The Prologue of the Gospel of John stands in the most intimate connection with the plan and purpose of the Gospel as a whole. It is not to be regarded as a philosophical speculation to which the historical life of the Redeemer shall be afterwards conformed. It contains rather a short summary of that life in the light in which the Evangelist had been divinely taught to regard it, and of the impressions which he had gathered from it as the manifestation, the revelation, of God Himself to men. It is to illustrate and unfold this conception, which is at once metaphysical, theological, and historical, that the fourth Evangelist writes. Hence he begins with a description of what Jesus was in Himself, in the profoundest depths of His being; passing from that to what He ‘became’ in order that in Him men might so behold the glory of the Father as to be transfigured into the same glory, reaching onward to the fulfilment of their own destiny, to be children of God. The Prologue is usually divided into three parts, ending with John 1:5, John 1:13, John 1:18, respectively. Of these divisions, the first brings before us the thought of the Eternal Word,—in Himself (John 1:1), and as the source of created being, of life, of light (John 1:2-5). The subject of the next thirteen verses is the Word as revealed to men, first generally (John 1:6-13), and secondly by the Incarnation (John 1:14-18). These two sections (in accordance with an important principle of structure, characterizing both this Gospel and the Apocalypse), though apparently successive, are really parallel: the thought is thus presented under two aspects, the second fuller and more definite than the first. In the former section we read of the Baptist, sent to bear witness concerning the manifestation of the Word as the Light (John 1:6-8); then of the twofold results of this manifestation, but especially of the blessedness of those who received the Word (John 1:9-13). The next section records the Incarnation of the Word (John 1:14); the testimony borne by the Baptist to the glory of the Incarnate Word (John 1:15); and, as before (but with greater clearness and definiteness, and from the point of view of human experience), the results of this crowning manifestation of the Word. This analysis, whilst showing the general parallelism of the thoughts in the several divisions of the Prologue, shows also that the division as hitherto indicated is insufficient. John 1:14 clearly commences a new section, and yet John 1:15 (relating to the Baptist) immediately recalls the commencement of the former section (John 1:6). If, however, John 1:14 be carefully examined, it will be seen that it stands in a definite relation to the first section, the opening words (‘And the Word became flesh’) being antithetical to John 1:1, and the remainder of the verse (which sets forth generally the manifestation of the Incarnate Word) corresponding to John 1:2-5. Hence the structure of the Prologue as a whole may be presented in the following tabular form:— Section I. The Word. (a) In Himself (John 1:1). (b) In His general manifestations (John 1:2-5). Section II. The Word appearing in the world. (a) The Baptist’s general witness concerning the Word, as the Light (John 1:6-8). (b) The general results of the manifestation of the Word (John 1:9-13). Section III. The Word fully revealed in the Incarnation. A. (1) The Incarnate Word Himself (John 1:14 a: parallel to John 1:1). (2) The Incarnate Word in His general manifestation of Himself (John 1:14 b: parallel to John 1:2-5). B. The Baptist's witness, now definite and personal (John 1:15 : parallel to John 1:6-8). C. The complete results of this manifestation of the Word in the case of all who receive Him (John 1:16-18 : parallel to John 1:9-13). John 1:2. The same was in the Beginning with God. ‘The same’—He who has just been spoken of as God—was in the beginning ‘with God’: i.e., ‘He of whom I have spoken as God, was in the beginning in active, eternal communion with God,—not simply the Word with God, but God with God.’ The elements of the thought have been given in John 1:1, but in their combination they acquire new force. The special object of these words seems to be to prepare for the next verse; it is only when we have been taught concerning ‘God with God’ that we are prepared to hear of the creation of all things ‘through’ the Divine Word. He with whom the Divine Word ‘was in the beginning’ created all through Him. John 1:3. All things came into being through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being. Such a combination of two clauses, the first positive, the second negative (see note on John 1:20), is characteristic of John’s style. The two together assert the truth contained in them with a universality and force not otherwise attainable. This truth is, that ‘all things’—not all as a whole, but all things in the individuality which precedes their combination into a whole—came into being through this Word, who is God. The preposition ‘through’ is that by which the relation of the Second Person of the Trinity to creation is usually expressed (1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2); as, indeed, this is the conception which belongs to the doctrine of the Logos, the Divine Word. Occasionally, however, the same language is used of the Father: see Hebrews 1:10, and comp. Romans 11:36. John 1:3-4. That which hath come into being was life in him. We are led by various considerations to take this view of the passage rather than that which is presented in the Authorised Version. The Greek admits of either punctuation (and rendering), but the absence of the article before the word ‘life’ suggests that it is here a predicate, not the subject of the sentence. By almost all (if not all) the Greek Fathers of the first three centuries the words were thus understood; and we may reasonably, in such a case as this, attach great importance to the conclusions attained by that linguistic tact which is often most sure where it is least able to assign distinct reasons for its verdict. Further, this division of the words corresponds best with the rhythmical mode in which the earlier sentences of the Prologue are connected with one another. It is characteristic of them to make the voice dwell mainly, in each line of the rhythm, upon a word taken from the preceding line; and this characteristic is not preserved in the case before us unless we adhere to the ancient construction. We have seen what the Word is in Himself; we are now to see Him in His relation to His creatures. Created being was ‘life in Him.’ He was life, life absolutely, and therefore the life that can communicate itself,—the infinitely productive life, from whom alone came to every creature, as He called it into being, the measure of life that it possesses. In Him was the fountain of all life; and every form of life, known or unknown, was only a drop of water from the stream which, gathered up in Him before, flowed forth at His creative word to people the universe of being with the endlessly multiplied and diversified existences that play their part in it. It is not of the life of man only that John speaks, still less is it only of that spiritual and eternal life which constitutes man’s true being. If the word ‘life’ is often used in this more limited sense in the Gospel, it is because other kinds and developments of life pass out of view in the presence of that life on which the writer especially loves to dwell. The word itself has no such limitation of meaning, and when used, as here, without anything to suggest limitation, it must be taken in its most comprehensive sense. It was in the Word, then, that all things that have life lived; the very physical world, if we can say of its movements that they are life, the vegetable world, the world of the lower animals, the world of men and angels, up to the highest angel that is before the throne. Ere yet they came into being, their life was in the Word who, as God, was life, and from the Word they received it when their actual being began. The lesson is the same as that of Col 1:16-17, ‘In Him were all things created,’ and ‘in Him all things subsist;’ or, still more, of Revelation 4:11, ‘Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy pleasure they were’ (not ‘are,’ as in the Authorised Version), ‘and they were created.’ And the life was the light of men. From the wide thought of all created existences, the Evangelist passes in these words to the last and greatest of the works of God, man, whose creation is recorded in the first chapter of Genesis. All creatures had ‘life’ in the Word; but this life was to man something more than it could be to others, because he had been created after a fashion, and placed in a sphere, peculiar to himself amidst the different orders of animated being. God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Genesis 1:26). Man was thus capable of receiving God, and of knowing that he had received Him; he had a sphere and a capacity belonging to none of the lower creatures spoken of in the great record of creation; his nature was fitted to be the conscious abode, not of the human only, but of the divine. Hence the Word could be in him as in no other creature. But the Word is God (John 1:1), and ‘God is light’ (1 John 1:5). Thus the Word is ‘light’ (comp. John 1:7); and as man was essentially fitted to receive the Word, that Word giving life to all found in him a fitness for the highest and fullest life,—for ‘light,’ therefore, in its highest and fullest sense; and ‘the life was the light of men.’ The idea of human nature thus set forth in these words is peculiarly remarkable, and worthy of our observation, not only as a complete answer to those who bring a charge of Manichæan dualism against the Fourth Gospel, but also to enable us to comprehend its teaching as to human responsibility in the presence of Jesus. ‘The life, it is said,’ was the light of men not of a class, not of some, but of all the members of the human family as such. Man’s true nature, it is said, is divine; divine in this respect also, as distinguished from the divine in all creation, that man is capable of recognising, acknowledging, seeing the divine in himself. The ‘life’ becomes ‘light’ in him, and it does not become so in lower creatures. Man’s true life is the life of the Word; it was so originally, and he knew it to be so. If, therefore, he listens to the tempter and yields to sin (whose existence is admitted simply as a fact, no attempt being made to account for it), man corrupts his true nature, and is responsible for doing so. But his fall cannot destroy his nature, which still testifies to what his first condition was, to what his normal condition is, to what he ought to be. Man, therefore, only fulfils his original nature by again receiving that Word who is to offer Himself to him as the ‘Word become flesh.’ But if man’s receiving of the Word be thus the fulfilling of his nature, it is his duty to receive Him; and this duty is impressed upon him by his nature, not by mere external authority. Hence the constant appeal of Jesus in this Gospel, not to external evidence only, but to that remaining life of the Word within us, which ought to receive the Word completely, and to hasten to the Light (comp. John 1:9). John 1:5. And the light shineth in the darkness. The darkness here spoken of is not an original darkness coexistent with created being (John 1:3). It belongs to the development of thought begun at John 1:4, and is coexistent only with the moral process of rejecting the Word, implied, though not expressly stated, in that verse. The Word through whom all come into being offers Himself at the same time to all as their light. Let them acknowledge and accept Him, they have life (chap. John 8:12); let them reject Him, they are in a darkness for which they are responsible, because they have chosen it. It is a fact, however, that many always did, and still do, reject the light; and thus the darkness has been and is a positively existing thing. Yet the Light has not forsaken the world. No merely present point of time is indicated; in that case John could not have immediately added the past tense, overcame. The idea is general. The Light, as it had existed, had shone; as it exists, it shines, always seeking to draw men into the full brightness of its beams. And the darkness overcame it not. Such is the most probable meaning of these words, and so were they understood by the most ancient Christian writers. The verb which we have rendered ‘overcame’ occurs not unfrequently in the New Testament; but (when used, as here, in the active voice) it has not, and cannot have, the meaning comprehend (i.e. understand), which is given to it in the Authorised Version. The most important guide to the meaning is chap. John 12:35, where the same word is used, and where also the metaphor is similar: ‘Walk . . . lest darkness overtake you,’—come over you, seize you. In the verse before us we read of light shining in the darkness; the darkness, ever antagonistic to the light, yet does not overtake or come over the light. The idea of seizing, in connection with this figure, is equivalent to overcoming or intercepting the light. Even if ‘comprehend’ were possible as a translation, it would be nothing to tell us that the darkness did not comprehend the light. That is implied in the fact that the darkness is self-chosen (comp. on John 1:4). But it is much to tell us that, in the conflict between the darkness and the light, the darkness failed to overcome (or eclipse) the light. The light, though sometimes apparently overcome, was really victorious; it withstood every assault, and shone on triumphantly in a darkened world. So far, therefore, from our finding here a ‘wail’ (as some have said), we have a note of exultation, a token of that victory which throughout the whole Gospel rises to our view through sorrow. We thus close what is obviously the first paragraph of the Gospel; and although it relates to the Pre-incarnate Word, and expresses the principles of His dealings in their most general form, the development of thought is precisely the same as that which the history of the Incarnate Word will be found to present. Through the Word all things have come into being. To all He offers Himself, that He may make them not only exist in Him, but, in the free appropriation of what He offers, live in Him. Some receive Him, and He becomes their light; others reject Him, and are immersed in the darkness which they choose. The darkness opposes and seeks to destroy the light, but the light shines on to victory. John 1:6. There arose a man, sent from God, whose name was John. With this verse we pass forward into the times of the Incarnate Word. The section upon which we first enter is, as compared with the second, general; hence the Incarnation is only implied, not expressly mentioned. The immediate preparation for this new period is the testimony of the Baptist; and the words with which he is introduced to us stand in striking contrast to what we have been told of the Word in John 1:1. He ‘arose,’—literally, he ‘came into being,’ as distinguished from the ‘was’ of that verse. He was a man ‘sent from God,’ as distinguished from the Word who was ‘with God. ‘In adding,’ his name was John, the Evangelist (we may perhaps say) does more than identify him as the great prophet who had so powerfully impressed all classes of the people. If we remember the deep significance attached to ‘name’ in this Gospel, it will seem possible that the antithesis to John 1:1 is still continued. The personal name needed for identification amongst men is placed in contrast with that name by which the eternal attributes of the Son are expressed, ‘the Word’ (comp. John 1:12). John 1:7. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness concerning the Light, that all might believe through him. The impression produced by the Baptist had been great, but he had come to bear witness to One higher than himself. Here we meet for the first time with this word ‘witness,’ one of the characteristic words of the writings of John, occurring in various forms nearly fifty times in his Gospel, and thirty or forty times in his Epistles and the Apocalypse. The importance of the thought lies in its simplicity. The true witness declares what he has seen and heard (1 John 1:2-3); his testimony reflects ‘the truth’ so far as he has received it, just as the faithful mirror reflects the light that has come upon it. John came to bear such witness concerning the Light, that through him all might be led to ‘believe’—trustfully to accept that Light, and yield themselves up to its influence. The introduction of the word ‘all’ is very remarkable. More clearly than any other passage this verse teaches us how great were the results which the Baptist’s mission was intended to produce, immeasurably greater than those which were actually realised. Had Israel been faithfully and obediently waiting for the fulfilment of the divine promise, John’s witness respecting Jesus would have turned ‘all’ Israel (and, through Israel, ‘all’ men) to the Saviour. In immediate effects the work of John, like that of One higher than John, would be pronounced by men a failure. In the light of this verse we can better understand such passages as Malachi 4; Matthew 11:9-14; Luke 7:29-30. John 1:8. He was not the Light, but he was that he might bear witness concerning the Light. The thought of the greatness of the witness borne by John underlies the words of this verse. Great as the Baptist was, he was not the Light. What he was is not expressed, but only the purpose which he was to fulfil (comp. John 1:23). It is very possible that the words may have had a special application to the opinions which (as we learn from Acts 18:25; Acts 19:3) existed at Ephesus with regard to the mission of John. John 1:9. There was the true Light, which lighteth every man, coming into the world. This almost literal rendering of the Greek will show how it is that these simple words have been so variously explained. As in the English, so in the Greek, the word ‘coming’ might be joined either with 'light’ or with 'man.’ The punctuation we have adopted (it will be remembered that in ancient manuscripts of the original there is little or no punctuation) will show that, in our view, the last clause is to be joined, not with the second, but with the first clause of the verse. What has been said above of the general structure of the Prologue has shown that, as yet, the full presence of the Word personally come is not before us. The manifestation is in its initial stage, not yet complete. To this thought the word ‘coming’ exactly corresponds. But still more important in guiding to the right interpretation of the verse is the Evangelist’s use of the last phrase elsewhere. The expression ‘come into the world’ occurs in as many as seven other passages of this Gospel (chap. John 1:19, John 6:14, John 9:39, John 11:27, John 12:46, John 16:28, John 18:37). In every one of these passages the words relate to the Lord Himself: sometimes they are used by the multitude (John 6:14), or by a disciple (John 11:27), as a designation of the Messiah, ‘He that should come;’ sometimes they are the words of Jesus or of the Evangelist, in passages which speak of the purpose of His ‘coming.’ In chaps, John 3:19 and John 12:46 the phrase stands in close connection with the figure which is now before us. The latter verse (chap. John 12:46) is especially noteworthy; for Jesus Himself says, ‘I am come a light into the world.’ If, then, we would allow the Evangelist to be his own interpreter, we seem bound to believe that he here speaks of the light as ‘coming into the world.’ If the words are joined with ‘man,’ they add little or nothing to the thought. ‘Every man’ is really as full and inclusive an expression as ‘every man that cometh into the world.’ Familiarity with the common rendering may prevent the reader from at once perceiving that this is true; but we are persuaded that reflection will show that by the change much is gained, nothing lost. In the previous verse we have read that John was not ‘the Light.’ When he ‘arose’ as a witness, the true Light was in existence; it had been shining in the darkness; it was now ‘coming into the world,’—about to manifest itself with a clearness and in a manner hitherto unknown. Two more of the special terms of the Gospel meet us here, ‘true’ and ‘world.’ It is unfortunate that two different words must be represented by the same English word, ‘true.’ The one (used in chaps, John 3:33, John 5:31, and eleven other verses of the Gospel) denotes truth in contrast with falsehood; the other, which we have before us here, expresses the real as contrasted with the phenomenal, that which is perfect and substantial as opposed to what is imperfect and shadowy, or that which is fully accomplished in contrast with the type which prefigured it. This word is, in the New Testament, almost confined to the writings of John. Of twenty-eight passages in which it occurs, nine are found in this Gospel, four in the First Epistle, ten in the Revelation. Three of the remaining five passages are (as might almost have been foreseen) in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The other examples of the word in this Gospel will be found in chaps, John 4:23; John 4:37, John 5:32, John 7:28, John 8:16, John 15:1, John 17:3, John 19:35, and in most of these the reader will easily trace the idea. The ‘true worshippers’ are those whose worship is real, not imperfect and undeserving of the name; the bread which came down from heaven is ‘the true bread,’ that of which the manna was a type, that which ministers real and abiding nourishment. So here we read of the archetypal source of light, the light which alone is real and perfect.—This true Light was coming into the ‘world.’ Originally signifying the universe created and ordered by the hand of God, ‘the world’ came successively to mean the world of men, and the world of men as opposed to God. In this Gospel especially, we read of the world as an antagonistic power, unbelieving, evil in its works, hating and persecuting Jesus and His people,—a power over which He will be victorious, and which shall be convicted of sin and judged; but we also read of God’s love to the world (chap. John 3:16), and of the gift of His Son that the world may be saved through Him. If the thought of evil and alienation is brought out in the following verse, it is most important to observe that this verse speaks of the illumination of every man. No man belongs to the world that is given up to darkness and impenitence, unless he, through resistance and choice of evil, have made the light that was in him to become darkness (comp. Ephesians 4:18).—We cannot doubt that in the words ‘every man’ there is an allusion to John (‘a man sent from God’) as himself illumined by this Light. John 1:10. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, and the world knew him not. The subject is still the Light, which (John 1:9) was existent, and was ‘coming into the world.’ In the world, indeed, it was already (though the complete manifestation was yet to come), and—here the figure passes imperceptibly away, giving place to the thought of the Person—the world, though brought into being through Him, recognised not His presence. Note the simplicity of John’s style, in which the three thoughts of the verse, though very various in their mutual relations, are, so to speak, placed side by side. These words relate both to the Pre-incarnate and to the Incarnate Word. The development is rather of thought than of time. Alike before His manifestation in the flesh and after it, the Word was ‘in the world.’ The statement must not be limited to the manifestation of Christ in Israel. This verse is a repetition, in a more concrete form, of John 1:3-5 (in part). John 1:11. He came unto his own home, and his own accepted him not. Is this verse practically a repetition of Joh 1:10, in language more solemn and emphatic? Or do we here pass from the thought of the world in general to that of the Jewish people. The question is one of some difficulty. As John 1:12 is certainly quite general in its meaning, it may seem hazardous to introduce a limitation here. But the weight of argument seems on the whole to be on the other side. There is a manifest advance of thought as we pass from the last verse to this. Instead of ‘He was in,’ we find ‘He came unto;’ for ‘the world,’ we have ‘His own home;’ for ‘knew’ (perceived or recognised), we have ‘accepted.’ Every change seems to point to a more intimate relationship, a clearer manifestation, and a rejection that is still more without excuse. The Word, who was in the world (comp. Proverbs 8:31), had His home with the chosen people (Exodus 19:5; Psalms 76:2), to which had been given the revelation of the truth of God (Romans 9:4). It is still mainly of the Pre-incarnate Word that John speaks. In the whole history of Israel had been illustrated unfaithfulness to the truth (comp. Luke 11:49-50; Acts 7:51-53); and the tender pathos of this verse recalls the words in which Jesus speaks of the rejection of Himself (Matthew 23:37). John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he right to become children of God, even to them that believe in his name. We have beheld the light shining in the darkness (John 1:10-11); the thought of this verse is, that the darkness overcame it not! As we have already seen (see note on John 1:11), the language again becomes altogether general. Whosoever ' received Him,’ to whatever period of time or nation they might belong, won the gift here spoken of. There is a perceptible difference between ‘accepted’ (John 1:11 and ‘received,’ as here used. Whilst the former lays emphasis on the will that consented (or refused) to receive, the latter brings before us the possession gained; so that the full meaning is, As many as by accepting Him received Him. The gift is not directly stated as ‘sonship,’ perhaps because the full manifestation of this blessing belongs to the latter days alone (comp. on chaps, John 3:5, John 7:39; Romans 8:15), whereas the Evangelist would here include the time of incomplete revelation which came before the Incarnation. Then, as now, men accepted or refused Him; but for those who accepted was reserved ‘some better thing’ (Hebrews 11:40) than had yet been clearly made known to man.