we find nothing in the record to prove it. One might, in fact, go in the opposite direction and say that the appearance of these angels and the message which they brought (Matt. 28:5–7; then, to Mary, John 20:13) was a special reward for the singular ministry of love in which these women, including Mary, had been engaged. But the best answer is the simple admission that we do not know why the angels appeared to the women (in the present instance, to Mary) and not to the men. Heaven takes a vital interest in Christ's resurrection. The absenceof angels would have been surprising. 13. And they said to her, Woman, why are you weeping?Implied in the question which the angels ask is a message: This is the time for joy, not for weeping. May we not add that the question is a tenderly-phrased expression of disapproval, as if the angels meant to say, Has the Lord's teaching with respect to his approaching death and resurrection been entirely in vain? Mary, are you not ashamed of your unbelief? But so completely has sorrow and grief captured the soul of Mary that she is not frightened, no, not even startled by these angels or by their question. She seems to be even more at ease in their presence than, for example, in a recent [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] Jacobus is in the presence of Gabriel. In the tempest-tossed mind of Mary there is room for only onethought which she expresses by answering, They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him. One might also render this, My Lord has been taken away, etc. Note: Mary still speaks of Jesus as her Lord(see on 20:2). Oh, if she only knew where the body was, she could carry out the purpose for which she had come to the tomb. Besides, just to be near him even if it means no more than being near his dead body will give a measure of satisfaction. 14. On saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing (there), but she did not know that it was Jesus.Mary has been peering into the tomb (20:11, 12). Now she turns around and looks in the opposite direction. Why? Here again there is room for theorizing. A few samples are: a. because Jesus had suddenly made his appearance, and the angels who saw him from their position in the tomb bowed in adoration, causing Mary to turn around in order to see why the angels did this; b. because the angels, beholding Jesus, pointed to him, hinting that Mary should look away from the tomb; c. because Mary heard someone approaching; d. because the angels suddenly vanished out of sight; etc. It has not pleased the Lord to answer. The one important fact is that Mary is now facing a person whom she does not recognize. See on the next verse: 15. Jesus said to her, Woman, why are you weeping, for whom are you looking? (Again Mary hears the same questionas was asked her a moment ago: Woman, why are you weeping? See on verse 13. Notice a very similar correspondence between the words of the angelto the womenMatt. 28:5, 7) and the words which they heard from the lips of (the Lord himselfa little laterMatt. 28:10). In the perfect kingdom there is perfect harmony. The angels say what their Lord says. And the question was most timely and appropriate, for surely thiswas not the proper time for weeping! The Stranger adds, For whom are you looking? Notice whom,not what. Although in her reply to the angels Mary had spoken about her Lord,she had not been looking for himbut for his corpse. She had been looking for something,not for someone. When the One who addresses Mary now asks, For whomare you looking, he is beginning to turn her thoughts in another and better direction. She must begin to look for a person, not a thing. Thinking that he was the gardener she said to him, Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will remove him. Why did Mary think that this person who addressed her was the man who took care of Joseph's garden? We answer: 1. Because, due to her unbelief, she was not looking for the resurrected Savior. 2. Perhaps, because Jesus looked different than before (Mark 16:12; cf. 9:3). Yet, the fact that she took him to be the gardener proves that he had the common human form. 3. Because in the garden she expected to see a gardener or care-taker. To this supposed gardener Mary says, Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will remove him. Sir is here the correct translation of the original; not Lord. See Vol. I, p. 103, footnote 44. Mary now asks this person a favor: if he, for reasons of his own, has transferred the corpse, will he please tell Mary where he has laid it, sothat she may have it removed to some convenient place where she can bestow further care upon it? It is true that Mary actually says, him, not it, but it is clear that she is thinking of Christ's body. In connection with funerals similar language (personal instead of impersonal) is used even today. Verse 16 probably implies that having said this, Mary, despairing perhaps of a satisfactory reply, turned around, sothat she was again looking toward the open tomb. This, after all, in a despondent woman, would not be strange. This interpretation of what happened is probably better than to assign a rather unusual meaning to the participle [Greek] (having leaned forward) as used in that verse. 16. Jesus said to her, Miriam.With infinite tenderness and warmth, in a tone which resembled that of former days, Jesus now addresses Mary by using just oneword, Miriam. [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] The original Aramaic name by which her parents and friends must have addressed her many a time, the name which Jesus had always used in speaking to her, is employed also in this instance. Jesus addresses her by her native name, in her native tongue! She turned and said to him in Aramaic, Rabboni (which means Teacher).When Mary hears this word her own name in her own language spoken in that familiar way as only One person could ever pronounce it, she quickly turns away from the tomb and toward the speaker (see on verse 15) and with a word of dramatic surprise, glad recognition, and humble reverence exclaims, Rabboni. Though this wordmy masteror my teacher has a meaningwhich closely approaches (and may even be identical with) that of Rabbi, and is so translated by John for the benefit of his non-Aramaic speaking readers in Asia Minor, in actual usageit was far less common than Rabbi. For the use of Rabbisee Vol. I, p. 103, footnote 44. The title Rabboniwas given to only a few rabbis, for example, to Gamaliel I and Gamaliel II. It was often used with reference to God. 17. Jesus said to her, Do not keep clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. (What Jesus probably means is this: Do not think, Mary, that by grasping hold of me so firmlyMatt. 28:9), you can keep me always with you. That uninterruptible fellowship for which you yearn must wait until I have ascended to be forever with the Father. Jesus did not object to being touched. Otherwise, how can we explain his word to Thomas? See on 20:27. What he condemned was Mary's mistaken notion that the former mode of fellowship was going to be resumed, in other words, that Jesus would once again live in daily visible association with his disciples, both men and women. The fellowship, to be sure, would be resumed; but it would be far richer and more blessed. It would be the communion of the ascended Lord in the Spirit with his [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] But go to my brothers and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. Both Mary Magdalene and the other women receive a message to be conveyed to the eleven. But while the other women must tell the men what has happened and where Jesus will meet them, Mary must announce to them what great even in the history of redemption is about to take place ( I ascend to my Father, etc.). Jesus now calls his disciples by a new name: brothers. (Ps. 22:23; 122:8; Heb. 2:11.) A new relationshipfellowship in the Spirit, about to be poured out requires a new name,a name even more intimate than the very beautiful name friends. Brothers (belong to one and the same family. They possess much in common. They share in the same inheritance. Thus every true believer is a joint-heir with ChristRom. 8:17). Thus, also, in the spiritual sense, God is not the Father of all men but only of those who, having been chosen from eternity, have embraced the Son by a living faith. These these all,these aloneare Christ's brothers. When we reflect on the fact that just a few days previously all these men had left him and fled, it is all the more striking that Jesus, in tender mercy, is willing to call them his brothers. What Mary must say to them as Christ's message for them is this, I ascendaboutto happen; it is certainto happen; hence present tense to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. Jesus makes a distinction here, and at the same time emphasizes the closeness of fellowship between himself, his Father, and the disciples. The distinctionis clearly evident from this, that he does not say, I am ascending to ourFather. Hissonship differs from theirs;hence, he says, to myFather and to your Father. See on 1:14 for this distinction. Heis Son by nature; theyare sons by adoption. Hence, also and to myGod and yourGod. Nevertheless, the closenessof fellowship is also stressed: the same God who is the Father of Jesus is also the Father of the disciples! It is to this God and Father that Jesus is ascending. That is the message which must be transmitted to the disciples. It is at the same time the lesson which Mary needs to learn. 18. Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, I have seen the Lord, and (she told them) that he had said these things to her. Where the Lord went after appearing to Mary has not been recorded. Moreover, it is even a question whether, had it been recorded, we would have been able to grasp it, for it must be borne in mind that the period of his day-by-day visible association with his disciples is over. He simply appears,now to this one, then to that one; and we must not ask, Where was he in the time which intervened between any two appearances? We know very little about the character of the resurrection-body and about its coming and going. With Mary the case is different. We learn that she did as she had been told. Mary must have been a deeply emotional woman. In a way, she reminds us of Peter. One moment you see her weeping profusely. Her whole heart is in these tears, so much so that even the presence of angels hardly registers. But the next moment the moment of joyful recognition, when the resurrected Lord pronounced her name all has changed. Rabboni, she exclaims; and, arrived in the company of the disciples, she can hardly wait to shout, I have seen the Lord.Lordsee on 20:2, 13 . No longer was she thinking about a corpse now. No, this was the living Lord, gloriously risen from the grave! Mary conveyed her message, word for word, exactly as the Lord had told her to do. And these wordsmust have been like apples of gold in a framework of silver. 20:19–23 19 Now when it was evening on that day, the first of the week, and out of fear for the Jews the doors were locked where the disciples were, there came Jesus, and he stood in their midst and said to them, Peace to you. 20 And on saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore rejoiced over seeing their Lord. 21 Then Jesus said to them again, Peace to you. Just as the Father commissioned me, so I am sending you. 22 And on saying this, he blew and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] if you retain (those) of any, they are retained. [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] 20:19. Now when it was evening on that day, the first of the week, and out of fear for the Jews the doors were locked where the disciples were, there came Jesus, and he stood in their midst and said to them, Peace to you. Note the stress that is laid on the specific day when Jesus appeared to the disciples with the exception of Thomas. John might have written, Now when it was the evening of the first day. But he is far more definite. It is clear that he wants to emphasize that this was none other than the first day of the week. So he begins by saying, Now when it was evening of thatday. That already marks the day as the first day, in the light of the context (20:1). But he is not satisfied with this. So he continues, that day, the first of the week. The New Testament everywhere singles out the day of Christ's resurrection as chief among the days of the week. See Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19, 26; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. For the meaning of the first of the week see on 20:1. It was evening. In the light of Luke 24:29, 33, 36we have a right to conclude that it was no longer earlyin the evening when the great event recorded in the present paragraph took place. As the Jews compute the days it was no longer the first day of the week. But John, though a Jew, is writing much later than Matthew and Mark, and does not seem to concern himself with Jewish time-reckoning. See on 1:39. Out of fear for the Jews (for fear of the Jews) the disciples had locked the doors. For this fear inspired by the Jewish authorities (we think especially of the Sanhedrin) see on 7:13; 9:22; 14:27; 19:38. The rulers had brought about the death of Jesus. Were the apostles going to be next on the program of destruction? The exact place where the disciples gathered is not indicated. See, however, Acts 12:12. It is not difficult to understand what had brought them together. There had been so many strange happenings and marvelous experiences that day that a meeting was in order. Jesus had already appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the women, to Cleopas and his companion, and to Peter. See on 21:1. Peter and John and also the women had been inside the tomb. What they had seen was just too wonderful for words. Indeed, it is not surprising that the disciples found each other's company this Sunday-evening. Of a sudden, there came Jesus, and he stood in their midst! But how was that possible, with the doors locked?doorsplural refers, perhaps, to the gate of the house and the door of the roomin which they were; but may also indicate the two folding doors which formed the gate. To the question how this sudden appearance of Jesus was possible all kinds of answers have been given. Some of these answers must be rejected immediately; for example, Jesus had been hiding in the room; he sneaked in with the men of Emmaus; he entered through the (Oriental substitute for our) window; he descended from the roof; etc. Those who believe that the humannature of Christ was now in possession of the qualities of the divinenature answer that this human nature had now become [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] We have high respect for the faith and the scholarship of those who are inclined to accept this last view. Along with us they worship Jesus as the Son of God, and along with us they accept his Word as being infallible. In the battle against liberalism of every description they put many to shame. Nevertheless, we cannot accept this solution. We believe that neither in the state of humiliation nor in that of exaltation are the two natures ever confused or blended, sothat one partakes of the qualities of the other. We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is to be acknowledged in two natures inconfusedlyand unchangeably,as well as indivisibly and inseparably (Symbol of Chalcedon). Moreover, we believe that the words There (cameJesus are best interpreted literally. He not only suddenly stoodin their midst, but he actually cameand stood! Had his human nature been omnipresent, he would not have to come(unless this coming be taken in a metaphorical sense). To the question, But how was it possible for Jesus, who was not a mere phantom but had a real body (though a resurrection-body) to come and stand, when the doors were locked? Scripture gives no answer. Some day we'll understand. Stating it differently, one might also say, The resurrection-body has different qualities than the pre-resurrection bodyI Cor. 15:42–44; cf. Phil. 3:21). But that is not really answering the question. Jesus speaks peace to the surprised disciples. He said, Peace to you. For explanation see on 14:27; 16:33; 20:21, 26. He said it now as the One who has actually merited this peace for them. 20. And on saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. Much, very much, is implied in this statement: 1. The person standing in the midst of the little circle is really Jesus. He is not someone else. The marks in his hands (where the nails have been) and the wound in his side identify him. 2. This person has a real body. He has hands. He shows his side (probably the left side). He is not a phantom. Let all docetics take note. In John's day there were many. 3. It was not only the spiritof Christ that had arisen from the grave as the liberals teach but the bodyalso! This was really a bodilyresurrection. 4. The peace pronounced on the disciples pronouncednot only but actually givenwas real; it had been bought at such a price! Let the disciples look at his hands and at his side. Then let them meditate and adore. The disciples therefore rejoiced over seeing their Lord.Luke supplies the best commentary on this passage in John. Not immediately did the disciples rejoice. First, when they saw him standing there so suddenly, they were frightened. They thought that they were looking at a spirit or ghost. Then Jesus, in tender love, said, Why are you troubled? And why do questionings arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me having. They rejoiced. Nevertheless, they still disbelieved for joy. Jesus then said, Do you have anything to eat here? They gave him a piece of broiled fish. He took it and ate in their presence. Jesus then repeated words which he had formerly spoken. See Luke 24:36 49. When they finally believed without doubting any longer, it was because they could not do anything else. Note that according to John here in 20:20 and bear in mind that John was there when it happened! the disciples at last saw in Jesus their exalted Lord. For the term see on 1:38; 12:21; cf. also 20:2, 13, 18. 21. Then Jesus said to them again, Peace to you. Just as the Father commissioned me, so I am sending you. To all those present (the ten, the men from Emmaus, and others) Jesus repeats, Peace to you. For the meaning see on 20:19. It is not strange that he repeated this word. His sudden appearance had caused instant alarm. Even though that fear had been largely allayed, and rejoicing had taken its place, the gracious words, bestowing peace on those present, could stand repetition. By adding, Just as the Father, etc., Jesus says in substance what he had said before. Hence, see on 17:18 for the explanation. There is, however, one important difference. In the former passage these words were addressed to the Fatherthoudidst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world ; now they are addressed to (the disciplesthemselves (with a change of verb, which is, however, not very important): Just as the Father commissionedsent) me, so I am sending you. From the fact that there were others in the room besides the ten (Luke 24:33) the ten had some welcome visitors who were (with themLuke 24:33) some have concluded that there is nothing officialabout this sending. But though the words were meant for the entire Church, is it not true that the task of proclaiming the Gospel to the world is, nevertheless, carried out chiefly by means of those who were specially chosen? Through them the entire Church brings God's message to the world.Needless to say, every believeralso has an important duty, namely, the duty of bearing witness joyfully and incessantly. That Jesus has the (teneleven) in mind follows also from the very similar or parallel passage in 17:18, 20. Note: Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world &Neither concerning these only do I make request, but concerning those also who believe in me through their word. One might paraphrase this: Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent these eleven meninto the world &Neither concerning these eleven menonly do I make request, but concerning those also who believe in me through their word. The analogy between the sending of the Son as Mediator and the sending of the apostles has been explained in connection with 17:18. The commissioning authorityis the same; the messageis the same (nevertheless, there is this difference: Jesus through his atonement makes the message possible; the apostles simply proclaim it!); and the men to whom it is proclaimedare the same. Hence, just as &so. 22, 23. And having said this, he blew, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain (those) of any, they are retained. Having reminded his disciples of the fact that his resurrection in no sense relieved them of their divinely ordained task, Jesus blew. The best text does not read, He blew upon them,but simply He blew. This blowing (cf. on 3:8) had symbolic significance. It symbolized a particular gift of the Holy Spirit. In a sense, that gift is given to the entire Church. Nevertheless see also on verse 21 it is to be exercised by the officers, by them alone, by them corporately. This particular gift which is here indicated is that of forgiving or retaining sins, which in this connection must mean, declaringthat someone's sins are either forgiven or retained (unforgiven). That the apostles cannot act independently, that is, apart from the Spirit who speaks in the Word, is already evident from the fact that the gift is linked with the Spirit! Receive the Holy Spirit &If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, etc. Absolutions pronounced arbitrarily have no standing in heaven. Only then has the Church, acting through its officers, the right to declare sins forgiven or retained when it acts in harmony with the Spirit-inspired Word. But when its actions are in conformity with the Word (which demands that discipline be exercised in the spirit of love), then this power is very real, and has reference to anyone(whoever he may be) whose sins are declared to be either forgiven or retained. But since the Church can only (declarethat which God has already doneMark 2:7), we read, If you forgive the sins of any, they (have beenare) forgiven them; if you retain (those) of any, they (have beenare) retained. [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] This passage certainly suggests Matt. 16:19; 18:18. It is clear that the Matthew passages refer to the authority which the Church exercises by means of the apostolic office. It would, therefore, seem logical that here in John 20:33 the meaning is the same. But by many writers any notion of officeis being rejected [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] Officeimplies a divinely appointed task with authority (given to certain men and not to others) to carry it out. This authority has reference to lifeand doctrine. That it was established by Christ and exercised by the apostles is clear from such passages as Matt. 16:18, 19keyto open and to close imply authority? and does not binding and loosening whatever be its meaning do the same? 18:18; 28:18; I Cor. 5:3, 4; II Cor. 10:8. That this authority was through their meditation laid upon ministers and elders sothat these also have an office and are clothed with authority is clear from the following: Acts 14:23; 20:28; I Tim. 1:18; 3:1, 5; 4:14; 5:17; II Tim. 4:1, 2; Tit. 1:5–9; 3:10; Rev. 2:20. This authority which according to (John 20:23implies the right of expelling from the Church and of restoring the sinner to its fellowship must ever be exercised in the spirit of love. It has as its purpose the perfecting of the saints, the work of ministering, the building up of the body of ChristEph. 4:12); and its ultimate goal may be expressed in these beautiful words: until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a fullgrown man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Eph. 4:13). The apostles who were gathered in this room on this glorious Easter day needed this comfort. In themselves they were weak and sinful. This had been demonstrated again and again, also during the last few days. Did they still have the right to call themselves apostles,Christ's official representatives, chosen to bring his message to the children of men and to exercise authority in the company of believers? The risen Savior speaks this word of encouragement. Without authority, chaos reigns supreme! 20:24–31 24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, We have seen the Lord. He, however, said to them, Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hands into his side, I definitely will not believe. [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] 26 And eight days later his disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, though the doors had been locked, and he stood in the midst and said, Peace to you. 27 Then he said to Thomas, Bring here your finger, and see my hands; and bring your hand, and put it into my side; and no longer be unbelieving but believing. 28 Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are they who, though not seeing, are yet believing. 