—We must not fail to note (for in these wonderful verses everything is significant) that there is special fitness in the expression ‘children’ rather than ‘sons of God;’ for, whereas ‘sonship’ is often spoken of in connection with mere adoption, stress is here laid on an actual (though spiritual) paternity. The right or authority thus to become children of God is given by the Word ‘to them that believe in His name.’ It is very important to discriminate between the different phrases which John uses in relation to belief or faith. On the one hand we have the simple expression ‘to believe Him’ (as in chaps, John 8:31, John 5:38, etc.), usually denoting the acceptance of something said as true. On the other hand, we find very frequently in the New Testament, but especially in the writings of John, a remarkable combination of ‘believe’ with a preposition literally meaning ‘into,’ by which is denoted not merely an acceptance of words or professions, but such an acceptance of the Person trusted, such an approach of the heart towards Him, as leads to union with Him. This peculiarly Christian formula is by some rendered ‘believe in,’ by others ‘believe on.’ Both renderings are found in the Authorised Version. We have uniformly adopted the former, because it most clearly indicates the union towards which the faith tends.—There are a few passages (see the marginal references) in which, as here, this phrase ‘believe in’ is followed by ‘the name.’ We have already-seen with what fulness of meaning John uses the word ‘name.’ As in many passages of the Old Testament, the ‘name’ expresses the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person (comp. Exodus 34:5-6). It is hard to fix the precise distinction between ‘believing in Him’ and ‘believing in His name.’ Perhaps we may say that, in the former case, the believer trustfully yields himself up to the Person, in the latter, to the revelation of the Person. Those who in chap. John 2:23 are spoken of as believing ‘in the name’ of Jesus, had not reached the personal union which believing in Jesus implies; but through their trustful acceptance of His revelation of Himself, the higher gift, the closer knowledge, might soon be gained. Here the ‘name’ cannot but recall John 1:1 : the ‘name’ Word expressed the nature of the Person (comp. John 1:6). John 1:13. Which were begotten, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The spiritual history of those who are spoken of in John 1:12 is here continued, and the nature of their sonship more fully defined. It is easy to see that in the three clauses there is a distinct progress of thought, the second (containing the thought of ‘will’) being more definite than the first, the third (in which ‘man’ is substituted for ‘flesh,’—a person for human nature in general) being again more definite than the second. The three clauses, however, really express but one main idea; what that is must be learnt from the contrast in the closing words,—‘but (they were begotten) of God.’ These believers have received the right to become ‘children of God’ by virtue of a true spiritual filiation, being begotten of God. The contrast to such a sonship is the very claim which is so strongly made by the Jews in chap. 8, and the validity of which our Lord altogether denies. The recollection of that chapter, which only brings into bold relief the habitual assumption of the Judaism of that day, will be sufficient to explain the remarkable emphasis of this verse, the threefold denial that men become children of God by virtue of any natural hereditary descent.—Although it is the claim of the Jews that is here in the writer’s thought, yet, as often elsewhere, the Jews are the type of the world at large; by others besides Jews like presumptuous claims have been made, others have rested in the ‘divinity’ of their race. It is very possible that the peculiarity of the first clause (literally ‘not of bloods’) may be thus explained. John 1:14. And the Word became flesh. With this verse we enter upon the fuller and more concrete aspect of the Word appearing among men. As personally come in the flesh, however, the Word contrasts with what He was in His preexistent state; and hence, before we have the Baptist introduced to us, we have statements exactly parallel to those of Joh 1:1-5. That now before us corresponds to John 1:1, for the Incarnate Word in Himself is here spoken of. He who was in the beginning, who was with God, who was God, ‘became flesh;’ did not merely take to Him a human body, did not merely become an individual man, but assumed human nature in its entireness (see chaps, John 12:27, ‘soul;’ John 13:21, ‘spirit’), identified Himself with the race, entered into such a condition that He could have perfect communion and fellowship with us, and we with Him. The word ‘became’ does not denote that His divine nature was laid aside, and that His mode of being was simply human until, in the accomplishment of His work, He gradually transformed His human mode of being and regained for it all the glory of the divine. Were such a view correct, it would follow that when the divine was regained the human was laid aside, and that the humanity of the exalted Redeemer is not now as real as it was during His earthly course. No such thought is suggested by ‘became,’ for this word does not imply that the former state of being exists no longer. What is really indicated is the passing into a new state,—a transition rather than a transformation. The Word remains, with all His essential properties; there is added a new mode of being, the assumption of a new nature, denoted by ‘flesh.’ The most important parallels to this verse are 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7; these passages differ from the present in that the historical name ‘Jesus Christ’ is substituted for the Word, and that for the mysterious words ‘became flesh’ we read ‘hath come’ (or ‘cometh’) ‘in flesh.’ And he set his tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory (glory as of an only begotten from a father),—full of grace and truth. As the first clause of this verse corresponded to John 1:1, so these clauses correspond to John 1:2-5; only that, whereas there we had those properties of the Word in virtue of which He gives life and light in their most general form to all, here we have those in virtue of which, as the now completed revelation of the Father, He carries this life and light onward to perfection in such as truly receive Him. Still, however, it is the glory of the Word in Himself that is before us; if men are introduced in the words which follow as beholders of His glory, it is that our thought may rest, not on the blessing man thus receives (that is expressed below, John 1:16-18), but on the witness borne to the glory of the Incarnate Word. The figure of this verse is taken from the Old Testament (Leviticus 26:11; Ezekiel 37:27, etc.); the Tabernacle was the meeting-place of God and Israel, the house in which Jehovah dwelt in the midst of his people. With the image of a tent or tabernacle is often associated the thought of transitoriness; but that the word used here does not necessarily carry with it this thought is sufficiently proved by the language of the final promise, ‘The tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall set His tabernacle with them: (Revelation 21:3). As the Shechinah dwelt in the Tabernacle, in the midst of the camp of Israel, so ‘the Word become flesh’ dwelt ‘among us.’ Some have taken the last words to mean ‘in us,’ and to contain a new reference to the assumption of human nature; but this view seems plainly inconsistent with the words which follow, ‘we beheld His glory,’ the meaning of which is fixed by the opening passage in the First Epistle (1 John 1:1-3). The glory was like that of an only son sent from a father; no image but this, it has been well said, ‘can express the twofold character of the glory, as at once derivative and on a level with its source.’ In the only son are concentrated all the characteristics of the father; on him all the father’s love is poured; to him belongs the whole inheritance; on him the father, when he sends him forth on an embassy, bestows all the plenitude of his power. The translation we have given is, we believe, that which the Greek words absolutely demand; it appears to us, moreover, to be the only rendering that gives meaning to the word of comparison ‘as,’ or preserves the progress of the Evangelist's thought. As yet there has been no word bringing in the thought of Divine Sonship. The attributes and working of the Divine Word have been continually before us; here the glory of the Word become flesh is compared with that of an only son sent from a father; but it is not until John 1:18 that these elements are combined into one supreme utterance of truth. The last words of the verse must be connected with the subject of the sentence: ‘He (the Word) set His tabernacle among us, full of grace and truth.’ They go far towards explaining the ‘glory’ which the disciples ‘beheld.’ That the Word has been from the beginning of the world’s history the bestower of ‘grace and truth,’ is implied in the imagery of the earlier verses (John 1:4; John 1:9); that which has been involved in the teaching respecting the Pre-incarnate Word is clearly stated here of the Word become flesh. But this fulness of grace and truth does not exhaust the meaning of the ‘glory.’ In the glory of the Incarnate Word there are two elements, as His one Person unites two natures: in part the glory is unique (in kind and not only in degree), belonging to the God-man and not to the perfect Man; in part it is communicable to men, as Jesus Himself says, ‘The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them.’ John 1:15. John beareth witness concerning him, and hath cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me has become before me, because he was before me. We have seen that John 1:14 is parallel to John 1:1-5. In like manner this verse is parallel to John 1:6-8; but it is also an advance upon those verses, containing the Baptist’s witness to the Personal Word become flesh, not to the Word as the general Light of men.—‘Beareth witness,’—not ‘bare witness’ (John 1:32). It is as if the Evangelist would say, Of this John is the witness; his testimony abides, unchanging, always present. The same thought comes out more distinctly still in the verb which follows, ‘hath cried.’ (The usual translation ‘crieth’ seems on various grounds less probable.) The loud cry of the faithful witness has come down through all the years; we seem to hear its echoes still. The Baptist clearly refers to witness which he had borne after Jesus appeared; hence the words, ‘This was he.’—It is unusually difficult to find a rendering that will fully convey the meaning of this verse. As the word ‘before’ occurs in two members of the verse, the English reader inevitably considers the contrast to be between ‘is preferred’ (or ‘is become’) and ‘he was.’ In reality, ‘before’ here answers to two different words. A literal translation will show at once the meaning and the difficulty of finding an easy expression of the meaning: ‘He that cometh behind me has become in front of me, because He was before me.’ Jesus came ‘after’ or ‘behind’ John, as coming later in His manifestation to the world. As the later in time, it might have been expected that He would take rank alter him who was His predecessor; but He has been advanced before John; the reason of this is given in John’s declaration, ‘He was before me.’ That which these words directly affirm is priority of time; but, as in respect of human birth this could not be affirmed of Jesus, the words bring into view a preexistence so transcendent as of itself to assert an infinite superiority to every other man. This anterior dignity explains why He that followed John has come to be before him. The herald came first, to prepare the way for the King; when the King arrives, the herald retires from view.—The last words of the verse require further notice. They are not fully represented by ‘before me,’ as if they contained nothing beyond a comparison of Jesus with the Baptist. The former word is absolute, ‘He was first;’ the other word is added because a comparison is needed, ‘first in regard of me.’ We might almost paraphrase the very remarkable combination thus: First, and (by consequence) before me. John 1:16. Because out of his fullness we all received, and grace for grace. In order to understand this verse, and especially the very difficult word ‘because,’ with which the true reading of the verse begins, we must look at the structure of the whole passage. Along with John 1:17-18, this verse is parallel to John 1:9-13; and John 1:14, as we have seen, answers to John 1:1-5. The last verse in like manner stands related to John 1:6-8; and, as these verses are introduced between John 1:5 and John 1:9,—which might be read continuously, the subject remaining the same,—so is John 1:15 almost parenthetical, bringing in (as in the earlier verses) the witness of John before the statement of the results following the manifestation of the Word. The words ‘we all received’ and ‘His fulness’ are sufficient to show that the verse is a continuation of the thought of Joh 1:14, and belongs to the Evangelist, not to the Baptist. If, then, John 1:15 is parenthetical, the present verse is naturally introduced by the word ‘because.’ We have here an illustration of the extreme importance which John attaches to Christian experience. In John 1:9 we have had the fact of what the Word bestows. Here we have more. We have the answer of Christian experience to the fact. We have not merely the light lightening, but the light appropriated, its value appreciated, its power felt. John 1:14 had not described Christian experience. The word ‘beheld’ there used had only assumed it (see the comment), and had mentioned the witness which it gave. Now we have the description itself: hence the ‘because.’ We beheld the glory of the Word become flesh, and are able to speak of that glory, ‘because out of His fulness,’ etc. The last stage of the Prologue is thus reached, because the highest point of thought is attained. No more can be said when the appropriation of the Word is complete. The fulness spoken of is that of grace and truth, which so reside in the Incarnate Word that nothing more can be added. It is an absolute, not a comparative fulness,—a proof again that no part of that fulness is to be won back in the progress of the Messianic work. That fulness resides in the ‘Word become flesh,’ as such. ‘Out of’ it ‘we all’—believers, who beheld His glory, among whom He set His tabernacle—received. The thing is past. We received Him (John 1:12). When we received Him, He communicated Himself to us. His fulness, so far as we could receive it, was made ours. Hence it is not said what we received; because it was not a gift bestowed by His fulness, but the measure of that fulness itself which we were capable of receiving. We are thus led also to the clear meaning of the last clause of the verse, ‘and grace for grace.’ Not exactly ‘grace upon grace,’ as if the meaning were successive measures of grace, one added to another; but grace given in fresh measure as each preceding measure has been improved, the ‘fulness’ constantly more and more made ours until we ‘are fulfilled unto all the fulness of God’ (Ephesians 3:19). It is Christian experience again. John 1:17. Because the law was given through Moses: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. It is very possible that this verse should be taken as directly parallel to John 1:11; hence the definite reference to the pre-Christian revelation here (see note on John 1:11). The thought of Christian experience again explains the connection of this verse with the preceding. The law is not undervalued. It was divine. It was a gift of God. It was a gift through the great Lawgiver of whom Israel was proud. But it was a fixed unalterable thing, with definite boundaries, not stretching out into the illimitable and eternal. It could not express unbounded grace and truth, unbounded love, because in its very nature law has limits which it cannot pass. Now, however, there has ‘come’ (a far higher word than ‘was given’) a fulness of grace and truth, within which we stand, and which we are to appropriate more and more,—vast, illimitable, as is that God who is love. Hence, therefore, the experience of Joh 1:16 is possible.—It will be noted that the two thoughts of this verse are placed side by side (see John 1:10), though in reality the first is subordinate to the second. And now comes in the great Name as yet unnamed, but named now in all the universality of its application, the Name which embraces historical Christianity in its whole extent as the religion both of Jew and Gentile, the religion of man,—the name which, in its one half (‘Jesus,’ Joshua, Jehoshua, ‘Jehovah is Salvation’) expresses the purpose of all God’s dealings with man, and in its other half (‘Christ’) the Divine consecration of the Redeemer to His work.—The verbs of this verse are used with great propriety,—‘was given’ of what was incidental in origin and temporary induration; ‘came’(literally, ‘became’)of what, though revealed in time, was an eternal reality. One reflection alone remains, and then the Prologue may close. John 1:18. No one hath seen God at any time; One who is only begotten God, he that is in the bosom of the Father, he declared him. It is not possible in a commentary such as this to defend the reading which we here adopt, ‘God’ instead of ‘Son.’ But the passage is so extremely important that we may be permitted for once to depart from our usual practice of not referring to other writers, and to commend to our readers one of the finest critical Dissertations ever published in any language upon a reading of the New Testament. We refer to that by Dr. Hort of Cambridge upon this text (Macmillan, 1876). We add only that by thus reading we preserve an important characteristic of the structural principles of our Evangelist, that which leads him at the close of a section or a period to return to its beginning. The word ‘God’ here corresponds to ‘God’ in John 1:1. ‘No one hath seen God at any time.’ The contrast is to ‘we beheld’ in John 1:14, and the words describe God in His nature as God; He dwelleth in light that is inaccessible. The soul longs to see Him, but this cannot be. Is then its longing vain, its cry unheard? The Evangelist answers, No. One has ‘declared’ Him, has, as the Word, unfolded and explained Him. And the glorious fitness of the Word to do this is pointed out in three particulars, all showing how fitly He could do that which none other could do. (1) He is ‘only begotten,’ Son among all other sons in His own peculiar sense, who is fully able to represent the Father, to whom all the perfections of the Father flow. (2) He is God—not only Son, but, as Son, God,—Himself divine, not in a metaphorical sense, but possessing all the attributes of true and real divinity. (3) It is He who ‘is in the bosom of the Father.’ The climax of thought, and the consideration that here are mentioned the conditions which make it possible for Jesus to be the complete Interpreter of the Father, preclude our taking these words as referring to the state which succeeded the resurrection and ascension,—in the sense, ‘He that hath returned to the bosom of the Father.’ He of whom the Evangelist speaks is more than ‘only begotten,’ more than ‘God.’ He is ‘in the bosom of the Father.’ In Him God is revealed as a Father; without Him He can be revealed only as God. The words thus include more than ‘with God’ in John 1:1, more than the Divine self communion, the communion of God with God. The fatherly element, the element of love, is here. Out of that element of love, or of grace and truth, the Son comes; into it He returns. It is of the very essence of His being so to do. He did so from eternity. He did so in time. He shall do it in the eternity to come. Not less does it belong to the profoundest depths of His nature to do so, than to be ‘only begotten,’ to be ‘God.’ Therefore is He fully qualified to declare the Father, whom to know as thus made known in Jesus Christ (John 1:17) is that ‘eternal life’ after which the heart of man feels, and in the possession of which alone is it completely blessed (comp. John 17:3, John 20:31). One remark has still to be made upon a point which may seem at first sight to interfere with the correctness of that view of the structure of the Prologue which (as we have seen) is not only a matter of interest, but also a guide in the interpretation. There is no mention of the rejection of the Word in John 1:14-18. But this fact when rightly considered rather confirms what has been said. It illustrates that progress which in this Gospel always accompanies parallelism. In John 1:1-5, the first section of the Prologue, we have seen that rejection is implied. In John 1:6-13, the second section, it is fully brought out. In John 1:14-18, the third section, it is overcome. Thus also, taking the Gospel as a whole, it is implied in the section immediately preceding the Conflict (chaps, John 2:12 to John 4:54). It is fully brought out in the section of Conflict (chaps, John 5:1 to John 12:50). It is overcome in the section following (chaps, John 13:1 to John 17:26). How unique, how wonderful is the plan of the Gospel! How much light does the whole cast upon each part, how much each part upon the whole! We enter here upon the second great division of the Gospel, extending from John 1:19 to John 2:11, and containing the presentation of Jesus, as He takes His place in the field of human history and, alike in the witness borne to Him by the Baptist and in His manifestation of Himself to His disciples, shows us what He is. When we know Him we shall be prepared to follow Him, as He enters upon and accomplishes His work in the world. That work in the proper sense of the word does not yet begin. The first section of this division extends from John 1:19 to John 1:34, and contains the witness of the Baptist. The subordinate parts of this section are—(1) John 1:19-28, the witness by the Baptist on the first day spoken of; (2) John 1:29-34, His witness on the second day. John 1:20. And he confessed and denied not. And he confessed, I am not the Christ. The answer of the Baptist is reported with great solemnity. The effect of the double statement, ‘he confessed and denied not’ (comp. John 1:3; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:27) is to give peculiar impressiveness to the words: St. John thus brings into relief the single-minded faithfulness of the Baptist, and at the same time corrects mistaken opinions as to the character of his mission (see note on John 1:8). In the reply itself the first word is strongly emphatic, ‘It is not I who am the Christ.’ The Baptist thus prepares the way for the further statements which he is to make with the view of guiding his hearers to that Christ who is come, and whom with gradually increasing clearness he is to proclaim. John 1:21. And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. The question was a natural one, for the thought of the coming of Elijah was intimately associated with that of the coming of Messiah (Malachi 4:5). The answer seems less natural, for our Lord, when He spoke of the Baptist, described him as ‘Elijah which was for to come’ (Matthew 11:14). It is possible that even the Baptist himself did not Know that he was ‘Elijah’ in this latter sense, and hence could reply without hesitation that he is not that prophet. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No. A third supposition is tried. Is he ‘the prophet’? A comparison of Joh 1:25 and John 7:40-41, with John 6:14-15, seems to lead to the conclusion that there were at this time two currents of opinion with regard to the coming prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15), the one distinguishing him from the Messiah, the other maintaining that the two characters would be united in ‘him that should come.’ But that a prophet would certainly appear at the opening of the Messianic age was expected by all. Hence the question, as now put, covered the only other supposition that could explain the important position which the Baptist had assumed, and which appeared to indicate that he was introducing a new era. But the main point with the Baptist is to show that, strictly speaking, he is simply the herald of that era. He is only to prepare the way for Him in whom it both begins and is completed (comp. Matthew 11:11-13). The new supposition is accordingly repudiated in terms as emphatic as before. John 1:22. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? The Baptist has disowned the three suppositions that have been made. He is not ‘the Christ,’ not ‘Elijah,’ not ‘the prophet.’ The deputation now appeal directly to himself to state who he is. John 1:23. He said, I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah. The words are from Isaiah 40:3, and, though slightly modified in form, they completely express the sense of the original passage. To captive Israel, whose warfare is now accomplished, whose iniquity is pardoned, the glorious approach of her Deliverer is proclaimed. He conies to lead back his people through the desert to their own land. The herald’s voice sounds in the desert, announcing the coming of the King, commanding that all obstacles be removed from the course of His triumphal march, and that through the wilderness there be made a highway for the Deliverer and for the people whom He has set free. The Baptist takes the words in their true application to the Messianic deliverance and kingdom. He speaks of himself as the herald, or rather as the herald’s voice; as in John 1:8, his personality, so to speak, is swallowed up in the message which he came to bring. John 1:24. And some from among the Pharisees had been sent. We cannot doubt that these words are introduced to lead on to the following statement, rather than to give completeness to the account of the preceding verses. It is not necessary, however, to think of a second and entirely new deputation. The persons now introduced may have formed part of the first body of questioners. But the point of special interest to them is that which meets us in John 1:25, rather than that already spoken of, They were Pharisees, and the Pharisees considered themselves the guardians of the ordinances of religious worship amongst their countrymen. Hence the significance of the statements in John 4:1, John 9:13-15, John 12:42; and also of the question which is now addressed to the Baptist. That question does not necessarily indicate a hostile bearing towards him; nor during the earlier part of the life of Jesus do the Pharisees in general appear to have opposed the Saviour in the same manner as the ‘Jews’ (comp. on John 3:1, John 7:32). John 1:25. And they asked him, and said unto him. Why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? The ‘Jews,’ the representatives of the theocratic spirit of the people, had been mainly concerned about the position of the Baptist in relation to the national hopes. Could it be that he was about to assume the government of the nation, and to lead it to victory? The Pharisees concern themselves more about the rite administered by the Baptist. It is the baptism of persons belonging to the chosen people that startles them. They might have viewed his baptism without surprise had he invited to it those only who were beyond the pale of Israel. But that one who, by his own confession, was neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, should thus administer a rite symbolical of cleansing to those who, as Jews, were already clean, this it was that threw them into perplexity.—On the significance of John’s baptism, see notes on chap. John 3:5 and Matthew 3:6. John 1:26-27. John answered them, saying, I baptize in water. The meaning of the Baptist’s answer has been greatly obscured by the insertion of ‘but’ after these words. It has thus been supposed that the object of the Baptist is to depredate his baptism by bringing it into comparison with the baptism in the Spirit administered by Jesus. The two baptisms, however, are not as yet compared with one another. What John depreciated was himself, not the rite which he administered; and at John 1:31 he expressly magnifies his baptism, and points out its high prophetic significance. From this last-mentioned verse the import of the present clause must be determined. Even now John means, I baptize in water that I may call attention to Him whose way I am commissioned to prepare. For this purpose I am ‘a voice of one that crieth;’ for this purpose also ‘I baptize in water.’—In the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, coming after me, the latchet of whose sandal I am not worthy to unloose. Now follows the great fact explanatory of all this divine work of preparation, that the One waited for is come. Three stages of His manifestation, however, are to be marked; and as yet we have only readied the first, ‘He standeth in the midst of you.’ So standing, He is distinguished by three characteristics: (1) ‘Ye know’ Him ‘not,’—the ‘ye’ being emphatic, ye to whom He would gladly reveal Himself: (2) He cometh ‘after me’ (see John 1:15): (3) His glory is so great that the Baptist is not worthy to unloose the latchet of His sandal. On the last words see note on Mark 1:7. Such is the first testimony of the Baptist to Jesus. The fuller testimonies have yet to come. At this point, therefore, the narrative pauses to tell us that this testimony was given at the very place where the Baptist was at the moment making so profound an impression upon the people. John 1:28. These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan. There can be no doubt that Bethabara is not the true reading in this verse. Origen, writing in the third century, states that he found Bethany in almost all copies of the Gospel. This statement is decisive. It cannot be set aside, nor indeed is it even lessened in weight, by the fact that Origen himself, owing to his inability to identify Bethany, believed Bethabara to be the place intended. The existence of another Bethany, near Jerusalem, presents no difficulty, as it was not uncommon for two places to bear the same name. The instances of Bethsaida (Luke 9:10; Mark 6:45), Carmel, Cæsares, etc., are well known. It is even possible that the two names, though alike written Bethania in Greek, may in their original Hebrew form have been different words; just as, for instance, the ‘Abel’ of Genesis 1:2 is altogether different in actual form from the ‘Abel’ of 2 Samuel 20:14. This Bethany may have been small and unimportant; Bethabara, on the other hand, seems to have been so well known, that the addition of the words ‘beyond Jordan’ would have been less natural. Of the situation of Bethany we know no more than we are told in this verse (comp. chap. John 2:1). It has been variously placed,—near Jericho, near Scythopolis (a few miles south of the Sea of Galilee), and by one recent writer, Caspari, a little to the north of that sea. The last opinion seems the least probable of the three. The second testimony of the Baptist is now presented to us. John 1:29. The next day he seeth Jesus coming unto him. The ‘day’ is that immediately following the day of the first testimony, and the climactic arrangement of the narrative is already perceptible. Already Jesus is in a different position. On the previous day He was spoken of as ‘coming after’ John; now He is ‘coming unto’ him. Then He stood unknown, unrecognised, amidst the throng; now He is expressly pointed out by His forerunner. Then it was His elevation above John that was expressed; now it is the greatness of His work in itself. And saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. The translation of this clause has been disputed (see the margin of the Authorised Version), but without good reason. The idea of ‘taking’ or ‘bearing’ sin is indeed of very common occurrence in the Old Testament; but it is not expressed by the word here used, which denotes taking away, removal. In meaning, however, the two renderings would almost coincide, since the metaphor of the verse is sacrificial: in the thought of bearing sin as an atoning sacrifice is involved the removal of the punishment deserved and of the sin itself. There is only one other passage of the New Testament in which this expression is found, 1 John 3:5, and there the meaning is very clear. A much more difficult question remains: What is the Baptist’s meaning when he speaks of ‘the Lamb of Goa’? The answer which perhaps now finds most favour with commentators is, that this particular image was directly suggested to his mind by the memorable prophecy of Isaiah 53, in one verse of which (John 1:7) there is an allusion to ‘a lamb.’ But there are serious difficulties in the way of this explanation. A reference to the chapter will show that in that verse the prophet speaks of the ‘lamb’ as an example of uncomplaining patience, and not in connection with taking away sin. ‘He was oppressed, although he submitted himself, and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep dumb before her shearers; and he opened not his mouth.’ Again, had the prophecy of this chapter been definitely the source of the Baptist’s words, we might surely have looked for some close resemblances of language. But such coincidences are not to be found in any part of the chapter: the ideas of taking and bearing sin are prominent, but they are expressed by words altogether different from that here used. If we are thus obliged to look away from Isaiah’s great prophecy of Messiah, we naturally turn to the Mosaic ritual of sacrifice. Again we are met by difficulties. It would seem impossible to bring in here the thought of any other than the sin-offering, and yet it was only occasionally, and almost as an exception, that a sin-offering consisted of a lamb (Leviticus 4:32). The lamb of the morning and evening sacrifices was a burnt-offering. There remain only two other explanations of the phrase. It is just possible that ‘the lamb’ merely indicates a sacrificial victim, the gentleness and harmlessness of this animal making it especially suitable as a type. It is, however, much more probable that the Baptist spoke of the paschal lamb. The peculiar definiteness of the expression (‘the Lamb of God’) will in this case need no explanation: no thought was more familiar to the Israelite than that of the lamb for the Passover; and, we may add, few thoughts are brought out in this Gospel with greater distinctness than the relation of the Lord Jesus to the paschal sacrifice and feast (see notes on chaps, 6 and 19). As the institution of the Passover preceded the general Mosaic legislation, its laws and arrangements lie without the circle of the ordinary ritual of sacrifices, and combine ideas which were otherwise kept distinct. The paschal supper resembles the peace-offerings, the characteristic of which was the sacred feast that succeeded the presentation of the victim (Leviticus 5:15),—an emblem of the fellowship between the accepted worshipper and his God. But the sin-offering also is included, as a reference to the original institution of the Passover will at once show. The careful sprinkling of the blood upon the door-posts was intended to be more than a sign to the destroying angel whom to spare. The lamb was slain and the blood sprinkled that atonement might be made for sin: when Israel is consecrated anew to God, the sin and the deserved punishment removed, the sacred feast is celebrated. It has been suggested that the nearness of the Passover (see chap. John 2:13) may have presented these thoughts to the Baptist’s mind. It is still more likely that one who was enabled so clearly to discern the meaning of the Old Testament as to recognise the removal of ‘the sin of the world’ as the object of Messiah’s coming, would see from the first how fitly that ordinance, in which Israel’s redemption began, associated itself with the approaching redemption of the world. It is the world’s Passover, both the sacrifice and the feast, that John sees to be at hand. With this verse compare especially 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 5:6; Revelation 5:9. The marginal references will show to what an extent this Gospel is pervaded by the thought of ‘the world’ as the object of Christ’s saving work. John 1:30. See the note upon John 1:15. Here, as there, the words refer to testimony given by the Baptist to Jesus at some point of time and on some occasion not recorded. John 1:31. And I knew him not: but that be may be made manifest to Israel, therefore came I, baptizing in water. The explanation of the first clause of this verse will be best given when we come to John 1:33. The object which the Baptist here assigns for his work of baptizing may at first sight seem to be different from that mentioned in the earlier Gospels, where he is spoken of as sent to prepare the way of the Lord. Attention to the words used by John will remove all difficulty. ‘Israel’ is not to be limited to the Jewish nation. It embraces the true theocracy of God,—neither Jews nor Gentiles as such, but all who will believe (comp. on John 1:47; John 1:49) ‘Made manifest,’ again, is not a mere outward manifestation, but a revelation of Jesus as He is. Thus the meaning of the words is not, ‘I baptize in water in order that Jesus may come to my baptism, and may there receive a testimony from on high;’ but, ‘I baptize that I may declare the necessity of that forsaking of sin without which no true manifestation of Jesus can be made to the heart.’ The words in their real meaning, therefore, are in perfect harmony with the accounts of the Synoptists. The advance of thought from the unrecognised Jesus of Joh 1:26 to the ‘made manifest’ of John 1:31 is obvious. It corresponds with the ‘standeth’ of John 1:26, and the ‘coming unto’ him of Joh 1:29; with the fact, also, that the one is the first, the other the second, testimony of the Baptist. John 1:32. And John bare witness, saying. I have beheld the Spirit descending. The effect of what the Baptist had seen had remained, and still remains, with him in all its power: ‘I have beheld.’ And it abode upon him. John had not merely seen the Spirit descend with dove-like motion upon Jesus; he had also seen that it ‘abode’ upon Him,—the symbol of an abiding and permanent possession. John 1:34. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. ‘I have seen,’ for the result of the seeing abides unchanged and ever present: ‘I have borne witness, for the Baptist has entered on that one witness-bearing for which he was sent (John 1:7), and which it will henceforth be his office simply to repeat. It is particularly to be noticed that the ‘witness’ referred to is not that Jesus baptizes with the Spirit, but that He is ‘the Son of God,’—a designation which expresses the divine nature and character of Jesus, and with this the relation in which He stands to the Father. In one aspect He is God; in another He is the Son of God, the Son distinct from the Father. The link of connection between the transcendent conclusion of the Baptist and the fact upon which it rests is probably to be found in the thought that He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, who therefore has the power to impart the gifts and influence of the Spirit of God, must be Divine. The special form which this confession of our Lord’s divinity takes was, we cannot doubt, determined by the words spoken from heaven: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’ (Matthew 3:17). It has been sometimes maintained that ‘Son of God’ must be understood as a mere designation of ‘the Messiah.’ For this opinion we believe that no evidence can be found, either in Scripture or in early Jewish writings. There are, indeed, passages in the Old Testament, acknowledged to be prophecies of the Messiah, in which a Divine Sonship is attributed to Him (see especially Psalms 2:7); but the name seems to be always indicative of nature, and not merely of office. How the name was understood by the Jews of our Lord’s day may be seen from chap. John 5:18-19, John 10:29-30; John 10:33. It is important to compare this section with the corresponding portions of the other Gospels. The omissions are very remarkable. We say nothing of the Evangelist’s silence as to the circumstances of our Lord’s birth and early years; this belongs to the general plan of the Gospel, which here agrees with that of Mark. But it is noteworthy that nothing is said of the baptism of Jesus, or of the temptation which followed. To the baptism, however, there is a clear allusion in John 1:33-34; hence its place in the order of events is fore John 1:19. The temptation also was at an end before John ‘saw Jesus coming unto him’ (John 1:29). On the other hand, these verses contain many coincidences in language with the Synoptic Gospels. John’s application of Isa 40:3, and the contrast which he draws between himself, baptizing in water, and Him who shall baptize with the Holy Ghost, are related by every Evangelist. In all the Gospels, also, we find words similar to those of Joh 1:27. The same general subject is continued in this section—Jesus taking His place on the stage of history. We pass now, however, from the witness of the Baptist, given on two successive days, to the manifestation of Himself by Jesus to hearts open to receive and welcome Him. This manifestation takes place upon two successive days. The subordinate parts of the present section are—(1) John 1:35-42, witness borne on the first of the two new days (the third day from that of Joh 1:19); (2) John 1:43-51, witness borne on the second day (the fourth day). John 1:37. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. The witness of the Baptist has its proper effect,—an effect, we cannot doubt, foreseen and designed by himself (chap. John 3:27-30). Those who listen to it turn from him, and follow Jesus. John 1:38. And Jesus turned and beheld them following, and saith unto them, What seek yet? They who thus follow Jesus shall not do so in vain. As in the sense of their own unworthiness they walked after Him, He turned, and inquired what they sought. And they said unto him, Rabbi, which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher, where abidest thou? ‘Where is Thy permanent resting-place and home, that as pupils we may seek Thee there, and may abide with Thee till we have seen the glory of which we have heard?’ By the title Rabbi (which strictly meant my master or lord, but which in the time of Jesus had already come to be applied to teachers) they had been wont to address their own master (chap. John 3:26); and they naturally give the same name of honour to Jesus. When they have done with ‘seeking,’ when they have found Him, they will say more (comp. John 13:13). John 1:39. He saith unto them, Come, and ye shall see. They came therefore and saw where he abode, and abode with him that day. The seeker shall not seek in vain. They had asked where He abode; and that the answer of Jesus was a direct meeting of their request is proved by the statement immediately made by the Evangelist, that ‘they came and saw where He abode.’ The nature of the intercourse is not described. We are left only to imagine from the confession of Andrew in John 1:41 what must have been the solemn teachings, the gracious communications of Himself by Jesus, the patient instructing of ignorance, the tender removal of doubts, until, in all the joy of their new discovery, they could say, ‘We have found.’ This much, however, we seem entitled to infer from the thrice-repeated ‘abide’ or ‘abode,’—a word characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, and always full of deep and solemn import,—that the Evangelist designs to convey to us something more than the thought of mere outward presence with Jesus. It was about the tenth hour. There are four passages in which the Evangelist directly refers to the hour of the day at which an event occurred (see chap. John 4:6; John 4:52, John 19:14). But for the last of these passages it might be natural to suppose that John, like the other Evangelists, reckons time from sunrise, an hour being the twelfth part of the (varying) interval between sunrise and sunset. As, however, Mark records (chap. John 15:25) that Jesus was crucified at the ‘'third hour’ (between 8 and 9 A.M.), and John expressly states that His condemnation was later than the ‘sixth hour,’ the probability that the latter writer follows a different reckoning is very strong. Further investigation has shown that at the very time when this book was written a mode of computation substantially agreeing with our own was known in Asia Minor (where John wrote) and elsewhere. It is easy to see that in such a matter as this a writer naturally follows the custom of those amongst whom he lives, and whom he has immediately in view as his readers. We shall assume, therefore, in each case that the hour (of fixed length, not variable) is reckoned from midnight or noon. Here the tenth hour will no doubt be the hour between 9 and 10 A.M. John 1:40. One of the two which heard from John and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. Andrew belonged to Bethsaida (John 1:44), and is again referred to in John 6:8, John 12:22. That he is now spoken of as the brother of Peter is an interesting indication of the importance attached by the Evangelist to the latter. There is little reason to doubt that the second of the two was the Evangelist himself. Simon Peter, who has not yet been mentioned, is introduced to us here as if he were well known to the reader—an illustration of the writer’s tendency to anticipate what is hereafter to be fully explained: we have an equally striking instance in the mention of Mary in chap. John 11:2. John 1:41. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ). The peculiar language of this verse leads directly to the conclusion that each of the two disciples mentioned in the previous verse had gone in search of his brother, and the fact is not without interest as confirming the supposition that the second of the two disciples was John. Andrew and his brother, John and his brother, seem to have been the only two pairs of brothers in the apostolic band. The finding was not accidental. Andrew had gone in search of Peter, John of James. When Andrew found the object of his search, his joyful announcement was, ‘We have found the Messiah.’ This Hebrew term—occurring only twice in the New Testament, here and at John 3:25, in the mouth of the woman of Samaria—denotes ‘the Anointed One;’ and is immediately interpreted by the Evangelist, the Greek word ‘Christ’ having the same meaning. One of the great hopes of Israel was fulfilled. John 1:42. He brought him to Jesus. There can be little doubt that Peter had shared the expectations and longings of his brother Andrew, as well as of all those more earnest spirits of the time who were waiting for ‘the consolation of Israel.’ He too had been ‘seeking,’ and he too finds. Jesus looking upon him said. Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas. Jesus looked upon him with that divine glance which read the heart (comp. John 2:25); and, following the custom of which so many illustrations are afforded in the Old Testament, marked the great crisis in his life which had now arrived by giving him a new name, ‘Cephas,’ with which corresponds the Greek word Petros (a ‘stone’ or ‘piece of rock’). How much importance was attached by the Evangelist to this name given to his brother apostle will appear on other occasions in the course of his Gospel. The name Johannes, or John, corresponds to the Hebrew Jochanan; in Matthew 16:17 the same name is represented in a slightly different form (Jona). John 1:43. The next day he would go forth into Galilee. On this day begins the journey consummated at John 2:1 (see note).—And he findeth Philip; and Jesus saith unto him, Follow me. The first two disciples had ‘sought’ and ‘followed’ Jesus; then they had found Him. Now Jesus (seeks and) ‘finds’ Philip, and bids him follow Him (compare the two parables in Matthew 13:44; Matthew 13:46). We are left to infer that the command was immediately obeyed. The calling of Philip and of Nathanael is recorded by John alone; both Matthew and Mark relate that Jesus called to Him Andrew and Peter, James and John (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; compare Luke 5:1—11); but it will be remembered that this was a second summons, later (by some months, probably) than the events of which we are reading here. John 1:44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, out of the city of Andrew and Peter. This verse appears to be inserted for the purpose of clearly showing that these three disciples were Galileans. The next verse would lead to a similar inference in regard to Nathanael, and this inference is confirmed by chap. John 21:2. It is thus an undesigned (but not the less striking) proof of the Johannine authorship of this Gospel that a similar statement is not made with regard to the two disciples of Joh 1:37-40. John is aware that he was himself well known to be a Galilean. In simple consciousness that he was so, and that no one would doubt it, he omits notice of the fact in his own case and that of his brother. But he felt it of importance to bring out the Galilean birth of the others. We might have supposed them to be Judeans; but Judas is the only Judean of the apostolic circle. The importance of the fact in the mind of the Evangelist is connected with the opinion entertained by him of ‘the Jews’ and of ‘Judas.’ John 1:45. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. It was in all probability on the journey from Bethany beyond Jordan to Cana of Galilee that Jesus had ‘found’ Philip. As on the journey recorded in Luke 24:13, the conversation turned on the things concerning the promised Saviour which were contained in ‘Moses and all the prophets;’ and to this conversation the particular form of conviction impressed upon the mind of Philip was due. He does not speak of Jesus simply as the Messiah (John 1:41), but as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. There is an advance in fulness on the confession of Joh 1:41, and the special character of the advance is important; it helps to explain the words of the following verse. There is nothing accidental in the finding of Nathanael. Philip had gone in search of him in particular. Can we doubt that it was because he knew him to be specially fitted and ready to be a follower of Jesus? John 1:46. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. The mind of Nathanael (who, from his close association with Philip, is probably to be identified with the Bartholomew of the earlier Gospels) is, as we shall more fully see below (John 1:47-48), full at the moment of that prophetic hope the fulfilment of which was associated, not with Nazareth, but with Bethlehem or Jerusalem. To him all good was summed up in the thought of the coming King; and it may have been that at the moment a place unconnected with the great promise of God seemed to him a place from which no good could come. Such considerations go far towards explaining his disparaging remark; though they do not completely remove the impression which we receive from the words, that Nazareth was a place held in very low esteem. We have, however, no other information that such prejudice (whether well or ill founded) existed; and the only notices in Scripture which can throw light on the subject are the records of the obstinate unbelief of the Nazarenes (Matthew 13:58) and their attempt upon the life of Jesus (Luke 4:29). John 1:47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile. Again, as at John 1:43, we are left to infer that the call thus addressed to Nathanael was obeyed; and in his obedience to it he illustrates the frame of mind for which he is immediately commended by Jesus. He is ingenuous, willing to be taught, ready to receive what is shown to him to be truth, however strongly it may conflict with his prepossessions. Jesus saw him as he drew near, and commended him as a genuine Israelite in whom there was no guile. The last words have been sometimes understood as if they were explanatory of the term Israelite, that term, again, being supposed, together with the word ‘guile,’ to allude to the history of Jacob. As the name of Jacob (‘supplanter’) was changed to Israel (‘prince of God’), the characteristic of this patriarch’s true descendants will be absence of guile. The suggestion is ingenious, but for several reasons hardly tenable. (1) It is guile of an entirely different kind that is here referred to; (2) There is no special connection between the qualities displayed by Jacob on the occasion when he received the name Israel and those that here distinguish Nathanael; (3) The part of Jacob’s history present to the mind of Jesus, in John 1:51, was the vision at Bethel, which belongs to a period much earlier than that in which his name was changed; (4) It is difficult to believe that ‘Israelite’ is intended to convey no meaning beyond absence of guile. It is rather to be taken as denoting one who belongs to the true people of God (comp. John 1:31); and the words that follow are then added to bring out its special meaning upon this occasion. Nathanael, in short, is ‘of God,’ is ‘of the truth,’ has no selfish impure aims, and therefore he shall be fully taught. John 1:48. Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? The words of Jesus had been spoken while Nathanael was drawing near, and the latter heard them. He does not deny the truth of the commendation, and yet it can hardly be said, on the other hand, that he accepts it. It is enough for him that he sees that he is discerned by one whom he had not previously met, and what he asks is, Whence gettest Thou Thy knowledge of me? Who has told Thee anything about me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Jesus replies by referring to a previous, probably recent, incident in his history. The heart of the guileless man had been so moved by the great thoughts stirring at that time with respect to the Saviour at hand, that he had retired under a fig tree to study the Scriptures, or meditate, or pray. It is this that (as the Greek implies) is now brought to his recollection—not his being under the fig tree, but his having gone under it; and we are thus rather invited than forbidden to suppose that the emotions filling his heart at the moment, and impelling him to seek solitude, had been peculiarly strong. Then Jesus had seen him, and had recognised in him one of His sheep, just as His sheep recognise Him (John 10:16). If the incident had taken place in Nathanael’s own Cana, it must have been all the more striking to him that it should thus be known. But, however this may have been, these wonderful words of Jesus, coming suddenly upon him after long preparation for them and after the instructions just given him by Philip, at once set his heart on fire, and drew from him the memorable confession which follows. John 1:49. Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art King of Israel. The confession is the highest that has yet been made, for it is impossible to understand ‘Son of God’ as the simple equivalent of Messiah (see note on John 1:34). Yet it is a confession coming out of the very heart of Old Testament prophecy, and to be accounted for by those circumstances of Nathanael’s past history and present position that have been already noticed. It was not merely of a great Deliverer that the prophets had spoken. They had spoken not less of Jehovah Himself as coming, and as coming to be their Deliverer and their King. In the second Psalm, in particular, we find the two ideas of the Son of God and of Zion’s King closely conjoined; and in the seventy - second Psalm the psalmist had described in glowing language that kingdom of peace and righteousness, extending over the whole earth, of which a shadow and type were afforded by the reign of Solomon. But if it be undeniable that these ideas were imbedded in the Old Testament, there is nothing inconceivable in their being gathered from it and enunciated by those who in meditation and prayer had caught its spirit. Add to this the self-evidencing power of the Person of Jesus, which must have been so much more to Nathanael than the mere record can be to us, and we need not wonder that he should thus acknowledge Jesus. Nor is there any warrant for describing his feelings as vague. What he did was to rise to the height of Old Testament prophecy; what he saw was that this must be Jehovah that was to come, the universal King.The three confessions have risen as they have succeeded one another. Higher than the last they cannot rise. The Lord himself is come; His kingdom is without limit and without end. John 1:50. Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. An intimation of that growth of divine revelation which this Gospel teaches us shall be made the portion of all,-of some to an ever-increasing fulness of blessing, of others to an ever-increasing fulness of judgment. For the one, see chap. John 14:12; for the other, chap. John 5:20. These ‘greater things’ are more particularly mentioned in the next verse. John 1:51. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you. This is the first occasion on which we find the repeated ‘Verily,’ so characteristic of the discourses related in this Gospel. The formula is always employed to mark some important step in a discourse, where the words of Jesus either take some new start, or rise to some higher stage. Both these conditions are fulfilled in the verse before us. As to the first, it will be observed that Jesus no longer addresses Nathanael alone: the plural instead of the singular is used, and we must understand that He is speaking to all the disciples. As to the second, again, the words of themselves suggest the higher stage of revelation promised. Ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. The figure is taken from Jacob’s dream (Genesis 28:12). A wanderer from his father’s house and country, he is encouraged by a vision which teaches him that earth is united with heaven, and that God’s messengers descend to minister to those who are the objects of God’s care. If the ascent of the angels is mentioned (in Genesis 28) before the descent, this is because to Jacob is shown an intercourse that already exists, not one that now begins. Some angels are already returning from earth, their ministries accomplished. What Jacob saw in vision is now in the highest sense fulfilled. There is real and unceasing intercourse between earth and heaven. It is to Jesus that the angels descend; it is from Him that they return to heaven; through His presence on earth this union between earth and heaven exists. Even though He is in His state of humiliation, it is His bidding that the angels do. Perhaps it is this thought that accounts for the mention (in this verse) of the ascending angels first. These words have no direct reference to the angelic visits received by Jesus at different points of His earthly ministry; still less can we refer them to miracles to be hereafter performed, greater even than that displayed to Nathanael, miracles of which the next chapter will furnish the first example. We have simply a symbolical representation of the fact that through the Incarnation and sufferings of Jesus heaven is opened, is brought into the closest and most constant communion with earth, so that the latter is itself transfigured with the glory of God’s special abode. This interpretation is confirmed by two circumstances mentioned in the verse: (1) Nathanael is to see ‘heaven standing open,’—not ‘opened’ as if it might again be closed, but opened so as to continue open. It is the complete withdrawal of the inner veil of the Tabernacle, so that all the children of God, now made priests and high priests unto God, even the Father, may pass freely into the innermost sanctuary and out of it again without interruption and without end. (2) Jesus speaks of Himself as the ‘Son of man.’ This important designation, often used by Jesus of Himself, once only used of Him by another (Acts 7:56), is not, as some maintain, a simple equivalent of ‘Messiah.’ It expresses rather One in whom all that truly belongs to humanity is realised, and by whom it is represented. Jesus is the Son of man, connected with no special race, or class, or condition, equally associated with all, equally near to all, in whom all are equally interested, and may be equally blessed. The designation is not a fourth confession, additional to the three that have been already made, for it comes from the lips of Jesus Himself. It is rather that in which all the confessions meet, the expression of the Personality to which they all belong. Jesus is the Incarnate Word, and as such He is the ‘Messiah,’ the One ‘of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write,’ the ‘Son of God and King of Israel.’ Every child of humanity, realising his true humanity in Him, has as his own the blessings associated with these three aspects of the Redeemer. He is anointed with the Holy Ghost, lives in that love which is the fulfilling of the law, is a son in the house of the Heavenly Father, himself a king. These are the ‘greater things’ which every one who is an ‘Israelite in deed’ shall see in the new creation introduced by the ‘Word become flesh,’ and enlightened by the full brightness of that Light in whose presence old things pass away, and all things are made new. The general subject of the second great division of the Gospel is continued in this section. It contains an account of the miracle at Cana of Galilee, in which, as we are told at John 2:11, Jesus ‘manifested His glory.’ The Redeemer is still in the circle of His disciples and friends, and there are no traces of His approaching conflict with the world. Our thoughts are directed solely to Himself, and to the glorious nature of that dispensation which He is to introduce. John 2:2. And Jesus also was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. The form of the sentence shows that our chief attention is to be fixed on Jesus, not on the disciples. They were invited as His disciples. Those who came were probably the five or six mentioned in chap. 1, viz. Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and John himself (and probably James). John 2:3. And when wine was wanting. The failure (which must be understood as complete) may have been occasioned by the long continuance of the festivities, but more probably arose from the presence of several unexpected guests. The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Nothing was more natural than that Mary should be the one to point out to her Son the perplexity of the family; but the whole tenor of the narrative compels attention to one thought alone. The absolute singleness with which Jesus listens to the voice of His heavenly Father is the point to be brought out. Had it been consistent with His mission to lend help at the summons of any human authority, no bidding would have been so powerful as that of His mother. Many conjectures as to Mary’s object in these words are at once set aside by the nature of His answer. There may have been in her mind no definite idea of the kind of help that might be afforded, but she felt that help was needed, and that what was needed could be given by her Son. The reply of Jesus, however, shows that, besides perplexity and faith, there was also presumption in Mary’s words: she spoke as one who still had the right to suggest and to influence His action. John 2:4. And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? The English words convey an impression of disrespect and harshness which is absent from the original. This use of the Greek word for ‘woman’ is consistent with the utmost respect. In Homer, for example (Iliad, xxiv. 300), Priam thus addresses Hecuba, his queen, and other examples of the same kind might easily be given. This Gospel itself shows that the word is not out of place where the deepest love and compassion are expressed: see chap. John 19:26, John 20:13; John 20:15. Yet the contrast of ‘woman’ and ‘mother’ must strike every one who reads with attention. The relation of mother, however precious in its own sphere, cannot be allowed to enter into that in which Jesus now stands. John does not relate the incident recorded in Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21; but the same thought is present here. Still more distinctly is this lesson taught in the words that follow, ‘What have I to do with thee?’ The rendering defended by some Roman Catholic writers (though not found in the Vulgate, or in the Rhemish Testament of 1582), ‘What is that to thee and me?’—that is, ‘Why should we concern ourselves with this failure of the wine?’—is altogether impossible. The phrase is a common one, occurring in Judges 11:12; 2 Samuel 16:10; 2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13; 2 Chronicles 35:21; Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; Mark 5:7; Luke 4:34; Luke 8:28 : comp. also Joshua 22:24; 2 Kings 9:18; Ezra 4:3; Matthew 27:19. These passages show beyond doubt the meaning of the words: whoever makes use of the phrase rejects the interference of another, declines association with him on the matter spoken of. Hence the words reprove,—though mildly. They do more; in them Jesus warns even His mother against attempting henceforth to prescribe or suggest what He is to do. Thus understood, the words are an irresistible argument against the Mariolatry of Rome. Mine hour is not yet come. In two other places in this Gospel Jesus refers to the coming of ‘the hour’ (John 12:23, John 17:1); and three times John speaks of His hour as not yet come (John 7:30, John 8:20) or as now come (John 13:1). The other passages throw light on this, showing the peculiar solemnity which belongs to the words before us. In every instance ‘the hour’ is fraught with momentous issues:—‘the hour’ when the restraint put upon His foes shall continue no longer; when He shall pass away from the world to His Father; when He shall be glorified. So here the hour is that of the manifestation of His glory. The language used in chap. John 13:1; John 13:1, together with the general teaching of the Gospel, shows that the hour is not self-chosen, but is that appointed by the Father. He came to do the will of Him that sent Him, the appointed work at the appointed time. That time none may hasten or delay by a single instant. If, then, the miracle quickly followed upon these words, which would seem to have been the case, this can present no difficulty; the Son waited for the very moment chosen by the Father’s will. John 2:5. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. The answer of Jesus (John 2:4) plainly implied that His hour would come. Mary, therefore, turns to the servants, and bids them be ready. The words are indefinite, and we have no right to suppose either that she now looked for miraculous help, or that she had received some private intimation of her Son’s purpose. She waits for the ‘hour:’ whatsoever the hour may bring, let the servants be prepared to do His bidding. Mary here retires from the scene. John 2:6. And there were there six waterpots of stone, placed after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. The waterpots were near at hand,-in the court or at the entrance to the house, not in the house itself. Considering the many washings and purifyings of the Jews, there is nothing to surprise us in the number or in the size of the waterpots. Even a small family might easily possess six, and when the number of guests was large, each of them would naturally be in use. There is much uncertainty as to the value of Hebrew measures, whether of length or of capacity. Most probably the measure here mentioned was equivalent to between eight and nine of our imperial gallons, so that the ‘firkin’ of our version is not far wrong. If each waterpot contained two ‘firkins’ and a half, the whole quantity of water would be about 130 gallons. On the words, ‘of the Jews,’ see the note on chap. John 1:19. Even here the phrase is not without significance. When we have set ourselves free from our prevailing habit of using this term simply as a national designation, we cannot but feel that the Evangelist is writing of that with which he has entirely broken, and is characterizing the ordinary religion of his day as one that consisted in ceremonies and external purifications. John 2:7. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. Probably they were now empty, perhaps in consequence of the ablutions before the feast. And they filled them up to the brim. And when they are thus filled, nothing more can be done to fit them for their original design. They are able to furnish all that can be supplied for ‘the purifying of the Jews.’ John 2:8. And he saith unto them. Draw now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. As the words are commonly understood, the servants are bidden to bring to the table (in smaller jars or bowls) part of the contents of the larger vessels, which were themselves too unwieldy to be moved without difficulty. If this be the meaning, we must still ask, What was it that was drawn, water or wine? Many will answer wine, believing that the point at which the miracle is effected comes in between the seventh and eighth verses, and that all the water in the vessels was then made wine. The strong argument in favour of this interpretation is the exactness with which the number and size of the vessels are specified; and no difficulty need be found in the abundance of the supply. ‘He, a King, gave as became a king’ (Trench). Still there is nothing in the text that leads necessarily to this interpretation; while the language of Joh 2:9, ‘the servants which had drawn the water ,’ distinctly suggests that what they drew was water, which, either as soon as drawn, or as soon as presented to the guests, became wine. But there is yet another explanation (suggested in Dr. Westcott’s Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles, p. 15), having much in its favour. The Authorised Version (John 2:8) gives the command to the servants as ‘Draw out now,’ etc., plainly implying that it was out of the waterpots that they were bidden to draw. But the original word is simply ‘draw,’ or ‘draw water.’ This would seem to suggest that the servants were sent again to the spring or fountain from which they had drawn the water to fill the waterpots. First, the vessels set for the purifying of the Jews are completely filled. Nothing is neglected that can be needed to prepare for all ceremonial requirements. There the water rests, and rests unchanged. Not till now is the water drawn for the thirsty guests, in bowls filled, not from vessels of purification, but at the spring itself; it is borne to the ruler of the feast, and it is wine! The decision between the last two interpretations must be left with the reader; it will probably rest less on the words of the narrative than on the view which is taken of the significance and meaning of the miracle. See below on John 2:11.—By ‘the ruler of the feast’ is meant either an upper servant, to whom was intrusted the duty of tasting the different drinks and articles of food, and, in general, of superintending all the arrangements of the feast; or one of the guests acting as president of the feast, at the request of the bridegroom or by election of the guests. The latter view is favoured by our knowledge of Jewish usages (comp. Sir 32:1-2), and by the fact that the ruler is spoken of as distinct from the servants, and, as the next verse shows, was ignorant of the source from which the wine was supplied. John 2:9-10. In these verses we have the testimony borne to the completeness of the miracle. The ruler of the feast, a guest speaking as the representative of the guests, calling the bridegroom (who supplied the feast, and in whose house they were), emphatically recognises the excellence of the wine, not knowing ‘whence it was.’ ‘From whatever source this may have come, it is wine, and good wine:’ this is his witness. ‘Whatever it may be, it has but now flowed from the spring as water,’ is the unexpressed but implied testimony of the servants. The simplicity of the double witness gives it its force; the guests as yet know nothing of the miracle, and thus afford the strongest evidence of its truth. An attempt is sometimes made to soften down an expression used by the ruler of the feast, ‘when men are drunken.’ There need, however, be no scruple as to giving the word its ordinary meaning. The remark docs but express his surprise at the bridegroom’s departure from the ordinary custom, in bringing in so late wine of such excellence as this. The common maxim was that the best wine should be given first, when it could be appreciated by the guests; the weak and poorer when they had drunk more than enough, and the edge of their taste was blunted. No answer is recorded,—a plain proof, were any needed, that the Evangelist values the incident not so much for its own sake as for the lesson it conveys. John 2:11. This did Jesus as the beginning of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him. This, His first sign, was wrought in Galilee, where Isaiah (John 9:1-2) prophesied that Messiah’s work should begin. The threefold comment of the Evangelist is of the utmost importance. This was a sign, and His first sign; in it He manifested His glory; His disciples believed in Him. ‘Sign’ is one of John’s favourite words. Of the three words used in the New Testament to denote a miracle, the first (literally meaning ‘power’) is not once found in his Gospel; the second (‘prodigy,’ ‘wonder’) occurs once only (John 4:48); the third, ‘sign,’ as many as seventeen times. The earliest use of ‘sign’ in connection with a miracle is in Exodus 4:8 and the context makes the meaning very dear: the miracle was the sign of an invisible Divine Presence with Moses, and hence it attested his words. Thus also, when the manna was given, the miracle manifested the glory of the Lord (Exodus 16:7). The miracles of Jesus, and all His works, manifested not only God’s glory (John 8:50), but His own: they were signs of what He is. This gives a new starting-point. Each miracle is a sign of what He is, not only in regard of the power by which it is wrought, but also by its own nature and character,—in other words, it is a symbol of His work. The words which John adds here once for all are to be understood with every mention of a ‘sign,’ for in every miracle Jesus made manifest (removed the veil from) His glory, revealed Himself. Two other passages complete the view which John gives us of his meaning. Of the ‘signs’ he says himself: ‘These (signs) are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in His name.’ Of the glory he says: ‘We beheld His glory, glory as of an only-begotten from a father.’ First, then, this miracle attested the mission of Jesus as the Christ; the miracle established, as for Moses so for Him, the divine commission, and ratified His words. Next, it revealed His own glory as Son of God, manifesting His power, in a work as sudden and as inexplicable as a new creation; and not only His power but His grace, as He sympathizes alike with the joys and with the difficulties of life. Further, the miracle brought into light what He is in His work. The waterpots filled full for the purifying of the Jews stand as an emblem of the religion of the day, nay, even of the ordinances of the Jewish religion itself, ‘carnal ordinances imposed until a time of reformation.’ At Christ’s word (on one view of the miracle) the water for purifying is changed into wine of gladness: this would point to Judaism made instinct with new life. On the other view, nothing is withdrawn from the use to which Jewish ritual applies it, but the element which could only minister to outward cleansing is transmuted by a new creative word. ‘The law was given through Moses: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.’ The object of all the signs (John 20:31) was answered here in the disciples. They had believed already that He was Christ, the Son of God (John 1:41; John 1:49); they now believed in Him,—each one ‘throws himself with absolute trust upon a living Lord,’ recognising the manifestation of His glory. The miracles in this Gospel, like the parables in the other Gospels, are a test of faith. They lead onward the believer to a deeper and a firmer trust; they repel those who refuse to believe. In the passage before us we have the first section of the third great division of our Gospel. Jesus leaves the circle of His disciples, and begins His public work. This is done at Jerusalem, after a few days spent in Capernaum. In the metropolis of Israel He appears as the Son in His Father’s house; and in the cleansing of the old temple and the promise of the raising up of a new one He illustrates the nature of the work He is to do. The first symptoms of opposition accordingly appear in this passage. Jesus is rejected by the theocracy of Israel, and the foundation is laid for His entering upon wider fields of labour. The subordinate parts of this section are—(1) John 2:12; (2) John 2:13-22. John 2:13. And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The expression, ‘passover of the Jews, is very remarkable, and can be explained only by the usage already noticed in John 2:6. To John’s mind the nation cannot but present itself habitually as in opposition to his Master. As yet, indeed, Jesus is not confronted by an organized band of adversaries representing the ruling body of the nation; but we are on the verge of the conflict, and the conflict itself was only the outcome of ungodliness and worldllness existing before their manifestation in the persecution of Jesus. The light was come, but it was shining in darkness: this darkness rested on what had been the temple, the city, the festivals, of the Lord. The feast now at hand is not ‘the Lord’s passover’ (Exodus 12:11), but ‘the passover of the Jews.’ The prevailing spirit of the time has severed the feast from the sacred associations which belonged to it, so that Jesus must go up rather as Prophet than as worshipper,—not to sanction by His presence, but powerfully to protest against the degenerate worship of that day. The word of prophecy must be fulfilled: ‘And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple,... but who may abide the day of His coming?’ (Malachi 3:1-2). John 2:14. And he found in the temple-courts those that sold oxen and sheep and doves. The scene of this traffic was the outer court, commonly spoken of as the court of the Gentiles, but known to the Jews as ‘the mountain of the house.’ This court (which was on a lower level than the inner courts and the house or sanctuary itself) occupied not less than two-thirds of the space inclosed by the outer walls. Along its sides ran cloisters or colonnades, two of which, ‘Solomon’s porch’ on the east, and the ‘Royal porch’ on the south, were especially admired: to these cloisters many of the devout resorted for worship or instruction, and here, no doubt, our Lord often taught (chap. John 10:23). In strange contrast, however, with the sacredness of the place was what He now ‘found in the temple-courts.’ At all times, and especially at the passover, the temple was frequented by numerous worshippers, who required animals that might be offered in sacrifice. The law prescribed the nature of each sacrifice, and enjoined that all animals presented to the Lord should be ‘without blemish’ (Leviticus 22:19-20),—a requirement which ‘the tradition of the elders’ expanded into minute detail. Hence sacrifice would have been well-nigh impossible, had not facilities been afforded for the purchase of animals that satisfied all the conditions imposed. The neighbouring Quarter of the city naturally became a bazaar for the purpose; but unhappily the priests, yielding to temptations of gain, had suffered such traffic to be carried on within the precincts of the temple itself. At what period this abuse took its rise we do not know. Some have supposed that the last words of Zechariah (chap. John 14:21) refer to similar practices, the verse being rendered: ‘In that day there shall be no more the trafficker in the house of the Lord of hosts.’ The book of Nehemiah shows examples of the spirit of disorder and irreverence from which such usages naturally spring; and the representations of Malachi make it easy to understand that the priests would be only too readily accessible to the allurements of a gainful traffic. In the court of the Gentiles, then, stood those who offered for sale oxen and sheep,—also doves (for the poor. Leviticus 14:22, and for women, Leviticus 12:6). The wording of this verse (‘those that sold,’ etc.) shows that the trade was now an established custom. The discordance between a cattle-mart and a place for sacred worship and converse need not be drawn out in detail. But this was not all. And the changers of money sitting—at their tables in the sacred place. The annual tribute which every man of Israel was bound to pay to the temple treasury could be paid only in the half-shekel ‘of the sanctuary’ (see Matthew 17:24-26). All who came from other lands, therefore, or who had not with them the precise coin, must resort to the exchangers, who (as we learn from the Talmud) were permitted to do their business in the temple during the three weeks preceding the passover. Their profits (at a rate of interest amounting to ten or twelve per cent) were very great. John 2:15. And making a scourge of cords, he drove them all out of the temple-courts, and the sheep and the oxen. The scourge was made for the expulsion of the animals, but by it Jesus also declared His purpose to the traders themselves. The words show distinctly that it is with the men that He is dealing; but He drives them from the sacred place by banishing the instruments and means of their unholy traffic. In a figurative sense Messiah was said to come armed with a scourge. ‘Rabbi Eliezer was asked by his disciples: How should a man live to escape the scourge of the Messiah? He answered: Let him live according to the law and in love towards men.’ And poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables-the counters on which the bankers placed their heaps of change. John 2:16. And said unto them that sold the doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. We must not suppose that the sellers of doves were more leniently dealt with. The oxen might be driven away, the tables overturned, but the cages of birds must be carried out by their owners: hence it is to these alone that Jesus directly addresses words which were really spoken to all, and which explained his action. Any zealous reformer, who understood the faith of Israel, might have done as much: indeed, the first treatise in the Talmud contains regulations for the due reverence of the temple which utterly condemn such profanations as are related here. But though the action of Jesus might imply no more, His words declare that He vindicates the honour of His Father’s house. Thus He at once honours His Father and declares Himself. He offers Himself to Israel as the Son of God. In this deed, as in all His acts and words (comp. Matthew 13:11-15), there is a mingling of revelation and reserve: the declaration of Sonship is combined with an act which no true Israelite could fail to approve. Those who, yielding to the impulse of right, and listening to the voice of conscience, accepted the act, would be led to ponder the words; in them would be fulfilled the promise, ‘To him that hath shall more be given.’ Those who hardened their heart against the act lost the revelation which was given with it, and were in danger of losing all.—John does not speak of the cleansing of the temple as miraculous, but the Saviour’s words themselves mark it as a ‘sign;’ and it is only by thinking of a divine awe attending the words (comp. chap. John 18:6) that we can explain the immediate submission of the traffickers. The following verses describe the twofold effect of the act of Jesus on the disciples and on ‘the Jews.’ John 2:17. His disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house shall eat me up. Clearly (from the contrast with John 2:22) they remembered this scripture at that time. The quotation is from Psalms 69, a psalm which is several times referred to in the New Testament. See Romans 15:3; Romans 11:9-10; Acts 1:20 (perhaps John 15:25); and comp. Psalms 69:21 with the accounts of the crucifixion. We have no record of the interpretation of this psalm by Jewish writers in a Messianic sense, but New Testament usage can leave no doubt that such an application of many verses is both allowable and necessary. What was true of the devout and afflicted Israelite who wrote the words was true in the fullest sense of the Servant of Jehovah, of whom all such faithful servants were imperfect types. The exact meaning of the words here quoted will best appear if we take the whole verse: ‘The zeal of Thine house consumed me: and the reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on me. The parallelism of the lines shows that the chief antithesis lies in the pronouns. Dishonour shown to God has been felt by the psalmist as a cruel wrong to himself.’ Zealous indignation for Thine house, inspired by the sight or news of unworthy treatment of Thine house, consumed me,—so to say, destroyed my very life.’ The quotation is not exact; what in the psalm is past is here future: ‘shall eat me up.’ An examination of other passages will show that, where John uses the words ‘it is written,’ he does not necessarily imply that the quotation is made with literal exactness. Had we the past, ‘consumed,’ we might be led to think of the inward consuming of holy zeal from which resulted this act of indignation; the future, ‘will eat me up,’ brings us nearer to what we have seen to be the meaning of the passage in the psalm. His zeal for His Father’s house will devour His very life-will bring destruction in its train. John 2:18. The Jews therefore answered. The effect on the disciples has been related; what will be the response of the rulers to the self-revelation of Jesus? The word ‘therefore’ answers to the Evangelist’s knowledge of the fact. Their position of inward antagonism is present to his thought, though it has not yet found expression in their deeds. And said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us because thou doest these things?—This answer (replying to the act rather than the words) is in the tone of indignation, not of sincere inquiry: ‘Because Thou doest these things Thou art bound to show a sign, a sign that shall justify such actions.’ The effectual cleansing was the ‘sign,’ but as such they would not receive it. Their question is a token of the failure (so far as the nation was concerned) of the manifestation which Jesus had given of Himself as Son of God. Both in the question and in the response of our Lord we have a dear parallel in the earlier Gospels: see Matthew 12:38-40. John 2:19. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple. The most important point for the understanding of this verse is the distinction between the two words which the English Bible renders ‘temple.’ The word used in John 2:14-15 denotes generally the whole area within the walls, and here especially the outermost space in the sacred enclosure; while the latter signifies the holy place, and the holy of holies. The sanctity of the temple-court has been vindicated; the true temple, the sanctuary, the dwelling-place of Jehovah; has not been mentioned in the narrative until now. But even this very significant change of expression would not render the meaning plain, for the words were intended to be enigmatical—to be understood after, and not before, the event which fulfilled them. If we would understand them, we must take them in connection with John 2:21, ‘But He spake of the temple of His body.’ To the English reader they seem merely to convey a warning that, if the Jews go on with such profanation as that which Jesus had checked, they will bring the temple to ruin. But it is of the sanctuary that He speaks, not of the temple-court which had sustained the desecration. When therefore He says, ‘Go on in your present way, and by so doing destroy this temple,’ He means that their rejection of Himself shall culminate in their consigning to destruction the temple of His body. The essence of the temple is, that it is the dwelling-place of God: His body is God’s temple, for in Him ‘dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’ The material temple had been for ages the type of His body, in which God first truly manifested Himself to man. The continuance of the temple was no longer needed when the living temple was reared; but it was by the destruction or the latter that the destruction of the former was brought about,—its destruction, that is, as the dwelling-place of God. In the holiest place, behind the veil, Jehovah had dwelt: when the Lord Jesus was crucified, the veil was rent, the holy of holies was thrown open, and by being thrown open was shown to be God’s habitation no longer. Our Lord therefore might well use words which relate at once to His body and to the temple, such being the connection between the two. And in three days I will raise it up.—His crucifixion involved the total destruction of the Jewish temple and polity. No longer will there be a special place in which God’s glory will be revealed, to which God’s worshippers will come,-a place in which are national distinctions, a court of the Gentiles, a court of Israel, a court of the priests. His resurrection will establish a new temple, a new order of spiritual worship. He Himself, as raised and glorified Messiah, will be the Cornerstone of a spiritual temple, holy in the Lord. This is one of the many passages in the Gospel which show to us how perfectly all the future of His history was anticipated by our Lord (see chap. John 3:14, etc.). There is no real difficulty in the words, ‘I will raise it up;’ chap. John 10:17-18, furnishes a complete explanation. John 2:20. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? They answer only by another question,—not an inquiry, but really an indignant and scornful rejection of His words. It was at the close of the year 20 B.C. or the beginning of 19 B.C. that Herod the Great began the rebuilding of the temple. The temple itself was completed in eighteen months; the extensive buildings round it required eight years more. So many additions, however, proved necessary before the work could be regarded as finished, that the final completion is assigned by Josephus to the year 50 A.D., seventy years after the commencement of the undertaking, and but twenty years before Jerusalem was destroyed. The ‘forty and six years’ bring us to the year 28 A.D. It is perhaps strange that the Jews should associate the long term of years with the rebuilding of the sanctuary and not the temple as a whole; it is, however, very likely that, at all events, the ornamentation of this building might still be incomplete. Moreover, in their indignant rejoinder to the saying of Jesus, they not unnaturally take up the very term which He had used, even though it applied in strictness only to the most sacred portion of the structure. John 2:21. See above on John 2:19. John 2:22. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this. Again (as in John 2:10) we are struck by the suddenness with which the narrative breaks off. It has been related mainly to bring out the rejection of Jesus by the Jews; the Evangelist pauses upon it only for a moment to speak of the effect on the disciples, as after the former miracle he records that the ‘disciples believed in’ Jesus (John 2:11). We do not find the same statement here, but are told (comp. chap. John 12:16) that the words which baffled the Jews were mysterious to the disciples likewise. Whilst, however, the Jews rejected the ‘hard saying,’ the disciples kept all these things and pondered them in their ‘heart,’ not understanding them until the prophecy was fulfilled. This record of words not understood at the time, even by the inner circle of the followers of Jesus, is a striking indication of the simple truthfulness of the narration (comp. John 2:11). And they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.—The recollection of the words after the resurrection led the disciples (we cannot doubt that John is speaking chiefly of his own experience) to a fuller and richer faith in ‘the scripture’ and ‘the word ‘of Jesus. The ‘word’ must be that of Joh 2:19; but it is not so easy to explain ‘the scripture.’ It cannot mean the Old Testament as a whole, for in this sense John always uses the plural, ‘the Scriptures.’ It would be easier to suppose that the Evangelist has in mind some passages of the Old Testament predictive of the resurrection from Psalms 16; Isaiah 53; Hosea 6), or the rebuilding of the true temple (Zechariah 6:12-15). however, we include several passages, the difficulty in the use of the singular remains as before; and if we seek for a single prediction, we cannot meet with any one that agrees so closely with our Lord’s saying as to be thus definitely pointed out as ‘the scripture.’ We seem bound to refer the word to the only ‘scripture’ that (John 2:17) has been quoted in the context, Psalms 69:9. This verse, speaking of the consuming and of its cause, formed the groundwork of the first part of our Lord’s saying (‘Destroy this temple’). Hence this passage of the psalm and ‘the word which Jesus had said’ form one whole, and as such are mentioned here. The disciples, guided to deeper faith by that which was at the time wholly mysterious (and which was a ‘stone of stumbling’ to those who believed not), recognised the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy and of the prediction of Jesus Himself in the death and resurrection of their Lord. Thus in the first scene of His public ministry, we have Jesus before us in the light in which the whole Gospel is to present Him, at once the crucified and the risen Lord.The whole narrative has been subjected to keen scrutiny both by friends and foes, but its importance has hardly yet been properly acknowledged. A few words must still be said as to its relation to the other Gospels, and as to its place in this.Each of the earlier Gospels records a cleansing of the temple, accomplished, however, not at the outset but at the close of our Lord’s public ministry, on the Monday (probably) preceding the crucifixion. To some it has seemed altogether improbable that there should have been two acts of precisely similar character at the extreme points of the official life of our Lord. But is the character of the two the same? We would not lay too much stress on some of the differences of detail, for apparent divergences sometimes present themselves in connection with narratives which no one would be inclined to explain as relating to different events. There are, however, not a few touches in the account before us which show the hand of an eyewitness;—such as the making of the scourge of cords, the scattering of the money of exchange, the words addressed to the sellers of doves alone, the form of the rebuke, the conversation with the Jews, the incidental notice of the forty-six years (a statement which only elaborate calculation shows to be in harmony with independent statements of another Evangelist). Finally, there is the remarkable perversion before Caiaphas of the words regarding the rebuilding of the temple, on which nothing contained in the earlier Gospels throws any light, and which (especially as given in Mark 14:58) bears all the marks of having been exaggerated in the popular mind through lapse of time. Such considerations as these seem to show that, if the cleansing can have occurred once only, its place in the history is that assigned by John. But is it really at all improbable that two cleansings should have taken place, separated by such an interval of time as the Gospel narrative presupposes? No one will think that the action of our Lord, as here related, would put an end to the traffic, when this very narrative brings before us an official challenge of His authority so to act. At the last Passover Jesus would find the temple-court as much the scene of worldly trading as it was at the first. Did He then, it will be asked, condone the evil when in intervening years He went up to the same feast? This question must be met by another: Have we reason to believe that Jesus attended any other Passover than these two? The feast of chap. John 5:1 was in all probability not a Passover, and at the Passover mentioned in John 6:4. He certainly was not present. If then he attended two Passovers only, is it at all improbable that on the second occasion, as on the first, He would vindicate the purity and sanctity of the temple?The purpose, too, of the two cleansings is different. At the close of His ministry He is hailed as King of Israel, and He indignantly expels from God’s house those who practically denied to Gentiles any share in that place of prayer. Now He acts as the Son of God, offering Himself in this character to rulers and to people, that they may acknowledge His Sonship and obey His word. ‘He came unto His own home,’ His home as Son, ‘and they that were His own received Him not.’ This is the turning-point of His ministry: henceforth He is the rejected of the Jews. This is the significance of the narrative before us. The cleansing and the mysterious words spoken by Jesus (John 2:19) are alike ‘signs.’ The first was a sign of His Sonship, a sign which they refused to accept. That refused, He gives the second; just as, when the Pharisees asked of Him a sign from heaven, He refused to give any save the sign of the prophet Jonah. If they will not listen to the former, the latter alone remains. He would have renewed the life of the temple, but they would not have it so. Let them, then, go on in their ways, and destroy the temple; let them go on in their rejection of Him, and destroy His life. The result will be the raising of a spiritual temple which shall be none of theirs—a temple in which God Himself shall dwell, manifested to all men in the Son. It is of much importance to keep the closing verses of chap. 2 in close connection with the opening verses of chap. 3 (see the commentary on John 3:1). Rejected by the theocracy of Israel Jesus turns to individuals, but these are not confined to Israel. The woman of Samaria and the king’s officer of Galilee are beyond the theocratic pale. Nicodemus, however, who is first introduced to us, does belong to the chosen people; and the conversation of Jesus with him, as it leads him from an imperfect to a perfect faith, illustrates the power which Jesus, though rejected by Israel and doomed to die, shall exercise over the hearts of men. The subordinate parts of this section are—(1) John 2:23-25; (2) John 3:1-15; (3) John 3:16-21. John 2:24-25. But Jesus did not trust himself unto them on account of his discerning all men, and because he needed not that any should bear witness concerning a man; for he himself discerned what was in the man. The effect produced upon Jesus Himself by this imperfection of faith is described in very remarkable language. Many ‘believed in His name,’ and so took the first step towards that surrender of the heart to Him which in John 2:11 we read of as made by His disciples. Had they thus fully trusted themselves to Him, then would He have trusted Himself to them. This is one of the illustrations of the teaching, so characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, with regard to the union and communion of Jesus with His people; if they abide in Him, He abides in them. That these believers have not reached such maturity of faith Jesus Himself discerns. No witness from another is needed by Him, for the thoughts of every man with whom He speaks are ‘naked and opened’ unto Him. The words of John do not in their literal sense go beyond this; but, in declaring that Jesus read the heart of all who came to Him, they imply that other truth with which the rendering in our Bibles has made us familiar: ‘He knew what was in man.’ John 3:1. And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. That this verse does not begin a new section is clearly shown by the first word ‘And,’ which links it with the last chapter; another indication of the same kind is seen when the true reading is restored in John 3:2 (‘to Him ‘for’ to Jesus’). A closer examination will show that the connection thus suggested is really very close and important. In chap. John 2:24-25, a very marked emphasis is laid on ‘man;’ the same word and thought are taken up in this verse. John 3:2 of this chapter brings before us a belief agreeing in nature and ground with that spoken of in chap. John 2:23-24. The last thought of chap. 2 is powerfully illustrated by the answers which Jesus returns to the thoughts of Nicodemus. Clearly, then, John means us to understand that out of the many who ‘believed in the name’ of Jesus was one deserving of special attention, not merely as representing a higher class and special culture, but chiefly because, brought by the signs to a degree of faith, he was desirous of knowing more; and our Lord’s dealings with Nicodemus show how He sought to lead all who were so prepared to a deeper knowledge and higher faith. The name Nicodemus is found in the Talmud, as a Hebrew surname borne by a Jew, a disciple of Jesus, whose true name was Bonai. There is nothing to show that the persons are identical, and on the whole it is more probable that they are not. It is most natural to regard the name Nicodemus as Greek, not Hebrew; compare ‘Philip’ (chap. John 1:43). Nicodemus is described as a Pharisee (see notes on chaps, John 1:24, John 7:32), and as ‘a ruler of the Jews,’—i.e., a member of the Sanhedrin (comp. chap. John 7:50), the great council of seventy-one which held supreme power over the whole nation. In other passages John uses ‘ruler’ in this sense (see John 7:26; John 7:48, John 12:42); here only does he join with it the words ‘of the Jews.’ The added words (see chap. John 1:19) show that Nicodemus stood connected with that body which was ever present to John’s thought as the assemblage of those who represented the self-seeking and formalism which Jesus came to subvert. The elements of hostility already existed, though the open conflict had not yet begun (see chap. John 2:18). It is not easy always to define the relation between ‘the Pharisees ‘and’ the Jews,’ as the two terms are used by John; for under the latter designation the leaders of the Pharisees would certainly be included. The former perhaps usually brings into prominence teaching and principles; the latter points rather to external action. The Pharisees took alarm at the new doctrine, the Jews resented the new authority. Nicodemus is not free from the externalism and prejudices of his class, but his candour and his faith stand out in wonderful contrast to the general spirit evinced by the Pharisees and the Jews. John 3:2. The same came to him by night. Chap. John 19:38-39, seems clearly to show that the motive of Nicodemus in thus coming by night was the same as the cause of Joseph’s secret discipleship—the ‘fear of the Jews.’ That he himself was one of ‘the Jews’ only makes this explanation more probable. We cannot doubt that he came alone; whether Jesus also was alone, or whether John or other disciples were present at the interview, we cannot tell.And said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art come from God, a teacher. Every word here is of importance. On Rabbi see the note, chap. John 1:38. We may be sure that a member of the sect that carefully scrutinised the Baptist’s credentials (chap. John 1:19-24) would not lightly address Jesus by this title of honour, or acknowledge him as Teacher. But the words ‘Thou art come from God’ will appear even more significant, if we keep in mind that the most familiar designation of the Messiah was ‘the coming One,’ He that should come. The appearing of the Baptist quickened in the minds of ‘all men’(Luke 3:15) the recollection of God’s great promise; and the signs lately wrought by Jesus in Jerusalem may well have excited in the mind of this Pharisee hopes which find a hesitating expression in his words. No ordinary prophet would have been thus acknowledged as one ‘come from God.’ At the very least, the confession assigns to Jesus a supreme authority as Teacher. The confession of Nicodemus was made in the name of others besides himself. ‘We know;’—others amongst the Pharisees, perhaps already others amongst the rulers (chap. John 12:42), had reached the same point. No doubt the number was but small, too small to make confession easy, or to banish the very natural fear of the Jews which brought Nicodemus to Jesus by night.For no one can do these signs that thou doest except God be with him. Nicodemus acknowledges the works to be ‘signs’(not so the Jews, chap. John 2:18), and he shows that in him the signs had precisely answered the designed end. The faith indeed which rested on these alone was imperfect, but it was faith; more could be gained; the faith could be educated, raised higher, and made more complete. How truly this faith has been educated will be shown when (chap. John 19:39) it shall come forth in honour of that crucified Redeemer who is here to be proclaimed (John 3:14). Such education, however, can be effected only by the word of Jesus, leading to fellowship with Himself. For this word Nicodemus now comes. In reading the following verses we must bear in mind that, as Jesus would train and strengthen the faith of Nicodemus, it is the weak side of this faith that is kept in view; but the Saviour’s acceptance of the faith as real is plainly to be seen in the openness and unreservedness of the teaching He vouchsafes. Many have pointed out the contrast between this discourse and those related in the other Gospels; but had there been no difference between discourses delivered to the half-instructed excitable multitudes of Galilee and those intended for a ‘teacher of Israel,’ the apparent agreement would have been a discord which no argument could explain away (see Introduction). John 3:3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one have been born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jesus answers his thoughts rather than his words, but the connection between the address and the answer is not hard to find. John the Baptist had familiarised all with the thought that the kingdom of God was at hand, that the reign of the Messiah, so long expected, would soon begin. Whatever meaning may be assigned to the words of Joh 3:2, we may certainly say that every thoughtful Jew who believed what Nicodemus believed was ‘waiting for the kingdom of God.’ But the Pharisee’s conception of the Messianic promise was false. In great measure, at least, his ‘kingdom of God’ was outward and carnal, not inward and spiritual,—a privilege of birth, belonging of right to Israel. This false conception Jesus would at once correct, and the gravity of the error is reflected in the solemnity of the language, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee.’—‘Any one.’ This more literal rendering is necessary here because of the next verse. Our Lord says simply any one. Nicodemus brings in the word ‘man,’ to give more expressiveness to his reply.‘Have been born anew.’ It has been, and still is, a much controverted question whether the Greek word here used should be rendered again, or anew, or from above. ‘Again’ is certainly inadequate; for, though the word may denote beginning over again, commencing the action afresh, it cannot express mere repetition. Much may be said in favour of the third rendering, ‘from above.’ This is the undoubted meaning of the same word as used below (John 3:31); and a similar idea is expressed in the passages of the Gospel (chap. John 1:13) and First Epistle of John (chap. 1 John 2:29, 1 John 5:1, etc.) which speak of those who are begotten of God. It may also be urged that, as Christ is ‘He that cometh from above’ (John 3:31), those who through faith are one with Christ must derive their being from the same source, and may well be spoken of as ‘born from above.’ Notwithstanding these arguments, it is probable that anew is the true rendering. Had the other thought been intended, we might surely have expected ‘of God’ instead of ‘from above.’ The correspondence between the two members of the sentence would then have been complete; only those who have been born of God can see the kingdom of God. Further, born (or begotten) of God is a very easy and natural expression, but this can hardly be said of born (or begotten) from above: ‘coming from above’ is perfectly clear; ‘born from above’ is not so. The chief argument, however, is afforded by the next verse, which clearly shows that Nicodemus understood a second birth to be intended. But the words ‘except any one have been born from above’ would not necessarily imply a second birth. The Jews maintained that they were born of God (see chap. John 8:41), and would have had no difficulty whatever in believing that those only who received their being from above could inherit the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom. Our Lord’s words, then, teach the fundamental truth, that not natural birth, descent from the stock of Israel, but a second birth, the being begotten anew, a complete spiritual change (see John 3:5), admits into the kingdom of God.On the general expectation of a king and a kingdom, see chap. John 1:49. It is remarkable that the kingdom of God is expressly mentioned by John in this chapter only (compare, however, chap. John 18:36).-‘Cannot’ is by no means the same as ‘shall not.’ It expresses an impossibility in the very nature of things. To a state of outward earthly privilege rights of natural birth might give admittance. In declaring that without a complete inward change none can possibly see (have a true perception of) ‘the kingdom of God,’ Jesus declares the spiritual character of His kingdom. In it none but the spiritual can have any part. John 3:4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? These are the words of a man amazed beyond measure. Jesus has read his thoughts, and the answer to his unspoken question has come with the suddenness and surprise of a thunderbolt. The solemn emphasis laid on the words ‘born anew’ forbids his thinking of a mere figure of speech, and apparently banishes from his mind the Old Testament expressions which approach the same truth (see John 3:5). The privilege which he attached to natural birth within the bounds of Israel is tom away by a word; the’ any one ‘of our Lord’s answer, makes all men equal; and the prize which seemed almost within his grasp is given to every one who has been born anew. In his bewilderment he sees no meaning in the words of Jesus, except they be understood physically of a second natural birth; and the evident impossibility of this he expresses in the very strongest terms. John 3:5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one have been born of water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The answer is a stronger affirmation of the same truth, with some changes of expression which made the words no easier of acceptance, save as the new terms might awaken echoes of Old Testament language, and lead the hearer from the external to an inward and spiritual interpretation.The first words have given rise to warm and continued controversy. Many have held that the birth ‘of water and spirit; can only refer to Christian baptism; others have denied that Christian baptism is alluded to at all. The subject is very important and very difficult. Our only safety lies in making the Evangelist his own interpreter. We shall repeatedly find, when a difficulty occurs, that some word of his own in the context or in some parallel passage brings us light. (1) First, then, as to the very peculiar expression,’ of water and spirit.’ We cannot doubt that this is the true rendering; no direct reference is made as yet to the personal Holy Spirit. The words ‘water and spirit’ are most closely joined, and placed under the government of the same preposition. A little earlier in the Gospel (chap. John 1:33) we find the same words—not, indeed, joined together as here, but yet placed in exact parallelism, each word, too, receiving emphasis from the context. Three times between chap. John 1:19 and chap. John 1:33. John speaks of his baptism with water; twice there is a reference to the Spirit (John 1:32-33); and in John 3:33. John’s baptizing with water and our Lord’s baptizing with ‘holy spirit’ (see the note) stand explicitly contrasted. It is very possible that this testimony was well known to others besides John’s disciples, to all indeed in Judea who were roused to inquiry respecting the Baptist and his relation to Jesus. (2) It is possible that the Jews of that age may have been familiar with the figure of a new birth in connection with baptism. It is confessedly difficult accurately to ascertain Jewish usages and modes of thought in the time of our Lord. The Talmud indeed contains copious stores of information, but it is not easy to distinguish between what belongs to an earlier and what to a later age. We know that converts to the Jewish religion were admitted by baptism to fellowship with the sacred people. The whole tenor of the law would suggest such a washing when the uncleanness of heathenism was put off, and hence no rite could be more natural. Yet we have no certain knowledge that this was practised so early as the time of our Lord. There is no doubt that, at a later date, the proselyte thus washed or baptized was spoken of as born again. Here again, therefore, we have some confirmation of the view that in the words before us there is in some sort a reference to baptism,—at all events, to the baptism of John. (3) But what was John’s baptism? We see from chap. John 1:25 how peculiar his action appeared to the rulers of the people. Even if proselytes were in that age baptized, a baptism that invited all, publican and Pharisee alike, would but seem the more strange. John’s action was new and startling; and from chap. John 1:21-25 it appears that the leaders of Jewish thought beheld in it an immediate reference to the time of Messiah. It seems very probable that John’s baptism was directly symbolic, a translation into visible symbol of such promises as Ezekiel 36:25, which looked forward to the new spiritual order of which he was the herald. To the sprinkling with clean water, the cleansing from all filthiness, of which Ezekiel speaks, answers closely John’s ‘baptism of repentance for the remission of sins’ (compare also Ezekiel 36:31). To the promise which follows, ‘A new spirit will I put within you. ... I will put my spirit within you,’ answers just as closely John’s testimony to Jesus, ‘He it is that baptizeth with holy spirit.’ (4) The two contrasted elements in the baptisms of chap. John 1:33 are—(a) the covering and removal of past sin; and (b) the inbreathing of a new life. In that verse ‘holy spirit’ is the gift and not the Giver. The Giver is the Holy Spirit; but the gift, that which is the essential element in the new baptism, is the bestowal of ‘holy spirit,’ the seed and the principle of a holy spiritual life. (5) These two elements were conjoined in the Christian baptism instituted afterwards: the cleansing of forgiveness through Christ’s death and the holiness of the new life in Christ are alike symbolized in it. Here, therefore, our Lord says that no man can enter into the kingdom of God unless he have been born anew, the elements of the new birth being the removal by cleansing of the old sinful life, and the impartation by the Holy Spirit of a new holy principle of life.—If this view of the words is correct, there is error in both extremes of which mention has been made. There is no direct reference here to Christian baptism; but the reference to the truths which that baptism expresses is distinct and clear. John 3:6. That which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. In the last verse was implied the law that like is produced from like, since the pure and spiritual members of God’s kingdom must be born of water and spirit. Here this law is expressly stated. Flesh produces flesh. Spirit produces spirit. Thus the necessity of a new birth is enforced, and the ‘cannot’ of John 3:3 explained. It is not easy to say whether ‘flesh,’ as here used, definitely indicates the sinful principles of human nature, or only that which is outward, material, not spiritual but merely natural. The latter seems more likely, both from the context (where the contrast is between the natural and the spiritual birth) and from John’s usage elsewhere. Though the word occurs as many as thirteen times in this Gospel (chap. John 1:13-14, John 6:51-52, etc., John 8:15, John 17:2), in no passage does it express the thought of sinfulness, as it does in Paul’s Epistles and in 1 John 2:16. Another difficulty meets us in the second clause. Are we to read ‘born of the Spirit’ or ‘of the spirit’? Is the reference to the Holy Spirit Himself, who imparts the principle of the new life, or to the principle which He imparts,-the principle just spoken of in John 3:5, ‘of water and spirit’ It is hard to say, and the difference in meaning is extremely small; but when we consider the analogy of the two clauses, the latter seems more likely.—There is no reference here to ‘water;’ but, as we have seen, the water has reference to the past alone,-the state which gives place to the new life. To speak of this would be beside the point of the verse now before us, which teaches that the spiritual life of the kingdom of God can only come from the new spiritual principle. John 3:7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. Nicodemus had no doubt shown by look or exclamation his astonishment at hearing such words, containing so strange a view of the kingdom of God and the conditions on which it could be entered. The use of ‘marvel’ in other passages would seem to show that in this Gospel the word indicates much more than amazement. It is certainly not the astonishment of admiration, but incredulous and sometimes angry surprise. Our Lord’s teaching had set at nought the accepted teaching of Israel, thoughts and hopes to which Nicodemus had long and firmly clung, and his heart rebels. Our Lord, according to His wont, does but the more emphatically affirm the truth at which Nicodemus stumbled. ‘Ye must be born again’ the necessity is absolute. Before, He had spoken of ‘any one,’ leaving the application to His hearer; now, as Nicodemus had said ‘We know,’ Jesus says ‘Ye must,’—even ye who possess the treasures of Israel’s learning, and whom the signs are guiding to the King of Israel, ‘ye must be born again:’ ‘Marvel not at this.’ John 3:8. The words of this verse point out to Nicodemus why he must not thus ‘marvel’ at the new teaching,—must not cast it away with incredulous surprise. Nature itself may teach him. In nature there is an agent whose working is experienced and acknowledged by all, while at the same time it is full of mystery; yet the mystery makes no man doubt the reality of the working.The wind breatheth where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh and whither it goeth. From the beginning the wind seems to have been the divinely-intended witness and emblem in the natural world of the Spirit of God. Ever present, it bore a constant witness. A commentator (Tholuck) has conjectured that, whilst Jesus spoke, there was heard the sound of the wind as it swept through the narrow street of the city, thus furnishing an occasion for the comparison here. It may well have been so; every reader of the Gospels may see how willingly our Lord drew lessons from natural objects around Him. Such a conjecture might help to explain the abruptness with which the meaning of the word is changed, the very same word which in John 3:5-6 was rendered spirit being now used in the sense of wind. Nothing but the abruptness of this transition needs any explanation. The appointed emblem teaches the lesson for which it was appointed. The choice of terms (breatheth, listeth, voice) shows that the wind is personified. It is perhaps of the gentle breeze rather than of the violent blast that the words speak (for the word pneuma is used with much more latitude in the Greek Bible than in classical Greek); in the breath of wind there is even more mystery than in the blast. Thou hearest its voice, it is present though invisible; thou feelest its power, for thou art in its course; but where the course begins, what produces the breath,—whither the course is tending, what is the object of the breath,-thou knowest not. Nicodemus, unable to question this, would remember Old Testament words which spoke of man’s not knowing ‘the way of the wind’ as illustrating man’s ignorance of the Creator’s works (Ecclesiastes 11:5).So is every one that hath been born of the Spirit. As in the natural, so is it in the spiritual world. The wind breatheth where it listeth; the Spirit breatheth where He will. Thou hearest the sound of the wind, but canst not fix the limits of this course, experiencing only that thou thyself art in that course: every one that hath been born of the Spirit knows that His influence is real, experiencing that influence in himself, but can trace His working no farther,—knows not the beginning or the end of His course. Our Lord does not speak of the birth itself, but of the resulting state. The birth itself belongs to a region beyond the outward and the sensible, just as none can tell whence the breath of wind has come.It ought perhaps to be noted before leaving this verse, that many take the first part of the verse as having reference to the Spirit, not the wind: ‘The Spirit breatheth where He will, and thou hearest His voice, but knowest not whence He cometh and whither He goeth; so is every one that hath been born of the Spirit.’ The chief arguments in favour of this translation are the following:—(1) It does not involve a sudden transition from one meaning to another of the same Greek word. (2) On the ordinary view there is some confusion in the comparison: the words are not, ‘The wind breatheth where ... so is the Spirit;’ but, ‘The wind breatheth where . . . so is every one that hath been born of the Spirit.’ These two arguments have substantially been dealt with above. As to the first point—the sudden transition from the thought of spirit to that of its emblem in nature-perhaps no more need be said. The second argument has not much real weight. The language is condensed, it is true, and the words corresponding to the first clause ( The wind bloweth where it listeth’) are not directly expressed, but have to be supplied in thought. The chief comparison, however, is between the ‘thou’ of the first member and the ‘every one’ of the second, as we have already seen. On the other hand, the difficulties presented by the new translation are serious, but we cannot here follow them in detail. John 3:9. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things come to pass? The tone of this answer is very different from that of Joh 3:4. Here, as there, the question is, How can…? But there the added words show that the meaning is, ‘It is impossible’(comp. Luke 1:18); whereas in this verse the chief stress lies on the first word ‘How’(comp. Luke 1:34). The offended astonishment of Nicodemus (John 3:7) has yielded to the words of Jesus. He now understands that Jesus really means that there is such a thing as a new spiritual birth, in contrast with that natural birth which had ever seemed to him the only necessary condition of entrance into the kingdom of Messiah. Still, as John 3:12 shows, the victory over unbelief is not yet complete. John 3:10. Jesus answered and said unto him, Thou art the teacher of Israel; and perceivest thou not these things? The question which expressed the bewilderment of Nicodemus is answered by another question. He has assumed the office of teacher, teacher of God’s people Israel, and yet he does not recognise these truths. ‘Israel’ is a word used only four times in this Gospel, and never without special meaning. We have seen its significance in John 1:31 and John 1:49; and chap. John 12:13 is similar. The only remaining passage is that before us. No word so clearly brings into view the nation of God’s special choice. The name carries us back from a time of degeneracy and decadence to past days of hope and promise. It was to Israel that God showed His statutes and His judgments (Psalms 147:19), and this thought is very prominent here. Of Israel thus possessed of the very truths to which Jesus had made reference (see above, on John 3:5) Nicodemus is ‘the teacher.’ It is not simply ‘a teacher,’ though it is not very easy to say what the presence of the article denotes. It is possible that Nicodemus occupied a superior position, or was held in especial honour amongst the doctors of the law; or the words may merely imply that he magnified his office and was proud to be teacher of God’s people. Surely from him might have been expected such knowledge of the Scriptures and insight into their meaning that the truth of the words just spoken by Jesus would at once be recognised. For our Lord does not say ‘and knowest not;’ Nicodemus is not blamed for any want of previous knowledge of these things, but because he does not perceive the truth of the teaching when presented to him,—and presented, moreover, by One whose right to teach with authority he had himself confessed. It will be observed that Jesus does not answer the ‘How’ of the preceding question; that had been answered by anticipation. In John 3:8 Jesus had declared that the manner must be a mystery to man, whereas the fact was beyond all doubt. The fact was known to every one that had been born of the Spirit, but to such only. Hence in the following verse we have a renewed and more emphatic affirmation of the truth and certainty of what has been said. If Nicodemus would really know the fact, it must be by the knowledge of experience. He appears no further in this narrative. The last words have reduced him to silence,-thoughtful silence, we cannot doubt,-but have not brought him to complete belief. John 3:11. Verily, verily, I say unto thee. These words form the solemn introduction to a new division, a higher stage, of the discourse. The connecting link between John 3:10-11 is reproof. The last verse laid stress on the knowledge which should have prepared the teacher of Israel for the reception of the word of Jesus; in this the emphasis lies on the dignity of the Teacher whose word he had been so slow to receive.We speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen. The sudden transition to the plural ‘we know’ is remarkable. We cannot suppose that our Lord here joins with Himself the prophets of the Old Covenant, or John the Baptist, or that He is speaking of the testimony of the Father and the Holy Spirit. The key to the plural is found in John 3:8. Every one who dwells in the spiritual world of which Jesus has been speaking is a witness to its reality and its wonders. Here then Jesus associates with Himself in this emphatic testimony all who have been born of the Spirit. It is further to be observed that the change of expression is peculiarly appropriate, since he is about to pass away from the direct address to Nicodemus himself, and to speak through him to the class to which he belonged. Nicodemus had at first said ‘we know’ (John 3:2), as representative of others like-minded with himself, who by the signs had been led to faith in the name of Jesus, but were ignorant of His spiritual work. Jesus now contrasts with these another class, consisting of all who from their own experience could join Him in His testimony to the reality of the spiritual kingdom. The words of Jesus in chap. John 9:4 are equally remarkable in their association of His people with Himself.