30 Now Jesus, to be [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] in the presence of the disciples also performed many other signs, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written in order that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in order that believing you may continue to have life in his name. 20:24, 25. But Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, We have seen the Lord. He, however, said to them, Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I definitely will not believe. For Thomas, his name, and his character see on 11:16; 14:5. There had been a meeting of the Twelve. Actually only tenhad been present (plus some welcome visitors), but the little company is still technically called the Twelve, just as among us when fifteen of the seventeen consistory-members are present, we still speak of those who are present as the consistory. Moreover, Thomas was one of the twelve apostles as originally chosen. He should have been there. By not being present he had missed the joy of seeing the risen Lord, and of hearing him speak words of peace. Indeed, he had missed the peace itself. It is evident from verse 25 that he had no peace. He was wretched, nervous, restless. But the other disciples took pity on him. Besides, when the heart is full, the mouth will speak. So the other disciples the ten (and probably also the two from Emmaus and others who had been present) kept saying to him, We have seen the Lord. See on 20:18. Although the immediate reference here is to the apostles who had been present in the room on Easter-evening, it is entirely probable that also others (who may or may not have been present), for example, Mary Magdalene and the other women, kept on giving gladsome testimony of that which they had seen. There had been several appearances before Easter evening. See on 21:1. Thomas, however, remained stubborn. He was a very devoted disciple. He was also very despondent. Hence, for him the universe collapsed when Jesus was crucified. He was of all men most pitiable (I Cor. 15:19). When the others continued to din their wonderful story into his ears, he finally protested, Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails, I definitely will not believe, that is, I definitely will not believe that Jesus is the risen Lord. Thomas is willing to believe &that is, on certain conditions!And he himself will lay down these conditions. The mysterious person about whom the others have been saying so much must measure up to certain standards which Thomas will establish; he must submit to certain tests which Thomas will apply. Hearingabout him, (even from those who have both seen and heard him) is not enough. Thomas has heard too much already. Thomas wants to see. He also wants to feel!He wants to see the markof the nails, and he wants to put his finger into the placeof the nails. In the original there is an interesting alliteration here: the words for markand placeare almost identical ([Greek] and [Greek]), somewhat like our imprintand impress. Thomas will not be satisfied if he merely seesthe marks which the nails have left on the surface of the hands of the One who had been crucified; no, he must also actually run his finger into the nail-holes! And even that will not be sufficient. Thomas must be permitted to put his hand into the horrible gash left by the spear. Now, ifthe mysterious character about whom Thomas has heard so much will satisfy all these demands, then &and not until then &Thomas will believe; but if not,he will definitely not(�P [Greek]) believe. For discussion of nails and spear-thrust see on 19:23, 24. 26, 27, 28. And eight days later his disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, though the doors had been locked, and he stood in the midst and said, Peace to you. Then he said to Thomas, Bring here your finger, and see my hands; and bring your hand, and put it into my side; and no longer be unbelieving but believing. Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God. For the expression eight days later see also on 12:1. Employing the inclusive method of time-computation the method according to which, for example, Tuesday would be threedays later than Sunday John states that eight days laterthe event of the preceding Sunday-evening was repeated. The time and the place were, in all probability, the same. Did the Lord wait until Sunday-evening in order to encourage his disciples to observe thatday and not some other day as the day of rest and worship? That would seem probable. This time Thomas is present. It is probably correct to say that his presence at this occasion was the result of the work of witnessing in which the others had been engaged. Of course, this is not certain. It is also possible that Thomas rejoined the group for the simple reason that he had no other friends, no other place to go. The rest of verse 26 is almost a word-for-word repetition of verse 19. See on that verse. Again, though the doors are locked, Jesus suddenly appears. He comes. He stands in the midst of the group. He speaks peace to (and bestows peace upon) them. Then he addresses Thomas. In the spirit of gentle condescension to the conditions laid down by Thomas, Jesus admonishes his erring disciple. In order to see how precisely and fully the demands of Thomas are met, we must place the words of Thomas and those of Jesus next to each other. Notice: 1 The Demands of Thomas The Commands of Jesus 2 See my hands 1 Bring here your finger. 3 And bring your hand, and put it into my side. 4 And no longer be unbelieving but believing. For each demand of Thomas there is a command of Christ, though the order in which the commands are uttered is not exactly the same as that in which the demands were made. The condescending manner in which Jesus dealt with Thomas certainly indicates that he is still the same Jesus. His love has not lessened. He might have rebuked Thomas sharply, but he deals very gently with him. The question has been asked, Did Thomas actually do as Christ commanded him? Though the answer is not specifically stated, it is probable that he did. In fact, the question might be asked, Did he have any choice in the matter? Was he not obliged to do as instructed? Besides, there is Luke 24:39and especially I John 1:1. Having heardthe words of Jesus those words which were so wonderful because they corresponded in every detail with the words of Thomas, having probably also seenhis hands, and felthis wounds, Thomas exclaims, My Lord and my God. This confession must be understood in the light of Thomas immediately preceding experience;better still, it must be understood in the light of the immediately preceding self-disclosure of Jesus. Jesus had revealed himself as being (with respect to his divine nature) the Omniscient One. It is in that exalted sense that Thomas now calls Jesus his Lord and his God. He who a little while ago was trying to lord it over the Lord (laying down conditions for him to meet), has become submissive. No longer does Thomas wish to rule supreme. In Jesus he recognizes his sovereign, yes even his God! For a Jew that was a remarkable confession. 29. Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are they who, though not seeing, are yet believing.There was nothing wrong with the words of the confession which Thomas uttered. There was something wrong with the manner in which he reached this level of faith. He should have believed even apart from sight. For the benefit of those who would come to believe in him in the years that were to follow, Jesus now says, Blessed are they who, though not seeing, are yet believing. Faith which results from seeing is good; but faith which results from hearing is more excellent. This is the clear lesson of Scripture throughout; see, for example, Matt. 8:5–10; John 4:48; Rom. 10:14; and I Peter 1:8. 30. Now Jesus, to be sure, in the presence of the disciples, also performed many other signs, which are not written in this book. But these are written in order that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in order that believing you may continue to have life in his name. With the glorious confession of Thomas, My Lord and my God, the author has achieved his purpose. One should compare this confession with the sublime declaration in 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God. The purpose of the evangelist has all along been this: to show that Jesus is really God (or, if one prefers, the Son of God; hence, of the very essence of God). The resurrection and particularly the appearanceto the disciples, including Thomas,has had the effect of eliciting this confession from the heart and mouth of the despondent and devoted one. The resurrection was the greatest signof all. For the meaning of the term signsee Vol. I, p. 117. There had been many signs. They were performed in the presence of the disciples,sothat these men might be qualified witnesses, that is, sothat they might be able to give competent testimony concerning that which they themselves had seen, heard, or experienced. See on 1:7, 8. It is true that no one actually saw the resurrection. But the disciples saw the resurrected Christ, and that certainly implied the reality of the resurrection. John does not demythologize. (Contrast R. Bultmann.) In addition to the great sign of the resurrection, those signs which are recorded in the Fourth Gospel are: the changing of the water into wine, the healing of the courtier's son, the cure of the withered man at the pool of Bethzatha, the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, the opening of the eyes of the man born blind, and the resurrection of Lazarus. But that is by no means all. One might ask, Was not the cleansing of the temple a sign? Was not the triumphal entrance into Jerusalem another sign? Besides, as has been pointed out in connection with 2:11, the sign neverstands alone. It is not only a work of power. There is always a plus:the miracle introduces teaching with reference to Christ. Sometimes that teaching is implied; often it is expressed, at times in lengthy discourses. Hence, we arrive at the conclusion that from start to finish the Fourth Gospel is a book of signs. It records Christ's wonderful deeds and their meaning! Now John has not recorded allthe deeds and teachings of Christ. He has been selective. He probably took for granted that the readers had already studied the earlier Gospels; see Vol. I, pp. 31, 32. Besides, in some of these deeds the full deity of Christ was not as clearly revealed as in others. And finally, to record allsignificant deeds and words would have been impossible. But this last point is brought out not here in 20:30, 31 but in 21:25. See on that passage. What then was John's purpose in recording the signs which he did record? The answer is expressed in these words, But these are written in order that you may continue to believe &Note: continue to believe. Remember Cerinthus, who was trying to undermine the faith of the Church in the deity of Christ! That faith must be strengthened. The enemy must be repulsed. For a further commentary on this aspect of John's purpose we refer to Vol. I, pp. 33–35. For Jesus as the Son of Godsee also on 1:1, 14. When the Church continues to accept Jesus as the divinely appointed and qualified (anointed) One, that is, as the Christ,the fulfilment of all the Old Testament hopes and promises; when it continues to recognize him as the Son of God,in the most exalted sense of the term, it will continue to have life everlasting life; see on 1:4; 3:16 in his name, that is, in and by means of the blessed acceptance of his revelation in the sphere of redemption. Synthesis of Chapter 20 See the Outline on p. 446. The Son of God Triumphing Gloriously. Resurrection and Appearances 1. The Visit of Peter and John to the Tomb When Mary Magdalene, greatly alarmed because the stone had been removed from the tomb's entrance, rushed to Peter and to John for help, these men responded immediately. In order to get the real picture of Peter and John's walking and then running to the tomb, one should study Burnand's famous painting. Artists so often disregard the data of Scripture, but here is a picture which, as far as I can judge, is faithful to Scripture in every respect. Note how in this picture (the original is in the Luxembourg Museum, Paris) the illusion of motion is produced by John's hair rippling backward, the forward bending of the body, Peter's long locks flaring in the wind, etc. It is evident that the other disciple is even now beginning to outrun Peter. Though John arrived first, Peter first entered the tomb. Then entered John also. The orderly arrangement of everything within the tomb, the absence of the body, the recalling of Old Testament passages which they now saw in a new light, caused these men (first John, then Peter also) to believe that Jesus was actually risen. II. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene. Mary's weeping, her distraught behavior even in the presence of angels (so great was her grief), her conversation with the angels, and finally her conversation with the person whom she considered to be the care-taker, are described very vividly. One word Miriam pronounced in the most familiar and tenderly loving manner, changed everything for Mary. She replied, Rabboni. Jesus then gave her a lesson in the manner in which continued fellowship with him could be attained. She reported her experience to the disciples. III. The Appearance to the Disciples Except Thomas. This sudden appearance of Jesus when the doors were closed cannot be explained in such a manner that human minds will be able to grasp it. Not only did the Lord prove his resurrection (even showing the disciples his side and his hands), but he also gave them a much-needed blessing, that of peace, a peace obtained by means of the cross. He further comforted them by informing them that their task, as his official representatives, would continue. Though they had all left him and fled, he still considers them to be his apostles with authority to rule the Church. IV. The Appearance to the Disciples, Thomas Being Also Present. The beauty of this story becomes evident especially in this particular, that Jesus meets all of the demands of his erring (but devoted) disciple. Thomas is permittedcommandedeven! to see and to feel the wounds in the body of Christ. The loving treatment which Thomas received evoked from his lips the glorious exclamation (a confession which would have been even more glorious had Thomas not laid down his conditions), My Lord and my God. With this the Gospel has returned to its starting point, namely, the deity of Christ (see on 1:1). Hence, here (with the exception of a Supplement, chapter 21) it closes. Its purpose is stated in verses 30, 31 (see the exegesis). Reflection on Christ's Resurrection Darkness at Noontime A darkness that smothered sun and moon. A darker day there never was.Jesus of Nazareth is hanging on the cross between two thieves. Hear his cry: It is finished &Father into thy hands I commend my spirit. Out, out are the lights, out all! Just take a look at the little band of followers. The Eleven Their Master &gone. Their friend and what a Friend! departed. Their plans wrecked. Their hopes shattered. They are perplexed, baffled. They despair. Like men whose none too sturdy vessel is frozen solid in the Arctic ice-pack, with ice, ice, ice, cold bleak, barren stretching in every direction for hundreds of miles. Ice, screeching, roaring, grinding. Will they ever see their dear ones again? Abandon hope, all ye who enter here! Or to change the figure they resemble individuals who have been condemned to die and are pining away in some gloomy, dreadful prison-hole, knowing that the best they can expect is the arrival of the executioner. See John 20:19, their doors were shut for fear of the Jews. Jesus of Nazareth &Crucified &that was the Farewell to Hope! Am I exaggerating? Was there not so much as a ray of hope shining through the clouds of gloom and despair? A half-conscious expectation that somehow light would arise out of darkness, that the night would make room for the dawn, that &perhaps &the Master might even &rise again? Read the account for yourself: And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. Mark 16:11. And they went away and told it unto the rest. Neither believed they them. Mark 16:13. And the &women &told these things unto the apostles. And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk;and they disbelievedthem. Luke 24:10, 11. And he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed notthem which had seen him after he was risen. Mark 16:14. The other disciples therefore said unto him (Thomas), We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. Not one of the Eleven expected Jesus to arise from the grave. That thought was farthest removed from their minds. Jesus was dead. He was gone!These happy days of close fellowship and intimate association with the Great Prophet of Nazareth would never return. Cleopas and His Companion These two friends of Jesus are returning to Emmaus. It is Spring-time. Yet they hear not the singing of birds. They see not the awakening of Nature. With lagging feet, under leaden skies they continue on their way home &home from a funeral! A dear one has been buried. Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, stranger, we hoped that he was the One who would redeem Israel. We hoped past tense but now all hope is gone. The Cross and the Grave have blasted every last remnant of hope. Eternal despair reigns supreme in our hearts. Mary, the Mother of the Lord She, too, was in the grip of cold winter. A sword was piercing through her own soul, Luke 2:35, as she saw her own son, her first-born, dying the death of a condemned criminal. A feeling of overwhelming sadness takes possession of me whenever I read the lines of that ancient hymn, describing Mary's tears: Stabat mater dolorosa juxta crucem lacrimosa & For her, too, the Cross was the Farewell to Hope. The Women See these women trudging sorrowfully through the streets of Jerusalem very early, Sunday morning. While the Eleven are in deep mourning and despair, Thomas resembling a man who is caught in the midst of an earthquake, the very ground under his feet caving in; Peter overwhelmed with remorse; John tenderly caring for the woman with the tempest-tossed soul (Mary); while night has settled upon these Eleven men, what are these women going to do? Is it their design to welcome the Risen Lord? Not in the least. The cross has blasted their hopes. The grave has buried them forever. They come &to anoint a dead body, the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth, their Friend and Helper. Never was there a more dejected, disappointed, crushed group of men and women! Their own experience is, perhaps, best described in that well-known poem: Now he is dead, far hence he lies In that lorn Syrian town; And on his grave with shining eyes The Syrian stars look down. When the Master died, the disciples, too, died. Their hopes, their aspirations, their deepest affections and fondest anticipations were buried with their Lord. If ever hope was to be revived in their hearts, their souls would have to be rescued from the grip of death. There would have to be a new beginning &and that &by all the laws of human logic &was impossible! And then &the Glorious Easter Message A new beginning! Light in the darkness! Life conquering death! The Lord is risen indeed! Here all changes. The Cross, the very instrument of despair, becomes an object of glory. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the source of a living hope. Listen to the message of exuberant joy, praise, and thanksgiving. Hear it from the lips of one who experienced the deepest darkness of despair and remorse. Says Peter: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Begat us again unto a living hope. Now Peter can smile again. We can all be happy once more. A living hope, living, real, a desire plus expectation plus conviction that our lives here are not in vain. A hope not based upon legend or fancy but upon the immovable Rock of Christ's resurrection from the grave. The apostles proclaim the resurrection because they cannot do anything else. The proof was too clear! He lives. Hence, life is worth living. Hence, all things work together for good to them that love God. Hence, we too shall live. Hence, the curse is going to be removed from the universe and we expect a new heaven and a new earth. All the darkness is dispelled. Hope lives again. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XXI Preliminary Remarks on Chapter 21 I. Authorship Who wrote this chapter? See what has already been said with reference to this in Vol. I, on p. 28. Absolute certainty is probably not attainable. If a person chooses to believe that John himself with his own hand wrote (or at least that he dictated) chapter 21 in its entirety (or with the exception of verses 24 and 25), he will find nothing in its grammar or vocabulary which prevents him from doing [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] That we, nevertheless, favor the theory that another leader at Ephesus (probably a disciple of John), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and with the full approval of John, wrote 21:1 in the name of the eldersnote the pronoun we, and again personally verse 25; note how the we of verse 24 changes to I in verse 25 is due to the following considerations: 1. The conclusion of chapter 20 (verses 30 and 31) leaves the impression that the account (chapters 1 20) ends there. 2. The author of chapters 1 20 never mentions himself or the members of his immediate family by name (cf. 1:35–41; 13:23; 18:15; 19:25–27, 35; 20:2–10), but whoever wrote 21:2 mentions, the sons of Zebedee(the father of James and John). 3. The lengthy descriptive clause which is used here in 21:20 to indicate the disciple whom Jesus loved, namely, who also at the supper had leaned back on his breast and had said Lord, who is it that is going to betray thee? stands in rather sharp contrast to the veiled manner in which the author of chapters 1 20 constantly refers to himself (1:35; cf. 1:40; 13:23; 19:26; 20:2). II. Purpose Chapter 21 has always been a part of this Gospel. Why was it added after the beautiful conclusion found in 20:30, 31? Various reasons have been offered. Since there must have been some practical considerations which occasioned the addition of this Supplement, there is probably more than merely an element of truth in the following purposes which have been suggested: 1. To prove that the risen Christ still takes an interest in his Church, and that his marvelous power and tender love have not diminished in any way. See 21:1–14; especially verses 5, 6, and 12. However, does not 20:19–29 prove the same fact? It does, but chapter 21 may be considered additionalevidence in this direction. 2. To remind the disciples of the fact that they must be (fishers,and this not only in the usual sense of the term (21:3) but also, and especially, of men(21:15–17). However, in this connection it must be borne in mind that those to which reference is made in verses 15 17 are already in the Church; also, that the figure employed there is not that of a fisherman but that of a shepherd who cares for his sheep. Nevertheless, the suggested purpose may well be correct; for would not reflection upon the miracle recorded in 21:6 recall the earlier one recorded in Luke 5, and also the moral (or prophecy) appended to it in Luke 5:10men)? Kingdom-work must be resumed with vigor! 3. To emphasize to the Church that Peter had been fully re-instated. It is possible that doubt had arisen with respect to the question whether a man who had sinned so grievously could still be entrusted with the important and responsible task of shepherding the flock of Jesus Christ. This chapter strives to remove that doubt. See 21:15–17. 4. To stress once againthe comforting truth of predestination, namely, that whatever happens in our lives has been wisely ordained by the Lord, just as the very manner of Peter's glorious death had been foreseen and predicted. See 21:18, 19. 5. To remove a misunderstanding with respect to a saying of Jesus regarding the disciple whom Jesus loved, that is, to banish the rumor that Jesus had meant, Said disciple is not going to die. See 21:20–23. 6. To give an opportunity to the elders at Ephesus to present an official and united testimony with respect to the reliability of the things recorded in the Fourth Gospel. See 21:24. And finally, 7. To explain why ever so many other events that had transpired during Christ's earthly sojourn were not recorded. It is possible that otherwise some would have been asking, Why was not thisrecorded? Why was not thatincluded? See 21:25. 21:1–14 21 1 After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias; now he manifested himself as follows. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, the one called the Twin, and Nathaniel, the one from Cana in Galilee, and the (sons) of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter said to them, I am going fishing. They said to him, We will go with you. They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. 4 Now when day was already breaking, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples were unaware that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus then said to them, Lads, you haven't anything to eat, have you? 6 They answered, No. So he said to them. Cast your net on the right side of the boat, and you will catch. [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] Then they cast (it), and now they were no longer able to haul it in because of the great number of fishes. 7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, It is the Lord! Then Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, belted his fisherman's jacket about him, for he was stripped, and flung himself into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came with the boat for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards away dragging the net full of fish. 9 Then when they stepped ashore, they saw a charcoal fire all made and a fish lying on it, also a [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] 10 Jesus said to them, Bring some of the fish which you just caught. 11 Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, Come, have breakfast. None of the disciples was venturing to ask him, Who art thou? for they knew that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread-cake and gave to them, and the fish similarly. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples after having risen from the dead. 21:1. After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias; now he manifested himself as follows. For the meaning of after these things, see on 5:1. Jesus manifestedhimself, that is, he displayed his glory. He not only made a sudden physical appearance, sothat his disciples could see him, but he proved his continuing power and love, his divinemajesty and tender divineand humansympathy, as these qualities expressed themselves in his words and deeds at this [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] In view of the context it is probable that the expression manifested himself must here (and in 21:14) be qualified even further. It refers here specifically to (the self-disclosure of the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples when he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs during a period of forty daysActs 1:3). What we have here (21:1–23) is a record of one of Christ's post-resurrection appearances. It is Number 7 in the list (see also on 21:14). Appearances 1. To Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:11 18). 2. To the women (Matt. 28:9, 10). 3. To Cleopas and his companion (Luke 24:13 35). 4. To Simon (Luke 24:34; I Cor. 15:15). 5. To the disciples except Thomas (John 20:19 23). 6. To the disciples, Thomas being present (John 20:24 29). All of these occurred in Jerusalem. After the disciples have gone to Galilee, in obedience to the instructions which they had received from the Lord, Jesus appears again: 7. To the seven at the Sea of Tiberias (21:1–14). 8. To the disciples on a mountain in Galilee, where Jesus made a great claim, gave the great commission, and proclaimed the great presence (Matt. 28:16–20). By many commentators this appearance is identified with Number 9. 9. To the five hundred (I Cor. 15:6). 10. To James, the Lord's brother (I Cor. 15:7). Whether this took place in Galilee or in Judea is not stated. The disciples having returned to Jerusalem: 11. To the eleven on Olivet, near Jerusalem (Acts 1:4 11; cf. Luke 24:50, 51). The next appearance that is specifically recordedis by the Lord from heaven: 12. To Paul, when he was on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:3 7; 22:6–10; 26:12–18; I Cor. 9:1; 15:8). There may have been several others. How many there were we do not know (Acts 1:3). With respect to these manifestations or appearances the following should be noted: a. We are not dealing here with the universe of unreality, with a phantom, apparition, hallucination, merely subjective dream or vision. On the contrary, in every instance it is the Lord himself in person who manifestshimself. b. The expression manifested himselfis used here in 21:1, 14 in order to stress the idea that Jesus is no longer dwelling with men as he had done before. He suddenly appears upon the scene. Just as suddenly he disappears again. But while he is with them, they see him (though not always immediately) as their resurrected and glorious Lord. The words, Now he manifested himself as follows, are probably added because the account of this particular appearance is rather lengthy and circumstantial. 21:2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, the one called the Twin, and Nathaniel, the one from Cana in Galilee, and the (sons) of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. To find these men together here in Galilee is not surprising. The Lord had promised to meet his disciples there (Matt. 28:7, 10; Mark 16:7). Besides, four of the five here indicated were also together at the very beginning of Christ's ministry. We refer to Simon Peter, Nathaniel, and the sons of Zebedee (John and James). See on 1:35–51. At that time Andrew and Philip were also among those mentioned. Were these the two others of his disciples who now reappear at the close of the Gospel? But we just do not know who these two others may have been. That they belonged to the Twelve is well-nigh certainthedisciples . That here in 21:2 the reason why the two are not mentioned by name is because they had not yet been introduced in the main body of the book (chapters 1 20), is rather improbable and would limit the possibilities to twoout of the following threemen: Matthew, James the Less, and Simon the [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] For the inference to be derived from the mention of the sons of Zebedee, see p. 474, 475. 3. Simon Peter said to them, I am going fishing. They said to him, We will go with you. (Peter is the man of action. He generally actsbefore John does. John generally understandsbefore Peter does. So Peter says, I'm off to fish (literally). Does this mean that Peter turns his back (or: has already turned his back) upon preaching, considering it to be no longer worth-while, saying (or: having said) farewell to it, and returning (or having returned) to his former occupation? Some of the best commentators (including F. W. Grosheide) are of this opinion, while others (e.g., R. C. H. Lenski) seem to ridicule the very idea. Compelling proofin either direction is lacking. It is true that these men had to gain a livelihood, and at least some of those mentioned were (or had been) fishermen by tradeMatt. 4:18, 21). On the other hand, it is also true that by and by Jesus is going to emphasize and re-emphasize that Peter must be a shepherd of men. See, moreover, what was said on p. 475 above, under item 2. Besides, even though Jesus after his resurrection had already manifested himself to Peter, it may not have been entirely clear to the mind of the latter that he, who had basely denied his Master three times, had the right to resume his spiritual activities whether as a missionary or as a minister. Accordingly, the idea that Peter, for the time being at least, had given up his kingdom-activities and had returned to his former occupation cannot be entirely dismissed. And does not 16:32 imply that in this decision to resume the former occupations on a full-time basis, and to give up the idea of vigorous Kingdom-endeavor, he had been joined by the others? See on that verse. The other six disciples are ready to follow where Peter leads. In fact, when he said, I am off to fish, he may have implied Who will go with me? They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.Though these men, having gone on board the vessel (probably Peter's), chose the most appropriate time to fish, and though at least some of them were experienced fishermen, they toiled and struggled all night long but caught nothing. History was repeating itself. Did they recall their former experience, the one recorded in Luke 5? And was their night-long failure a revelation of God's displeasure with them for having neglected Kingdom-work? But God still loved them! Hence, in his loving providence their complete failure must serve the purpose of bringing into sharp relief the greatness of the gift which he was going to provide. 4. Now when day was already breaking, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples were unaware that it was Jesus. (The expression, Early morning alreadyarriving stresses the frustration which these men had experienced through the long, the seemingly endless, night. At last, it was alreadydawn, and still they had caught nothing. Looking toward the beach they see a man. It was Jesus, but they did not recognize him. Why not? Because unbelief had closed their eyes? Because supernaturally their eyes were being prevented from recognizing himLuke 24:16)? Because of the nature and appearance of his body? The reason is not given. It can hardly have been that they were too far away from the shore. After all, they were only about a hundred yards off (21:8), within shouting distance (21:5). Perhaps in this case, where nothing is mentioned that would indicate any supernatural factor, the most natural explanation is the best, namely, that a mist or morning-haze made it impossible for them to identify the person on the beach. Certainty is, however, lacking. 5. Jesus then said to them, Lads, you haven't anything to eat, have you?Very lovingly the Lord of glory addresses these men as, Lads, or Boys. See Vol. I, p. 181. See also I John 2:13, 18, where the aged John uses the same expression. When Jesus added, You haven't anything to eat, have you?, expecting a negative answer, he did not mean, Have you something for meto eat? Iwould like to buy some fish. Rather, he asks this question in order to rivet their attention on the fact that their return to the former occupation has been a complete failure. They had failed to reckon sufficiently with God splan for their lives. It is as if he were saying, Youhave caught nothing at all, now have you? Without meyou can do nothing. Please learn that lesson once and for all. And now Iwill show you where you should cast the net in order to catch fish (cf. verse 6). Youhaven t anything to [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] have you? So Ihave prepared breakfast for you (cf. verse 9). This explanation, as has been indicated, has the advantage of being in harmony with the context. 6. They answered, No. So he said to them, Cast your net on the right side of the boat, and you will catch. (The tired disciples answer the stranger's question with a single word, No. Cast your net on the right side(literally, on the right parts, but that is simply an idiom) of the boat, and you will findcatch), says the man on the beach. Was it this command which first opened John's eyes, sothat he began to surmise who the stranger might be? Did he recall a somewhat similar instruction earlier in Christ's ministry (Luke 5:4)? Was there something about this stranger's voice calmness, majesty, certainty, authority which impressed these weary fishermen? At any rate, they immediately obeyed: Then they cast (it), and now they were no longer able to haul it in because of the great number of fishes. Experienced fishermen usually do not permit a perfect stranger to give them directions. Conceivably they might have said, Do (you,standing there upon the shore, a hundred yards away from us, mean to tell uswhere to cast the net? It is surely far easier for usto observe what is happening in the water on both sides of the boat than it is for youto see this from such a distance! Besides, weare fishermen. We know what we are doing. So, stranger, do not give us any unsolicited advice. But they did nothing of the kind. They do not even beginto offer an objection and then change over to the course of obedience. They do not even say, We toiled all night and caught nothing &butat thy word we will lower the netsLuke 5:5). None of this! Instead so deeply impressed were they by the compelling tone of the stranger's voice they obey with soldierly promptness. They cast the net on the right side, and at once it enclosed so many fishes that though these fishermen kept on exerting themselves (note force of the imperfect), they were unable to pull the net up into the boat. It was a miracle. Jesus did not suddenly create all these fishes, but he had seen to it that at the proper moment this shoal was at the right spot to be caught. And the purpose of the miracle was to open the eyes of these men, to make them see that by themselves they could accomplish nothing, and to strengthen their faith in him! 7. Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, It is the Lord. (What we said in connection with 21:3 Peter generally actsbefore John does. John generally understandsbefore Peter does is illustrated also in this case. He who had been the first to grasp the significance of the linen bandages and of the sweat-band (20:8) was also the first to discern that the stranger on the beach was the Lord. He immediately acquainted Peter with his startling discovery. John and Peter are here together again, as so often (see on 1:35–41 where John's presence is implied; 13:23, 24; 18:15, 16; 20:1–10; after 21:2, 7 also verses 20 22 of this chapter; then Acts 3:1 4; 22; 8:14–17; and Gal. 2:9). In the kingdom of God the man of action and the man of vision complement each other. For the meaning of the disciple whom Jesus loved see on 13:23. For the verbloved) see footnote 306. Then Simon when he heard that it was the Lord, belted his fisherman's jacket about him, for he was stripped, and flung himself into the sea.Characteristically Peter acts at once. The idea that he was already wearing his fisherman's jacket and that he now merely fastens a belt around itop. cit.,p. 1381 is in conflict with the clause which follows immediately, namely, forhe was stripped. By putting on his jacket and fastening the belt Peter prepared himself for stepping ashore and meeting his Lord! Before this, in order to facilitate his movements during the busy but fruitless night, he (and perhaps the others also) was working stripped to his undergarment (or perhaps loin-cloth). Impetuously Peter flings himself into the sea, which, however, at this distance from the shore was probably not very deep. He is on his way to welcome his Lord. We do not meet him again until he steps off the beach again and into the boat (21:11). 8. But the other disciples came with the boat for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards away dragging the net full of fish. The other disciples, being less impulsive than Peter, were somewhat slower in arriving, for they had remained in the [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] So by means ofthe boat, which must have landed very soon after Peter stepped on the beach for the distance was only [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] two hundred cubits [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] or a hundred yards they got on land. The net full of fishes had been dragged along behind the boat. 9. Then when they stepped ashore, they saw a charcoal fire all made and a fish lying on it, also a bread-cake. It was a wonderful scene which greeted the eyes of these disciples upon reaching the beach. In sharp contrast with their inability to provide food for themselves there was here a charcoal fire on which the One on the shore had prepared a simple meal of bread and fish ([Greek], here as in 6:9, 11, a relish to go with the bread; see also footnote 296 above). A good argument can be presented for the idea that here in verse 9 we should translate afish and abread-cake instead of the indefinite fish and bread, which rendering it must be admitted is also possible. Verse 13 seems to indicate that there was only onebread-cake (note the definite article) and only onefish. Besides, the striking similarity between 21:13 and 6:11 seems to imply that in both cases we are dealing with a miracle of multiplication. 10. Jesus said to them, Bring some of the fish which you have just caught.Jesus did not mean, Bring some of your fishes because otherwise there will not be enough to eat. On the contrary, he simply wanted them to dispose of the small fry and to save the big fishes, taking those out of the net and feasting their eyes on them, sothat they could meditate on the greatness of the miracle and its spiritual implications. 11. Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.From the edge of the boat Peter loosens the top of the net and through the water he drags it toward the beach, where, in all probability with the help of the others (for it was very heavy; see on verse 6 above), it was lugged ashore. When the large fish were taken out of the net, they were counted. They totaled one hundred [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 ([Greek] Surely, a most remarkable catch! Such a heavy load of fishes might easily have caused the net to tearLuke 5:6), but in the present case the Lord had seen to it that this did not happen. 12. Jesus said to them, Come, have breakfast.From one miracle the account now proceeds to the next one, though in purpose the two are essentially one. As the men were tired and hungry, Jesus now invited them to have breakfast. None of the disciples was venturing(note the force of the imperfect here: they never arrived at the point of doing this) to ask him, Who art thou? for they knew that it was the Lord.They were too filled with reverence in his presence and also too thoroughly convinced in their minds with reference to the identity of the man on the beach to make any attempt by means of questioning to [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] information from him regarding this subject. They knewthat it was the Lord,the risen and glorious Master. 13. Jesus came and took the bread-cake and gave to them, and the fish similarly.The significance of this statement has been suggested above on pp. 480. It is important to bear in mind that what the Lord gives to these men does not come from the fish which theyhad caught! He himself has prepared a breakfast for them, which mysteriously is multiplied sothat the onebread-cake and the onefish (in both cases the original has the definite article) becomes a breakfast for all these men. That it is the intention of the author to convey this fact is easy to see when one compares 6:11 (the miracle of the five bread-cakes and the two fishes) with the present passage (21:13): 1 Jesus, therefore, took the bread-cakes, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them among those who were seated; similarly the fishes as much as they wanted. Jesus came and took the bread-cake and gave to them, and the fish similarly. Much has been written about the fact that here in 21:13 we do not read, And when he had given thanks. But was it necessary for the evangelist to write down everything that transpired? 14. This was now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples after having risen from the dead. For the meaning of the verb (was manifestedsee on 21:1 and also footnote 294. Jesus did not manifest himself to his enemiesActs 10:41), but to his friends. Although the present appearance is mentioned as Number 7 on the list given in connection with verse 1, nevertheless, if we exclude from our count those in which the Lord revealed himself to the women and to individuals, and count only those in which he appeared to the inner circle of his disciples considered as a group (though not necessarily with every member present), we arrive at the conclusion that this was the thirdmanifestation. That John has this in mind is clear from the phrase to the disciples. The first is recorded in 20:19–23; the second in 20:24–29. For Synthesis see on p. 475. 21:15–23 15 Now when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon (son) of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him, Indeed, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. He said to him, Feed my lambs. 16 He said to him again a second time, Simon (son) of John, do you love me? He said to him, Indeed, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. He said to him, Shepherd my sheep. 17 He said to him the third time, Simon, (son) of John, do you have affection for me? Peter was grieved because he said to him this third time, Do you have affection for me? And he said to him, Lord, all things thou knowest, thou dost realize that I do have affection for thee. Jesus said to him, Feed my dear sheep. 18 I most solemnly assure you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and to walk where you wished (to walk); but when you will have become old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and bring you where you do not wish (to go). 19 (This he said to signify by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And having said this to him, he added, Follow me. 20 Peter turned and saw following (them) the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also at the supper had leaned back on his breast and had said, Lord, who is it that is going to betray thee? 21 So when Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, what about him? 22 Jesus said to him, If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] Youfollow me! 23 The word then got out among the brothers that said disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] 24 This is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things and who has written these things, and we know that trueis his testimony. 25 Now there are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the written [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] 21:15. Now when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon (son) of John, do you love me more than these? Breakfast finished, the Lord now turns to Peter in order publicly to re-instate him into his office or at least to make known to the entire Church that he has been forgiven and that he, as well as the others, has been entrusted with the care of the flock of Jesus Christ. The circumstances must have reminded Peter of the scene of his denial. And if the circumstancesas such did not remind him of this, what was about to happen was bound to do so. Note the following resemblances: 1. It was at a charcoal firethat Peter denied his Master (18:18). It is here at another charcoal fire(21:9) that he is asked to confess (his love for) his Master. 2. Three timesPeter had denied his Master (18:17, 25, 27). Three timeshe must now own him as his Lord, whom he loves (21:15–17). 3. The prediction with reference to the denial had been introduced with the solemn double Amen(13:38; see on 1:51). The prediction which immediately followed Peter's confession was introduced similarly (21:18). But it has been [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] that the resemblance is even more pointed. In reverse order the same three ideas 1. following,2. a cross,3. denyingoccur here in 21:15–19 as in 13:36–38. At that other occasion Jesus had said, Where I am going you cannot followme now. With reference to Peter's death on a crossJesus had predicted, But you will follow me afterward. Then the Master had foretold the denial in these words, I most solemnly assure you, the rooster will certainly not crow until you have deniedme three times. Over against 3., the three denials,stand the three affirmations which Jesus requires of Peter in answer to these questions: Do you love me more than these? &Do you love me? &Do you have affection for me? The prediction with reference to 2., Peter's death on a cross,followed a little later in these words, You will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and bring you where you do not wish to go. And as to 1. following,the command, Follow me &youfollow me, occurs toward the close of the story of Peter's re-instatement. Cf. also Mark 8:34for these same three concepts. There is, moreover, another striking trait of resemblance to which the passage now under study (21:15) calls attention. Jesus said to Peter, Simon(the name which this disciple had even before he was found by Jesus; hence, very fitting here, to remind him of his behavior so like a person who does not know Jesus!), son of John, do you love me more than these? The words, than these do not refer to such things as this boat, this net, these fishes, but to these men,standing here (see on 21:2). The question was very appropriate, for Peter had boasted, Even though (allbe ensnared because of thee, yet will I never be ensnaredMatt. 26:33). In thoroughly unjustifiable self-esteem he had placed himself above the others. This trusting in self had brought about his discomfiture. Hence, in the presence of these menhe must now make his confession. He said to him, Indeed, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. In two respects Simon's answer differs from the Lord's question: 1. He no longer compares himself with his fellow-disciples, to their disadvantage. His Indeed has reference to the fact that he feels sure that he has in his heart something similar to that about which Jesus is enquiring; something similar,but not the same;hence, 2. He uses anotherverb, a verb with a slightly different [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] With becoming modesty and pleasing diffidence Peter, humbled by the memory of his fall, refuses to use the higher term for love, the verb which Jesus had used. For the love of intelligence and purpose, the love of wholehearted devotion, about which Jesus was asking, Peter substitutes the more subjective affection. At the same time, instead of boasting, as if he were thoroughly acquainted with the state of his own heart, he casts himself upon (and appeals to) the penetrating knowledge of his Lord. Peter says, Thou knowestthat I have affection for thee. With respect to the knowledge possessed by the Lord see on 2:25; cf. II Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20. Attachment to Jesus is an absolute prerequisite for rendering service in his kingdom. And in tender mercy Jesus is willing to bestow this great privilege upon one who lays claim to nothing better than the humbler (though still very precious) type of love. So He(Jesus) said to him, Feed my lambs.For the meaning of this expression in comparison with the similar commands in verses 16 and 17 see on verse 17. 16. He said to him a second time, Simon, son of John, do you love me?The second question differs from the first. It probes deeper and is more painful. It is as if Jesus were saying, Simon, by your silence with reference to these othersyou have indicated that you no longer believe that you love me more thanthey do. But now, dropping all comparison, do you really love me? Jesus again uses the same verb which hehad used before. He is again asking whether Simon loves him with thorough-going devotion and with his entire person (not only the emotions but also the mind and the will). He said to him, Indeed, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee.Peter gives the same answer as before. He still does not dare to affirm that he possesses the higher kind of love. He said to him, Shepherd my [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] See on verse 17. 17. He said to him the third time, Simon (son of) John, do you have affection for me?This time Jesus descends to Peter's own level, using the very term for lovewhich Peter had used. The Lord seemsto doubt whether Simon really had even such humble affection as he was claiming. Peter was grieved because he said to him this third time, Do you have affection for me? And he said to him, Lord, all things thou knowest, thou dost realize that I do have affection for thee. The fact that Jesus had now asked the question in this formgrieved Peter. This is understandable. Anyone who mentally places himself in a similar situation can enter into this at once. How should Peter not be grieved when Jesus seems to call in question even his subjective attachment, his affectionfor the Lord? Within his heart Peter is convinced that he possesses this humbler love. But he has learned his lesson. He does not dare to appeal to anything within himself. So he appeals once more, and now more emphatically than ever, to his Lord's omniscience. Says he, Lord, all thingsthou knowest. And because Jesus knowsall things, he must be able to realizethat Peter has affection for Jesus. (The first verb is [Greek]; the second is [Greek] see on 1:10, 31; 3:11; 8:28.) Jesus said to him, Feed my dear sheep. Just what does Jesus mean by this threefold charge which he gives to Peter? It is hardly probable that in speaking of lambs(verse 15), sheep(verse 16), and dear sheepdear little sheep;note the diminutive, but this may not have reference to ageor physical size,but may be due to Christ's tender affectionfor his own he had in mind three different groups within the Church; for example, little children, adults, and young people. The notion that Jesus refers to age-groups is no more reasonable than the belief that in the allegory of the Good Shepherd (chapter 10) three different groups of people are indicated by the thieves, the strangers, and the hirelings. Rather, while all three terms refer to the same flock of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, this flock is viewed from three different aspects. Believers and their children are looked upon, first of all, as lambs,for they are weak and immature; hence, in need of the strengthening food of the Word; secondly, as sheep,prone to wander and dependent in everything; hence, in need of being shepherded (see on chapter 10); and finally, as dear sheep,immature and in need of the tender and loving nourishment of the Word. It is as if the Master says to Peter: Simon, you were weak like a lamb, wandering like a sheep, yet, throughout it all, you, like a dear sheep, were the object of my tender and loving solicitude. Now, having profited by your experiences (because of your sincere sorrow), consider the members of my Church to be your lambs, and feed them; your sheep, and shepherd them; yes, your dearsheep, and in feeding them love them! Do not neglect the work among the flock, Simon. That is your real assignment! Go back to it! Thus was Peter fully and publicly restored. With reference to shepherdingthe sheep and all that this implies, see on chapter 10. The metaphorical meaning of feedingespecially, as far as the character of the food is concerned is explained in the following passages: Deut. 8:3; Job 23:12; Ps. 119:103; Is. 55:1, 2; Jer. 3:15; 15:16; John 6:33 35, 51, 58; I Cor. 3:2; 10:3, 4; I Peter 2:2; and Rev. 2:7, 17. 18. I most solemnly assure you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and to walk where you wished (to walk); but when you will have become old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish (to go). For the words of solemn introduction see on 1:51; also above, on 21:15. Note: When you were younger& when you will have become old. This (together with the fact that Peter died during Nero's reign, and was then already old ) seems to indicate that in the year 30 a.d. Peter was middle-aged; older than John but not yet old. Now Jesus says, as it were, In your younger days, whenever you wished to go out, you used to gird yourself(literally, you used to put on your belt, but here probably somewhat broader: You used to get dressed for travel ) and would walk wherever you desired to walk. The implication is that, on the whole, Peter did much as he pleased when he was younger. He did not always do the right thing either. Mercifully Jesus is not saying that this more or less free and undisciplined behavior was still characteristic of the man. We may believe that his experience of recent days had taught him a lesson. This description of Peter's past uninhibited conduct is in sharp contrast with the prediction which immediately follows: But when you will have become old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish (to go). In his old age the moment would arrive when, far from enjoying freedom of movement, Peter would have to raise his arms, sothat a rope could be tied around him (or possibly: sothat he could be fastened to a cross; thus Tertullian). Contrary to the wish of the flesh, he would then be brought to the place of execution. In this connection it is interesting to note that the expression to stretch out the hands is often used by Greek authors and by the early fathers to indicate [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] 19. (This he said to signify by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) The passage clearly indicates that when it was written Peter had already passed from the scene of history. In his death God had been glorified (an expression also used with reference to Christ's own passion and death, 13:31, 32), for in this apostle's willingness to suffer martyrdom for the cause of Christ God's grace was magnified. The mannerof Peter's death is related by the church-fathers, as follows: Eusebius: But Peter seems to have preached in Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia and Cappadocia and Asia, to the Jews of the Dispersion, and at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head downward, for so he himself had asked sufferEcclesiastical HistoryIII, i . Tertullian: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood this rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another when he is made fast to the crossAntidote for the Scorpion's StingXV . Cf. also Origen, Against CelsusII, xlv . And having said this to him, he added, Follow me. (The command, Follow me, was not meant literally, as if from now on Peter were again to accompany Jesus step by step. It must be borne in mind that the Lord's former former visible, day-by-day association with his disciples had ceased. Accordingly, what Jesus meant was, Be my disciple and apostle, and as such follow me in service, in suffering, and in death (by being willing to endure affliction and even martyrdom for my sake.) It was a renewed call to discipleship and to the duties of the apostolic officeMatt. 4:19, 20). 20. Peter turned and saw following (them) the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also at the supper had leaned back on his breast and had said, Lord, who is it that is going to betray thee? Jesus walks away from the group, in order that presently he may vanish as suddenly from view as he had appeared. But as he walks away, Peter seems to have walked along with him. Some surmise that Peter did this because he had taken literally(see on 2:19) what Jesus had intended to be understood metaphorically. Of this we have no definite proof. The suggestion cannot be lightly dismissed, however. The fact that Jesus is going to repeat his command may mean that Peter had failedto comprehend its meaning (see 21:22). Having walked a few steps by the side of Jesus, Peter, turning, notices someone following them. That someone was the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also at the supper had leaned back on his breast and had said, Lord, who is it that is going to betray thee? For this descriptive clause see on 13:23–25, also footnote 306; for the light which this clause sheds on the authorship of this chapter see p. 475. To see John following Peter is not strange. Very often the two are together, as has been indicated (see on 21:7). They were intimate friends. Where the one is, the other also wishes to be. 21. So when Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, what about him?Being an intimate friend of John, Peter naturally is deeply concerned about his colleague's future. A moment ago Jesus had predicted how Peterwas going to glorify God in his death as a martyr. Was Johngoing to accompany him in this experience? Peter wanted to know. But though to us, had we been present, the question might have seemed altogether commendable proof of Peter's friendly interest in his junior partner, the penetrating eyes of the Lord probed deeper into the heart and mind of the oft-faltering disciple. Jesus knew that the sudden turn which Simon had given to the conversation indicated that the command, Follow me, had not registered, at least not sufficiently. Hence, 22. Jesus said to him, If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Youfollow me!By means of these words the Lord impresses upon Peter's mind the fact that curiosityabout John's future must make way for obedienceto the Lord's all-important command, Follow me &Feed my lambs &Shepherd my sheep &Feed my dear sheep. Peter must not be so deeply interested in God's secret counsel(regarding John) that he fails to pay attention to God's revealed will!It is a lesson which every believer in every age should take to heart. There is work to be done. There are souls to be reached. There is a task to be accomplished. Let Peter rivet all his attention upon this! Some people are always asking questions. They are asking so many questions that their real mission in life fails to receive the proper amount of interest and energy. There are times when questions are out of order. It has been well said that a man who has been wounded by a feathered, poisoned arrow should not begin to ask, Of what wood is this arrow made? Of what bird did these feathers come? Is the person who shot it dark or fair, short or tall? Let him dosomething first of all! 23. The word then got out among the brothers that said disciple was not to die. Here we are introduced to the early Christian brotherhood. The term brothersis used here in a sense different from that which it has in 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10 (and even somewhat different from its connotation in 20:17); see on these passages. The members of the early Church are indicated here. They constituted a Christian family, and as such regarded themselves as brothers. Cf. Acts 1:16; 2:29, 37; 6:3; 7:2; 9:30, etc. These brothers misinterpreted the words of Jesus with reference to John. They also placed the emphasis where Jesus had not placed it. In the remark of Jesus to Peter the main thing by far was the positive directive: Youfollow me! The rest was secondary. To be sure, it was a necessary rebuke, but its intention was to turn Peter's mind from his curiosity to his calling. That calling was, after all, the one important issue! By the brethren, however, what had been secondary was made the main thing, and misinterpreted besides! Although verse 23 would still be able to stand even if John had already died, nevertheless, it certainly conveys the most intelligible sense if it be construed as having been written while John was still alive!After John's death the practical necessity for reporting this misunderstanding on the part of the Church with reference to a word of the Master regarding the beloved disciple would probably have vanished. The error would have corrected itself by the very fact of the apostle's departure from this earthly scene. With John still alivethe error must be corrected, in order that believers may again place the emphasis where it belonged, and may not be shocked in their faith when John dies. Hence, we read: Yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?For the meaning of this see on verse 22. Note that the passage just quoted indicates three persons: Jesus &Peter &John; and again, Jesus &John &Jesus &Peter. The question now is, To whom does the word thisin the next clause refer? 24. This is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things and who has written these things.This cannot refer to Jesus, for he was no disciple. It must indicate either Peter or John. But Peter was no longer bearing witness (except indirectly through his epistles and through the testimony of those whom he had taught), as has already become clear, on the basis of 21:18, 19. Neither is it possible to introduce a new personality at this point. The pronoun this clearly refers to someone who has just been mentioned. Only John is left. That person must, therefore, be John. Accordingly, the passage must mean: This disciple (John) is still bearing witnesspresentparticiple is used: [Greek] and, in addition, he is the one who has writtenaoristparticiple is used: [Greek]; the definite article is probably authentic in both cases these things. The two ideas are distinct; hence, not:By means of his Gospel John is still bearing witness, but, This disciple, John, is the one who is still bearing witness orally; andhe recently recorded these things. Verse 25 clearly shows that the expression these things does not refer to the contents of just one chapter. It refers to the very many things which the apostle related in chapters 1 20. Indirectly it refers even to the facts recorded in chapter 21, for this story aboutJohn and Peter and other disciples must have been obtained from(out of the very mouth of) the disciple whom Jesus loved. The manner in which it was finally recorded must have had his full approval. Nevertheless, it is also clear that othershad a hand in writing chapter 21 (whether as a whole or in part), for the next sentence reads: And weknow that true is his testimony. The Fourth Gospel is here called a testimony. It is the official proclamation, by an apostle and eye-witness, of the good news concerning Jesus, the Son of God. See also on 1:7, 8. Now what verse 24 offers is a statement of confidence, a testimonial regarding a testimony. The authors of this testimonial express themselves in very positive language. All the emphasis is on the adjective true. Notice its forward position in the sentence: We know that trueis his testimony. Having known John for a long time, having lived with him from day to day, having heard the story from him and from others, having read about it in the Synoptics, above all: having experienced the testimony of the Holy Spirit in their own hearts with reference to the truthfulness and excellence of the contents of this Gospel, these men write as they do. The persons who present this testimony have not identified themselves by name. In all probability they were the elders of the church at Ephesus (or: the elders of the churchesin Ephesus and surroundings). To be sure, the Fourth Gospel is not in need of this testimonial. It can stand on its own merits. It carries within itself the hallmark of its genuineness. But though this Gospeldoes not need this testimonial, the Cerinthus-circleneeded it! See Vol. I, p. 33. By means of denying Christ's deity it was destroying the significance of his atonement and undermining the faith of the Church. And that Cerinthus-circle is still with us. It has persisted throughout the centuries, appearing now in this form, then in that. It is the duty of the Church to bid defiance to Satan and to testify both officially and unofficially (both as an institution and as an organism). 25. Now there are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the written volumes. For the reason why this passage was added see on 20:30. This closing verse has been called hyperbole(rhetorical overstatement). Its importance has been minimized. It has been characterized as the subjective opinion of one scribe. But in reality what is presented here is a very fitting conclusion. Many, very many facts pertaining to the sojourn of Christ on earth had been recorded in this book. All of them served to strengthen the faith of the Church in the deity and all-sufficiency of Jesus. But, now that the book is finished, no one must begin to think that the story is completein the sense that everything that Jesus did has been recorded. How could it ever be possible for anyone to deposit in writing the full significance of all that Jesus did, enumerating the facts one by one,and bringing out the significance of each word and deed in which his love (and all the other divine virtues) was so gloriously displayed? It is literally true that were one to attempt this he would discover that the world itself could not contain the written volumes, and this for the simple reason that no finite number can ever record the deeds performed by Infinite Love. Pencilled on the wall of a narrow room of an asylum were these familiar words: Could we with ink the ocean fill, And were the skies of parchment made; Were every stalk on earth a quill, And every man a scribe by trade; To write the love of God above Would drain the ocean dry; Nor could the scroll contain the whole, Though stretched from sky to sky. Synthesis of Chapter 21 See the Outline on p. 446. The Son of God Triumphing Gloriously. Resurrection and Appearances. Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias See Preliminary Remarks,II. Purpose(pp. 475, 476), which at the same time gives a Summary or Synthesis of the contents and meaning of this entire chapter. -2 _ftn1 293 Grammatical dissimilarityof sufficient importance to prove difference in authorship has not been shown by anyone, though attempts have been made. The fact, for example, that in the entire chapter the particle [Greek], which abounds in the Fourth Gospel (in chapter 17 it is found no less than 19 times!) does not occur even once means very little. If this point should be pressed, Chapter II would present a real obstacle, for in that chapter the particle in question makes its appearance only a single time! Vocabularyalso does not decide the issue. It leaves room for either theory: a. that the author was John himself; or b. that the author was someone else who stood in very close relation to John. Of the more than fifty different verbs(and verbals) found in verses 1 23 of this twenty-first chapter of John's Gospel a dozen occur nowhere in the first twenty chapters. (However, four of these twelve are found in another work by the same author, the book of Revelation.) The verbs to which we refer are: to fish(verse 3), to be able(verse 6), to ask(verse 12), to have breakfast(verses 12 and 15), to feed(verses 15 and 17), to gird(verse 18), to become old(verse 18), to stretch out(verse 18); also the followingJohn 21and book of Revelation : to drag(verse 8), to venture(verse 12), to shepherd(verse 16), and to turn(verse 20). Also, within this Gospel, of approximately thirty nounsthat occur in 21:1–23 only eight are peculiar to this sectionin the Fourth Gospel ,namely, day-break(verse 4), beach(verse 4), something to eat(verse 5), net(verse 6), fish(verse 6), fisherman's jacket(verse 7), cubit(verse 8: two hundred cubits, which equals a hundred yards), and lamb(verse 15). Naturally, when new subject-matter is introduced (John's one and only fishing-miracle), new words will present themselves. A few others may be expected anyway. And sometimes a word may occur in a new sense; e.g., brothers(21:23). Note also the following resemblancesbetween the contents of chapters 1 20, on the one hand, and 21:1–23, on the other: 1. Chapter 21 begins with the familiar phrase, After these things (see on 5:1). 2. The Sea of Galilee is called the Sea of Tiberias (21:1) just as in 6:1. 3. The three disciples whose names are mentioned in 21:2 have been named before. See footnote 295. However, here for the first time we learn that Nathanael was from Cana in Galilee. 4. There is mention here of the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:7, 20) just as in 13:23; 19:26 (cf. 20:2). 5. There is here the same transition from [Greek] (21:6) to [Greek] (21:8) as in chapter 6 (cf. 6:17–20 with 6:22). 6. The words, Jesus came and took the bread-cake &and the fish similarly (21:13) recall 6:11. 7. Verse 14 This was now the third timethat Jesus manifested himself to his disciples has no meaning aside from 20:19, 26. 8. We meet the familiar double Amenin 21:18. See on 1:51. -2 _ftn2 291 Literally: and you will find. -2 _ftn3 292 Or fish and bread. -2 _ftn4 294 John is fond of this verb to manifest. I count 18 instances of its use in the Fourth Gospel and First Epistleop. cit.,p. 1376 : 1:31; 2:11; 3:21; 7:4; 9:3; 17:6; 21:1 (twice); 21:14; I John 1:2(twice); 2:19; 2:28; 3:2 (twice); 3:5; 3:8; 4:9. These 18 instances may be classified as follows: a. first person singular aorist indicative active: 17:6 (I manifested thy name). b. third person singular aorist indicative active: 2:11 (Jesus manifested his glory); 21:1 (twice: Jesus manifested himself). c. third person singular aorist indicative passive: 21:14 (Jesus was manifested, was made manifest); I John 1:2(twice: the life was manifested); I John 3:2a (it was not yet made manifest what we shall be); I John 3:5(he was manifested to take away sins); I John 3:8(to this end was the Son of God manifested in order that he might destroy the works of the devil); I John 3:8(the love of God was manifested for this purpose, that he might destroy the works of the devil); I John 4:9(in this the love of God was manifested in us that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world). d. second person singular aorist imperative active: 7:4 (make yourself manifest or simply: show yourself to the world). e. third person singular aorist subjunctive passive: 1:31 (but in order that he might be made manifest to Israel); 3:21 (in order that it might become manifest or evident that his deeds were wrought in God); 9:3 (this happened in order that the works of God should be manifested or: displayed in him); I John 2:28(if he shall be manifested &at his coming); I John 3:2b (when he will be manifested, we shall be like him). f. third person plural aorist subjunctive passive: I John 2:19(that they may be made manifest that they all are not of us). Cf. also Rev. 3:18; 15:4. It is clear from this that the verb is used in connection with: a. the display of God's glory in the words and works of Jesus at his firstcoming; b. the same, at his secondcoming; and c. more specifically, in connection with his post-resurrection appearances. It is also employed d. in a more general way, to indicate the coming to light of that which was hidden, the revelation of a person in his true character (whether good or badI John 2:19; 3:2). The attempt (sometimes made) to distinguish between [Greek] and [Greek] in such a manner that [Greek] would mean (public displayto men in general) while [Greek] would indicate (internal disclosurebelievers only) requires considerable modification in the light of the references given above (in which the verb [Greek] is used). In the light of these references we prefer the definition which we have given in this footnote and in the text. -2 _ftn5 295 Allthe othersallexcept Matthew, James the Less, and Simon the Zealot have been introduced before. See our comments on the following passages with references to the disciples whose names are mentioned or implied in the Fourth Gospel: A. Mentioned by name: Simon Peter: 1:40, 41, 42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6, 8, 9, 24, 36, 37; 18:10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27; 20:2, 3, 6; 21:11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21. Andrew: 1:40, 44; 6:8; 12:22. Philip: 1:43, 44, 45, 46; 6:5, 7; 12:21, 22; 14:8, 9. Nathaniel (called Bartholomew in the Synoptics): 1:45, 46, 47, 48, 49; 21:2. Thomas: 11:16; 14:5; 20:24, 26, 27, 28, 29; 21:2. Judas the Greater: 14:22. Judas the Traitor: 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2, 35. B. By Indirect or Veiled Reference: James, the brother of the author: 1:41. John: 1:35, 37, 38, 39; 13:23, 24, 25; 18:15, 16; 19:26, 27; 20:2, 3, 4, 8; 21:7, 20, 23, 24. -2 _ftn6 296 [Greek], a staple article of food of the genus fish,rather than a mere relish with the food. Compare the term used below in verse 9 and also in 6:9; see Vol. I, p. 221. On the two nouns [Greek] and [Greek] see J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, op. cit.,pp. 470 and 551. -2 _ftn7 297 Literally, the little boat, or the small sea-going vessel. However, when a man becomes very familiar with a certain object through constant use, he may refer to it by means of a diminutive, without necessarily stressingits limited size. Cf. Dutch: het bootje. The same boat is meant in verse 8 as in verse 6. See further, p. 474 above. -2 _ftn8 298 Note [Greek], just like in 11:18, where this idiom is explained. -2 _ftn9 299 In creating the human body and its proportions the Lord provided us with a convenient standard for measurement, which was used by the ancients and to a certain extent has remained in use to this very day. The cubit, mentioned here in 21:8, belongs to this system of measurements. Thus we have: a. The thumb, Dutch: duim, the distance across this inner digit being about one inch. b. The (fingeror digit,the distance across being about [Greek] inchJer. 52:21). c. The (four fingers held togetheror handbreadth,a distance of four times [Greek] of an inch, that is, three inchesII Chron. 4:5). d. The (span,the longest possible distance covered by the expandedhand, a distance of three handbreadths; hence, nine inchesEx. 28:16). e. The cubit,the length of the forearm. The word used here in 21:8 originally meant forearm,and acquired the secondary connotation length of the forearm. This equals two spans or eighteen inches ([Greek] yard). f. The (fathom,the length of the outstretchedarms. This equals four cubits or six feet. Both the English and the Greek term ([Greek]) are derived from a root meaning to stretch outActs 27:28). g. The (furlong(furrow-long) Greek [Greek] equals one hundred fathoms or 600 feet or 1/8of a Roman mile.Rev. 14:20; 21:16). It was the length of the Olympic course. Hence, the term means race-coursein I Cor. 9:24. h. The (Sabbath Day's Journeyequals two thousand cubits or one thousand yardsActs 1:12). i. The foot originally indicated the length of the human foot. The present English or American foot (length-measure) is longer than the average foot of the adult male. When no ruler or yardstick is handy, this common length-measure can be approximated by adding a span and a handbreadth. j. The (mileGreek [Greek], from the Latin milia passuum: a thousand paces, the distance covered by taking one thousanddouble stridesMatt. 5:41). As the measurements of the human body are not constant, and also for other reasons, these distances are not exact and allow for variation in different periods of history and in different countries. -2 _ftn10 300 Among the strange and, for the most part, allegorical interpretations of this item of information I have found the following: a. The fish were not counted until the shore had been reached, in order to teach us that the exact number of the elect remains unknown until they have reached the shore of heaven. b. The ancients counted one hundred fifty-three varieties of fish! c. There is here a veiled reference to Matt. 13:47, 48, and an indication that all kinds of people are going to be saved. d. The reference is to an important date in Church History, namely, 153 a.d. e. The total represents the sum of all the numbers from 1 to 17. Well, what of it? f. In Hebrew characters the numerical equivalent of Simon Ionais one hundred fifty-three. g. The number one hundred fifty-three represents 100 for the Gentiles, 50 for the Jews, and 3 for the Trinity. -2 _ftn11 301 (Note the prefix in this verb, similar to the one in our extract, examine. Literally the verb means to ask(in order to find) out;to enquire carefully; cf. the Dutch verb uitvragen. ) -2 _ftn12 302 IIIB1; see Vol. I, p. 44. -2 _ftn13 303 IIIB1; see Vol. I, p. 44. -2 _ftn14 304 IIIB1; see Vol. I, p. 44. -2 _ftn15 305 See John Foster's article, Denying Oneself, ExT, 54 (1943), 331. -2 _ftn16 306 See this footnote at close of this chapter, where it has been placed because of its length. -2 _ftn17 307 The choice between [Greek] and [Greek] in verse 16 is about even. N.N. has [Greek] in the text, but its critical apparatus does not show that it is better attested than [Greek]. Since Jesus changed his question every time, something can be said in favor of the theory that he also changed the form of his command every time, though basicallythe charge to Peter remains the same. -2 _ftn18 308 See J. H. Bernard, op. cit.,pp. 708–710.