-The two parallel members of this verse bring the truth expressed into bold relief. The words closely correspond (knowing to speaking; seeing to bearing witness), while there is at the same time an advance in the thought, since bearing witness rises above speaking, and we have seen is more expressive than we know. In John 3:8, where the wind was taken as the emblem of the Spirit, the sense which bore witness was that of hearing. This verse speaks of something more convincing still, the sense of sight.And ye receive not our witness. To such sayings of his Master we may trace the mournful reflections which are again and again made by the Evangelist (see John 1:11, John 3:32, John 12:37). Though the reference is to a class (‘ye receive’), yet the words seem to imply that some unbelief still lingered in the heart of Nicodemus himself. John 3:12. If I told you the earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you the heavenly things? Here our Lord returns to the singular, ‘I told;’ for He is not now speaking of the witness of experience, but of instruction which He Himself had personally given. It seems hardly possible, however, that our Lord simply refers to words just spoken. In saying ‘If I told you the earthly things, and ye believe not,’ He plainly refers to unbelief after instruction,-unbelief which instruction failed to remove. But if Nicodemus came alone (and there is no doubt that he did), he alone had received this last instruction. Others might be described as unbelievers, but not as remaining in unbelief after having heard the teaching concerning the new birth. We are compelled, therefore, to suppose that our Lord spoke generally of previous discourses to the Jews, and not specifically of these His latest words. But what are the earthly and the heavenly things? Many answers have been given which are Tittle more than arbitrary conjectures. Again the Evangelist must be his own interpreter. As in the next verse ‘heaven’ is not used figuratively, it cannot be maintained that heavenly is figurative here. The words ‘earthly’ and ‘heavenly’ must have their simple meaning, ‘what is upon earth,’ ‘what is in heaven.’ The things that are in heaven can only be made known by Him who has been in heaven; this is suggested by the connection between this verse and the next. When we come to the last section of the chapter, we shall find that it contains (in some degree) a comment upon these verses. Now there (in John 3:32) we read of Him ‘that cometh out of heaven, who’ bears witness of what He has seen and heard, who being sent from God ‘speaketh the words of God’ (John 3:34). But this same comment takes note of the converse also. Contrasted with Him who comes from heaven is he that is out of the earth ‘and’ speaketh out of the earth (John 3:31). Combining these explanatory words, we may surely say that ‘the heavenly things’ are those truths which He who cometh from heaven, and He alone, can reveal, which are the words of God revealing His counsels by the Divine Son now come. The things on earth, in like manner, are the truths whose home is earth, so to speak, which were known before God revealed Himself by Him who is in the bosom of the Father (chap. John 1:18). They are ‘earthly,’ not as belonging to the world of sin or the world of sense, but as being things which the prophet or teacher who has never ascended into heaven, but whose origin and home are the earth, can reach, though not necessarily by his own unaided powers. In His former discourses to the Jews, Jesus would seem not to have gone beyond the circle of truth already revealed. Even in His words to Nicodemus He mainly dwells on that which the Scriptures of the Old Testament had taught; and He reproves the teacher of Israel who did not at once recognise His words, thus founded on the Old Testament, as truth. The kingdom of God, the necessity of repentance and faith, the new heart, the holy life, the need at once of cleansing and of quickening-these and other truths, once indeed inhabitants of heaven, had long been naturalised on earth. Having been revealed, they belonged to men, whereas the secret things belong unto the Lord (Deuteronomy 29:29). Those of whom our Lord spoke had yielded a partial belief, but the ‘believing’ of which He here speaks is a perfect faith. Nicodemus was a believer, and yet not a believer. If some of the truths hitherto declared had been so imperfectly received, though those who were mighty in the Scriptures ought to have recognised them as already taught, almost as part of the law that was given through Moses (chap. John 1:17), how would it be when He spoke of the things hitherto secret, coming directly out of the heaven which He opens (comp. John 1:51), and for the first time revealed in Him,-part of the ‘truth’ that ‘came through Jesus Christ’? (chap. John 1:17). It will be seen, then, that the truth of Joh 3:5 would seem to be placed by Jesus rather amongst the ‘earthly’ than amongst the ‘heavenly’ things. Of some of the heavenly things He proceeds to speak (John 3:14-15). John 3:13. And no one hath ascended up into heaven, but he that came down out of heaven, the Son of man. The connection is this: ‘How will ye believe if I tell you the heavenly things? And it is from me alone that ye .can learn them. No one can tell the heavenly things unless he has been in heaven, and no one has been in heaven and come down to earth save myself.’ Repeatedly does our Lord in this Gospel speak of His coming down out of heaven (John 6:33; John 6:38, etc.), using the very word that we meet with here; and hence it is impossible to give the phrase a merely figurative sense. He came forth from the Father, and came into the world (John 16:28), that He might declare the Father (chap. John 1:18) and speak unto the world what He had heard from Him (chap. John 8:26). But this requires that we take the other verb ‘hath ascended up’ in its literal sense, and then the words seem to imply that Jesus had already ascended into heaven. ‘Hath ascended up’ cannot refer to His future ascension; and there is no foundation for the view held by some, that within the limits of His ministry on earth He was ever literally taken up into heaven. What, then, is the meaning? There are several passages in which the words ‘save’ or ‘except’ present the same difficulty. One of the most familiar is Luke 4:27, where it seems at first strange to read, ‘Many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian,’—no leper of Israel cleansed except a leper who was not of Israel! The mind is so fixed on the lepers and their cleansing, that the other words ‘of them’ are not carried on in thought to the last clause: ‘none of them was cleansed,—indeed, no leper was cleansed save Naaman the Syrian.’ So also in the preceding verse (Luke 4:26). In other passages (such as Galatians 2:16; Revelation 21:27) the same peculiarity exists, but it is not apparent in the Authorised Version. The verse before us is exactly similar. The special thought is not the having gone up into heaven, but the having been in heaven. This was the qualification for revealing the truths which are here spoken of as heavenly things. But none (none, that is, of the sons of men; for this is a general maxim, the exception is not brought in till afterwards) could be in heaven without ascending from earth to heaven. No one has gone up into heaven, and by thus being in heaven obtained the knowledge of heavenly things; and, indeed, no one has been in heaven save He that came down out of heaven, the Son of man. Observe how insensibly our Lord has passed into the revelation of the heavenly things themselves. He could not speak of His power to reveal without speaking of that which is first and chief of all the heavenly things, viz. that He Himself came down out of heaven to be the Son of man (on the name ‘Son of man’ see chap. John 1:51). The reference to our Lord’s humanity is here strikingly in place. He came down from heaven and became the Son of man to reveal these heavenly truths and (John 3:14-15) to give the heavenly blessings unto man. The weight of evidence compels us to believe that the concluding words of this verse, as it stands in the Authorised Version, were not written by John. We can only suppose that they were a very early comment on, or addition to, the text, first written in the margin, then by mistake joined to the text. Were they genuine, they would probably refer to the abiding presence of the Son with the Father; but in such a sense it is very improbable that ‘Son of man’ would have been the name chosen. At all events, we have no other example of the same kind. John 3:14-15. And as Moses lifted on high the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted on high, that every one that believeth may in him have eternal life. These verses continue the revelation of the heavenly things. The first truth is, that He who was in heaven came down to earth to be the Son of man. The next is, that the Son of man must be exalted, but in no such manner as the eager hopes of Nicodemus imagined. The secret counsel of heaven was, that He who was with God should as Son of man be lifted on high, as the serpent was lifted on high by Moses in the wilderness. Thus, indeed, it must be, that He may become the Giver of eternal life.—The word rendered ‘lifted on high’ occurs fifteen times in other parts of the New Testament, sometimes in such proverbial sayings as Matthew 23:12, sometimes in reference to the exaltation of our Lord (Acts 2:33; Acts 5:31). In this Gospel we find it in three verses besides the present. The general usage of the word in the New Testament and the Old is sufficient to show that it cannot here signify merely raising or lifting up. And yet John’s own explanation forbids us to exclude this thought. All the passages in his Gospel which connect the word with the Son of man must clearly be taken together; and chap. John 12:33 (see note there) declares that the word contains a reference to the mode of the Saviour’s death—the elevation on the cross. Nicodemus looked for the exaltation of the King in the coming kingdom of God. Exalted He shall be, not like me monarch sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, amid pomp and splendour, but receiving His true power and glory at the time when He hangs upon a tree an object of shame. The brazen serpent, made in the likeness of the destroyer, placed on a standard and held up to the gaze of all, might seem fitted only to call forth execration from those who were reminded of their peril, scorn and contempt from those who saw but a powerless symbol; but the dying Israelite looked thereon and lived. The looking was a type of faith—nay, it was itself an act of faith in the promise of God. The serpent was raised on high that all might look on it; the exaltation of the Son of man, which begins with the shame of the cross, has for its object the giving of life to all (compare chap. John 12:32, and also Hebrews 2:9). ‘That every one that believeth.’ At first our Lord closely follows the words spoken in John 3:12. As there we read, ‘Ye believe not,’ so here, He that believeth as yet no qualifying word is added to deepen the significance of the ‘belief.’ What is before us is the general thought of receiving the word of Jesus. In that all is in truth included; for he that truly receives His word finds that its first and chief requirement is faith in Jesus Himself. So here, the trust is first general, but the thought of fellowship and union, so characteristic of this Gospel, comes in immediately, ‘that every one that believeth may in Him have eternal life.’ These verses which reveal the heavenly truths contain the very first mention of ‘eternal life,’ the blessing of which John, echoing his Master’s words, is ever speaking. ‘Eternal life’ is a present possession for the believer (comp. John 3:36); its essence is union with God in Christ. See especially chap. John 17:3; 1 John 1:2; 1 John 5:11.The result of the interview with Nicodemus is not recorded, but the subsequent mention of him in the Gospel can leave no doubt upon our mind that, whether at this moment or not, he eventually embraced the truth. It would seem that, as the humiliation of Jesus deepened, he yielded the more to that truth against which at the beginning of this conversation he would most have rebelled. It is the persecution of Jesus that draws him forward in His defence (John 7:51); it is when Jesus has been lifted up on the cross that he comes to pay Him honour (John 19:39). He is thus a trophy, not of the power of signs alone, but of the power of the heavenly things taught by Jesus.At this point an important question arises. Are the next five verses a continuation of the preceding discourse? Are they words of Jesus or a reflection by the Evangelist himself upon his Master’s words? Most commentators have taken the former view. The latter was first suggested by Erasmus, and has found favour with many thoughtful writers on this Gospel. And with reason. The first suggestion of a sudden break in the discourse may be startling, but a close examination of the verses will show that they present distinct traces of belonging to John:—(1) Their general style and character remind us of the Prologue. (2) The past tenses ‘loved’ and ‘were’ in John 3:19 at once recall chap. John 1:10-11; and are generally more in harmony with the tone of the Evangelist’s later reflections than with that of the Redeemer’s discourse. (3) In John 3:11 Jesus says, ‘ye receive not our testimony:’ in John 3:19 the impression produced is not that of a present refusal, but rather of a past and continued rejection. (4) In no other place is the appellation’ only begotten used by Jesus Himself in regard to the Son, though it is used by the Evangelist in chap. John 1:14, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:9. It cannot be fairly said that there is anything really strange in the introduction of these reflections. It is altogether in the manner of this writer to comment on what he has related (see especially John 12:37-41); and in at least one instance he passes suddenly, without any mark of transition, from the words of another to his own,—for very few will Suppose chap. John 1:16 to be a continuation of the Baptist’s testimony (John 3:15). The view now advocated will receive strong confirmation if we convince the reader that there is a similar break after John 3:30 in this chapter, the last six verses belonging to the author of the Gospel and not to the Baptist. John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that every one that believeth in him may not perish, but have eternal life. In the preceding verses is recorded the first announcement of the Gospel by our Lord, the revelation of the mystery made manifest by Him who came out of heaven. John pauses to set his Master’s words in the light in which he himself had afterwards beheld them. Jesus had said ‘must be lifted on high,’ but had given no reason. His disciple, whose message to the church was ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:16), refers back the necessity to this truth. Whatever remains still hidden, so much as this is certain, that the humiliation and exaltation of Him who came down out of heaven were the expression of God’s love to the whole world. The Son of man is the Son of God, the only begotten Son; the one term expresses His fitness for the work, the other points to His dignity and to the greatness of the Father’s love. In this love the Father gave the Son: to what He surrendered Him is not here said; our Lord’s own words (John 3:14) fill up the meaning. The universality of the blessing is marked with twofold emphasis; designed, not for Israel only, but for the whole world, it is the actual possession of every believer. The words relating to faith are more definite than in John 3:14; for (see chap. John 2:11) to ‘believe in Him’ points to a trust which casts itself on Him and presses into union with Him. The Divine purpose is presented under two aspects, not one only (as in John 3:15); it is that the believer may be saved from perdition, and may now possess eternal life.-This verse contains most of the leading terms of John’s theology. One only of these requires further comment, on account of the various senses in which it is employed by the Evangelist. The ‘world’ does not in this verse designate those who had received and rejected the offer of salvation. It is thought of as at an earlier stage of its history; the light is not yet presented by the acceptance or rejection of which the final state of the world shall be determined. John 3:17. For God sent not the Son into the world that he may judge the world; but that the world through him may be saved. The thought of the last verse is expanded. There it was the gift of God’s love that was brought before us; now it is the mission of the Son. To ‘may perish (John 3:16) here corresponds’ may judge the world, to ‘have eternal life’ answers ‘may be saved.’ This alone is sufficient to show that the word ‘judge,’ though not in itself equivalent to ‘condemn,’ has reference to a judgment which tends to condemnation. The Jews believed that Messiah would come to glorify Israel, but to judge the Gentiles; the solemn and emphatic repetition of ‘the world’ rebukes all such limitations, as effectually as the words of Joh 3:3 set aside the distinctions which were present to the thought of Nicodemus.—It may seem hard to reconcile the first part of this verse with John 5:22; John 5:27, John 9:39, John 12:48. We must, however, recognise a twofold purpose in Christ’s coming. He came to save, not to judge the world. He came to judge the world in so far as it will not allow itself to be saved; and this judgment is one that takes place even now (because even now there is wilful unbelief), though it will only be consummated hereafter. John 3:18. He that believeth in him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. The two preceding verses express the Divine purpose in itself, and that purpose passing into accomplishment; this verse speaks of the actual result. Two of the terms of these verses, the believing in Jesus of Joh 3:16 and the judging of Joh 3:17, are here brought together. He that abides in faith in Christ abides in a state to which judging belongs not; whilst the faith remains, the idea of judgment is excluded, for the believer is one with the Lord in whom he has placed his trust. Not so with the unbeliever; on him the sentence of judgment is already pronounced. As long as the unbelief is persisted in, so long does the sentence which the rejection of Jesus brings with it remain in force against him. The great idea of the Gospel, the division of all men into two classes severed from each other, is very clearly presented here; but no unchangeable division is thought of. The separation is the result of deliberate choice; and whilst the choice is adhered to, the severance abides. As the faith of the believer is faith ‘in Him,’ faith that brings personal union, the unbelief is the rejection of His Person revealed in all its dignity, the only begotten Son of God. John 3:19. And this is the judgment,—the judgment is of this kind, takes place thus,—because the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. These words bring out clearly that the ‘not believing’ spoken of in the last verse signifies an active rejection, and not the mere absence of belief—a rejection of the true light which in the person of Jesus came into the world, and henceforth ever is in the world. Men loved the darkness, for their works—not single deeds, but the whole expression and manifestation of their life-were wicked. The word used (‘wicked’) is that which elsewhere expresses the character of the arch-enemy as ‘the wicked one’ (John 17:15; 1 John 3:12). It denotes active evil, positive and pronounced wickedness. John 3:20. For every one that committeth evil hateth the light, and he cometh not to the light lest his works should be convicted. This verse explains the last, and refers the action there described to a general principle. The universal law is, that he who committeth evil hateth the light. Not ‘he that hath committed,’ for what is spoken of is the bent and the spirit of the man’s life. The word ‘evil’ here is not the same as that rendered ‘wicked’ in John 3:19, but is more, general. The one word means evil in active manifestation; the other what is worthless, good for nothing. No doubt the second word is used in this verse partly for the sake of vivid contrast with the real and abiding ‘truth’ of John 3:21, partly because what is worthless and unsubstantial will not stand the test of coming to that very light which shows in all its reality whatever is substantial and true. Every one whose life is thus evil knows that in the presence of the light he must stand self-condemned. The experience is painful, and he endeavours to avoid it by turning from the light, till, as conscience still asserts its power, he seeks defence against himself by hating the light (compare 1 Kings 22:8). We must not forget the application that is in John’s mind. The light that is come is Jesus Himself. He is come; but men also must come to Him. If they came not, the cause was a moral one. Before He came, some light had been in the world (John 1:5); those who, living a life of evil (whether open wickedness or a worthless self-righteousness), hated this light, were thus prepared to reject the Light Himself.—The last word of the verse is remarkable, as it is more naturally applied to the doer than to his deed. Not only will the works be shown by the light—be exposed in their true character: the works are looked on as of themselves the criminals—they will be self-convicted, self-condemned. The thought of self-conviction has in this Gospel an importance that can hardly be over-estimated. John 3:21. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they have been wrought in God. In contrast with those who commit evil is another class—those who do the truth. The words expressing action in John 3:20-21, are different: that in John 3:20 (‘committeth’) refers directly to the particular acts, that which is used here (which properly denotes to make, to produce) brings into view rather the result. The man here spoken of is (so to speak) at work in raising the abiding structure of ‘the truth.’ So far as the truth has been revealed to him, his life is faithful to it; his works are an expression of the truth that is in his heart. As Jesus says (chap. John 18:37), ‘Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice; ‘so here we read, ’He that doeth the truth cometh to the light.’ There is a natural affinity between truth and light; he who is faithful to truth received is, through the very nature of the truth within him, impelled towards Him who is the Truth. He does not come to the light that his works may be made known to others: there is no self-seeking,—perhaps even it is not the conscious purpose of the man himself that is spoken of, but rather the instinctive aim of the truth within him, and thus in reality the purpose of God, that all the works of God be made manifest. The works of this doer of truth have been wrought in God. The discipline by which he is led to the Son is of the Father (see chap. 6 especially). For this cause he comes, and must needs come, at the bidding of the truth, that the works of God in him may be brought out of all concealment and made manifest. His coming to Christ is itself a manifestation of the preceding work of God in him. This section affords us our last view of the great Forerunner when, at the moment of his disappearance, he utters his highest testimony to Jesus as the true Bridegroom of the Church, alone to be welcomed by all waiting hearts. Hence it immediately precedes Christ’s proclamation of His truth beyond Judea. The subordinate parts are—(1) John 3:22-30; (2) John 3:31-36. John 3:23. And John also was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there were many waters there: and they came and were baptised. Where Ænon and Salim were situated it is not easy to determine. The position assigned them by Eusebius and Jerome, near the northern boundary of Samaria, does not agree well with John 3:22. It is more probable that Salim is the Shilhim (translated Salem in the LXX.) of Joshua 15:32, a town not far from the southern limit of Judea. In this verse of Joshua (in the Hebrew) Shilhim is directly followed by Ain, from which AEnon differs only in being an intensive form—Ain denoting a spring, and AEnon, springs. The objection to this identification is that, as John was clearly in the neighbourhood of Jesus, it takes the latter from the route leading to Samaria and Galilee. But the history of the events of the period is so brief and fragmentary that this objection has not much weight. John no doubt alludes to the meaning of AEnon when he adds that there were ‘many waters’ there. John 3:24. For John was not yet east into prison. Words in which the Evangelist vindicates the accuracy of his narrative, and corrects a mistake apparently prevailing in the Church when he wrote. The earlier Gospels, dealing mainly with the Galilean work of Jesus, do not mention His entering upon His public ministry until after the Baptist had been delivered up. This seems to have led to an impression that the Baptist was imprisoned before our Lord entered on His public work. The false inference is here corrected. John 3:25. There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew about purifying. In the circumstances just described, discussion would inevitably arise as to the relative position and value of the two baptisms. A ‘Jew’ (see note on chap. John 1:19) had placed the baptism of Jesus above that of John in regard to its purifying power. Although the Jews in general were hostile to Jesus, this man may have shared the convictions of Nicodemus (John 3:1-2). The disciples of John refused to regard their master’s baptism as less efficacious than that of another, who had been himself baptized by him. Unable either to set the question at rest, or to ignore the opposition of the Jew, they brought the matter of contention before John. On the symbolic character of John’s baptism, see the note on John 3:5; on ‘purification,’ see ii 6, John 13:10, John 15:3, and 1 John 1:7; 1 John 1:9. John 3:26. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. Their description of Jesus (whom they do not name) shows their feelings. This man came to thee beyond Jordan, it has been thy great object to magnify his fame; and yet he is now thy rival, he baptizes, and all are flocking to him rather than to thee. Their last words are in their lips but a natural exaggeration; to the Evangelist, however, they are an unconscious prophecy (see an exactly similar instance in John 12:19-20). This is the last trial of the Baptist’s fidelity to his mission, and nobly is it sustained. John 3:27. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him out of heaven. Not for a moment does he enter into their jealous advocacy of his claims. Understanding the true force of their hasty words, ‘All men come to him,’ he tells them that such honour, such position, Jesus cannot receive unless it have been given Him from heaven. He says this in words so general that they seem certainly intended to point to himself also. ‘Each of us, in accomplishing God’s work, will receive the place appointed to him from heaven.’ John 3:28. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, I am sent before him. The acceptance of the lower place was no new thing to John. ‘Ye remind me that have borne witness to Him; ye yourselves bear witness to me, that my testimony to Him contained in it all that now offends you.’ Of the two sayings here quoted, one (‘I am not the Christ’) is to be found in John 1:20 : the other is not given in this Gospel in the very words, but is implied in John 1:30-31, and no doubt had been expressly uttered by John to his disciples. John 3:29. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore hath been fulfilled. He that hath the bride,’ he and no other, ‘is the bridegroom. The Lord is taking home His bride-His people. To the name of bridegroom I have no claim, nor can I have the bridegroom’s joy. But in his joy his friends must needs share. The friend of the bridegroom that standeth and heareth his voice, catching the first sound as he draws near, listening to the words and tones in which his joy breaks forth throughout the marriage feast, he too has his joy, a reflection of the rejoicing of the bridegroom: this joy is mine, and it is now filled to the full.’ In these exquisitely tender and beautiful words does the Baptist at once reprove the natural but petty jealousies of his disciples and set forth his own relation to Jesus. The image employed is common in the Old Testament (Isaiah 54; Jeremiah 3:31; Hosea 2; Ezekiel 16, 23), even if nothing be said of the Song of Solomon, and is taken up in the New (Matthew 9:15; Matthew 9:25; 2 Corinthians 11; Ephesians 5; Revelation 19, 21). By the ‘friend’ John does not mean the particular friend who presided over the marriage ceremonies (the Shoshben), for the words ‘standeth and heareth’ are unsuitable to a functionary whose duties were those of action. But these words exactly correspond to the position of the Baptist as one who stood apart and listened. Once only does the Forerunner seem to have met with Jesus: afterwards he watched His course and rejoiced, and pointed his disciples to his Lord. John 3:30. He must increase, but I must decrease. What the disciples now see is but the beginning of a process that must continue. The necessity spoken of here is another statement of the heavenly gift of Joh 3:27. John must become less and less, whilst the glory of his Lord will increase without limit or end; and thus his ‘decreasing’ is not the failure but the accomplishment of his work.It is quite impossible to read carefully the following verses without perceiving that they bear a remarkable resemblance to the early part of the chapter, and that the general style and language are those of the Evangelist himself. In John 3:31 we read of Him ‘that cometh out of heaven;’ in John 3:13 of Him ‘that came down out of heaven.’ That He who is from heaven beareth witness of what He hath seen, and that His witness is not received, we read both in John 3:32 and in John 3:11. The 35th verse might perhaps seem to contain Christ’s own words, but not such as the Baptist would be likely to employ. So also in John 3:36 all the terms used, ‘he that believeth in,’ ‘the Son’ (standing absolutely), ‘eternal life,’ ‘hath eternal life,’ remind us of the language of the Evangelist himself and of Christ’s discourses as related in this Gospel, especially in this chapter (John 3:15-17), but it is hardly possible to suppose them used by John the Baptist. Those writers who cannot admit that there is a break after John 3:30 are constrained to confess that the Baptist’s subsequent words are expressed in the Evangelist’s own language and style. It is a far simpler and more probable theory that the Evangelist (as in John 1:16 and John 3:16—see notes there) passes from his narrative into a meditation which it suggests, gathering together the main thoughts of the two sections which precede. John 3:31. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is out of the earth is out of the earth, and out of the earth he speaketh. The claim of the Baptist’s disciples that to their master should be accorded a higher place than to Jesus, and John’s emphatic testimony to his own lower station, lead the Evangelist to reflect upon the words of Jesus to Nicodemus as decisive of all such questions. ‘He that cometh from above’ and ‘He that cometh out of heaven’ are clearly the same as ‘He that came down out of heaven’ (John 3:13), and all three expressions are designations of Jesus. There is but One who thus ‘cometh from above’ (though many others have received their mission from above), and He therefore is above all. In comparison with Him, every other prophet or teacher has his origin out of the earth; and as is his origin, so is his nature, so is his utterance. John 3:32. He that cometh out of heaven beareth witness of what he hath seen and heard; and no man receiveth his witness. In John 3:12 we have seen that heaven is spoken of as the place of immediate divine knowledge and light. Jesus alone belongs to this sphere: all the prophets before His coming, though divinely commissioned, had ‘the earth’ as the starting-point of their utterances, spoke of what they had received on earth, spoke truly but not perfectly. The Divine light was reflected from the prophets to the world around. In Jesus the heavenly light itself came into the world. Jesus alone, then, beareth witness to that which He hath seen and which He heard, and (here again is the mournful cadence of this Gospel) no one receiveth His witness. So few receive, that they seem as nothing in comparison with those who reject. That the rejection is not in strictness universal the next verse declares. John 3:33. He that received his witness set his seal to this, that God is true. Every man who accepts His witness and thus declares that Jesus is true, in that very act attests, sets his seal to, the declaration that God is true. (For the opposite, see 1 John 5:10. A mere prophet might be unfaithful or might err. Jesus ‘comes out of heaven,’ declares ‘what He has seen,’ and ‘what He heard’ from God: to disbelieve Him is to disbelieve God, to declare Him true is to declare God true. This is further explained and confirmed by the next verse. John 3:34. For he whom God sent speaketh the words of God. The last verse rests on the thought that the words of Jesus are the words of God. Here it is shown that this is involved in the very proposition that Jesus is the Sent of God. Strictly, there have been many whom God has sent,-for example, John the Baptist (chap. John 1:6): his words were true, and were words of God. But where one is thus isolated as sent by God (and this is repeatedly done in this Gospel), he is the Sent in a peculiar and pre-eminent sense He speaketh not ‘words of God’ only, but ‘the words of God,’ giving all the revelation that God gives. The enabling power thus to speak is the gift of the Spirit. Every one whom God sends is enabled to speak God’s words—words that, for the portion of the revelation he is commissioned to give, are truly God’s words. For not by measure giveth he the Spirit. He gives the Spirit not partially, but completely, for the purpose of enabling him who is sent to speak words of God. Rising from the partial and incomplete to that which is full and perfect, we find but One who has thus been sent by God, and but One who receives the Spirit in unmeasured fulness, enabling not for the complete declaration of a part only, but for the perfect revelation of the whole of the words of God. John 3:35. The Father loveth the Son. There is a continual heightening of the thought and expression. We read of Him ‘that cometh from above,’ Him ‘that cometh out of heaven,’ Him ‘whom God sent,’—‘the Son,’ whom ‘the Father loveth.’ In John 3:17 we read that the Father sent the Son to save the world, because He ‘so loved the world’ (John 3:16): here we read of the love of the Father towards the Son who thus gave Himself for the accomplishment of the purpose of the Father. From chap. John 10:17 it seems probable that it is of this love that we must understand the verse—of a love, therefore, referring to the work of redemption, not to the essential relation of the Son to the Father (comp. note on John 5:20). And hath given all things into his hand. From perfect love follows perfect communication not of ‘the words of God only (John 3:34), but of all things possessed. The Father has given all things into the Son’s hand. Whatsoever the Son speaks or gives or does, is spoken, given, done, by the Father. John 3:36. He that believeth in the son hath eternal life. As all things are in the Son’s hand by the gift of the Father, the destiny of all men depends on their relation to the Son. He that believeth in the Son has in Him the highest of all blessings, life eternal; has this in present possession-involved in the communion of faith in which he lives. But he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Over against the believer is here set, not the man who does not believe, but he that disobeys. The change from believing to obedience results from the thought of the last verse: supreme power is given to the Son; therefore he that receives Him not by faith is guilty of disobeying His authority; not faith only, but the obedience of faith, is His due. From the eyes of all such life is hidden whilst the unbelief and disobedience shall last. The rejection of the Son brings with it the wrath of God, by whom all things were given into the Son’s hand: this is the present and the abiding heritage of him that obeyeth not the Son. The general object aimed at in the relation of the story of Nicodemus in chap. 3 is pursued in the account given us in this section of the interview of Jesus, first with the Samaritan woman, and then with the inhabitants of Sychar, who are brought by her to listen to His teaching. The subordinate parts are—(1) John 4:1-4, introductory, after the manner of the introduction to the story of Nicodemus in John 2:23-25; (2) John 4:5-26, interview with the Samaritan woman; (3) John 4:27-30, the mission of the woman to her fellow-townsmen; (4) John 4:31-38, the conversation of Jesus with His disciples, in regard to the nature and success of their work; (5) John 4:39-42, the work of Jesus among the inhabitants of Sychar. John 4:4. And he must needs go through Samaria. The natural route from Judea to Galilee lay through Samaria. The other route, through the country on the east of Jordan, was so much longer that no one would choose it unless desirous of avoiding Samaria. The necessity here spoken of, therefore, may simply have reference to geographical position, and to the present urgent motive for reaching Galilee without delay. Still the use of ‘must’ in this Gospel compels us to lay an emphasis on the word, and to interpret it as denoting more than merely usage or convenience. If the Evangelist’s thought is that the hostility of the Pharisees (partly actually existing, partly foreseen) made it necessary for the Saviour to hasten into Galilee, then he would have us understand that the Jews themselves brought about this visit to the hated nation of the Samaritans. But above and beyond all this, there seems a clear intimation of the truth brought before us in John 4:34, chap. John 9:4etc: here, as always, Jesus acts according to His knowledge of His Father’s will. John 4:5. He cometh therefore to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar. ‘From the hills through which the main route of Palestine must always have run the traveller descends into a wide plain, the widest and the most beautiful of the plains of the Ephraimite mountains, one mass of corn unbroken by boundary or hedge, from the midst of which start up olive trees, themselves unenclosed as the fields in which they stand. Over the hills which close the northern end of this plain, far away in the distance, is caught the first glimpse of the snowy ridge of Hermon. Its western side is bounded by the abutments of two mountain ranges, running from west to east. These ranges are Gerizim and Ebal; and up the opening between them, not seen from the plain, lies the modem town of Nâblus ... the most beautiful, perhaps it might be said the only very beautiful spot in central Palestine.’[1] Nâblus is a corruption of Neapolis, the name given by the Romans to the ‘new city’ built nearly on the site of the ancient Shechem. The city which gave its name to this district of the Holy Land, Samaria, distant about six miles, had recently been rebuilt in a style of great magnificence by Herod the Great, who gave it the name of Sebaste. But, partly through the prestige of its antiquity and famous history, and partly through the power of religious associations, Shechem was pre-eminently the city of Samaria. It lay, as has been said, at the loot of Mount Gerizim, on the summit of which was the temple of the Samaritans, the stronghold of their worship for nearly three hundred years. It is impossible here to do more than trace the main outlines of the history of the Samaritan people. Their origin has in modern times been a subject of warm controversy. The narrative of 2 Kings 25:12 certainly seems to imply that all the inhabitants of the country were carried away to ‘Halah and Habor and the cities of the Medes’ (2 Kings 17:6): Josephus also speaks of the transplanting of all the people. But, apart from the improbability that such a wholesale deportation would be made, we find both in Scripture (2 Chronicles 34:9, and perhaps 2 Chronicles 30:1; 2 Chronicles 30:5; 2 Chronicles 30:10) and also in Josephus intimations that some few at least of the inhabitants remained, after the land had been colonised by settlers from Cuthah and other cities of Assyria. In the manner related in 2 Kings 17 these colonists were led to mingle a worship of Jehovah as the tutelary Deity of their new country with the idolatry brought with them from their native cities. What we read of their history at a later date is in exact accord with the mixed character of their race and their worship. They referred their own origin only to Assyria (Ezra 4:2), yet they were desirous of fraternising with the Jews in their work of rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem; and, when finally repulsed by the Jews and defeated in their attempts to injure and frustrate their work, they built (B.C. 409) a rival temple on Mount Gerizim after the model of that in Jerusalem, taking as their first high priest one whom Nehemiah had expelled (Nehemiah 13:28). From this time they seem to have maintained a system of worship modelled on that of the Jews, their older idolatry being, as far as we can judge, entirely renounced. Of the Scriptures the Samaritans received one portion only, the Pentateuch; but for this they professed peculiar reverence. A comparison of the Samaritan Pentateuch with that of the Hebrew Bible shows that many alterations had been introduced into the text by the Samaritans, but at the same time that these had only been made for the purpose of authenticating their own mode of worship and of maintaining the honour of their sacred places. This partial agreement, however, between the religious beliefs of the two peoples, so far from preventing, had really led to the most determined hostility between them. To the Jew, a man of purely Gentile descent and a man of mixed race were equally Gentiles; and an approximation to Jewish belief and modes of worship gave no claim of brotherhood with Jews. Hebrew literature is full of strangely varying statements in regard to the Cuthim (as they are called),—statements which probably reflect the relations subsisting between the nations at different periods (see Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 1117, 1118). In the time of our Lord the temple on Mount Gerizim had long been in ruins, but both the mount and the city at its foot had retained their sacred character; and it was here that the true Samaritan practices and traditions had their strongest hold on the people. The slight sketch which we have been able to give of the history of this people will be sufficient to show how singular was their situation. The ancient writings of the Jews themselves deal with Samaritans now as with heathen, now as with men belonging to the stock of Israel; and the narrative of this chapter places them in the same position—a position not wholly Gentile, but intermediate between the Jewish and the Gentile world.—It has been commonly assumed that the ‘city called Sychar’ is identical with Shechem, and the chief subject of controversy has been the motive for the change of name. Whilst some have regarded the alteration as a mere error of pronunciation, most have ascribed it to Jewish prejudice, interpreting Sychar as ‘drunkard’ or ‘falsehood:’ others, again, have considered the word identical with a well Sokhar mentioned in the Talmud. It seems more probable, however, that Sychar is a village still known by a name substantially the same (El-Askar), situated about two miles to the east of the present town of Nablus. This village is nearer than Shechem can have been to the well which bore the name of Jacob; and it is much more likely that the Evangelist would pause to describe the position of such a place than that of the ancient city of Shechem.[1] Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 233, 234. Near to the parce of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. There can be no doubt that, in speaking of Jacob’s gift to his son Joseph, John refers to Genesis 48:22, ‘I have given thee one portion above thy brethren,’—whatever meaning may be attached to the last words of that verse. The Hebrew word here rendered ‘portion’ is identical with the name Shechem. At Shechem, therefore, were the bones of Joseph buried (Joshua 24:32), and the city and surrounding country ‘became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.’ John 4:6. Now there was a fountain there, Jacob’s fountain. The distinction between the natural spring and the artificial well is usually maintained with great care in the language of Scripture. Now and then, however (as is very natural), a well, fed as it is by springs, is itself called a spring or fountain. Thus ‘the angel of the Lord found’ Hagar ‘by a fountain of water in the wilderness’ (Genesis 16:7), and ‘the well was called Beer-lahai-roi’ (John 4:14); and in the narrative of Genesis 24, where in the Authorised Version we find ‘well’ three times (in Genesis 24:11; Genesis 24:13; Genesis 24:16), the original has first well, then spring or fountain twice. The country round Shechem was a place of ‘fountains and depths that spring out in valley and hill’ (Deuteronomy 8:7); but it is not of such natural springs that we must here think. What in this verse is called a fountain is a ‘well’ in John 4:11-12. Yet it may be worth noticing that the litter name is used by the woman of Samaria: to the Evangelist the well is a ‘fountain,’ and his name implies far deeper and richer thoughts than hers. An almost continuous tradition fixes beyond doubt the position of this well, which lies very near the road by which our Lord would be travelling from Judea to Galilee; and amongst the inhabitants of the adjoining towns it is still known as the well of Jacob or the fountain of Jacob. When visited by Maundrell two hundred years ago the well was more than 100 feet deep, but the accumulation of rubbish has diminished the depth to 75 feet: the bore Isaiah 9 or 10 feet wide. That Jacob (if indeed this patriarch’s name was rightly given to the well, and there is no reason for questioning the tradition) should have sunk this well, excavated out of the solid rock, in the immediate neighbourhood of abundant springs, is a striking proof of the insecurity of his position in the ‘land of promise,’ and of his precarious relations with the people of the country.Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus by the fountain. Shechem was one of the main halting-places on the route from Jerusalem to Galilee. Turning off a little from the road, Jesus reached the well, and (now alone, because His disciples had gone into Sychar to buy provisions) wearied with a long day’s travel He ‘sat thus’—sat, wearied as He was—‘by the fountain,’ or on the low wall built round the well.It was about the sixth hour. As in the other passages in which John mentions the ‘hour,’ there has been great difference of opinion respecting the time intended. If the ordinary reckoning be adopted, as in the other Gospels, the sixth hour would fall in the morning, a little before noon. But for the reasons assigned in the note on chap. 39, it seems much more probable that a different computation is followed here, in which, as among ourselves, the hour is of fixed length (not a twelfth part of the variable interval between sunrise and sunset), and the time is reckoned from midnight and noon. By ‘sixth hour,’ therefore, according to the usage of the ancients, we must understand either the hour between 5 and 6 A.M. or the hour between 5 and 6 P.M. On the whole, the latter seems more probable. If our Lord’s journey through Samaria took place in the middle of December (see the note on John 4:35), 5 P.M. would be about the time of sunset, and the evening twilight would last until about half-past 6. This hour was the ordinary time at which women came forth to draw water at the public wells. No difficulty need be felt on account of the lateness of the hour, for very little time is really required for all that is here related up to the 38th (John 4:38) verse (comp. Mark 1:32; Luke 4:40). John 4:7-8. Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy food.) The departure of the disciples had left Jesus thus dependent on the woman’s kindness; for they had left no vessel by which the water could be drawn from the deep well It has been conjectured that the recorder of this narrative had not gone on to Sychar with his fellow-disciples, but himself heard the Saviour’s conversation with the Samaritan woman. The conjecture is most improbable, if not altogether contrary to the statement of the Evangelist. We cannot doubt that it was from our Lord’s own lips that the beloved disciple received the whole account. John 4:9. The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a Samaritan woman? for Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. It is evident that Jesus was at once recognised as a Jew, probably through some difference of accent, or language, or dress. We can hardly suppose that the woman was really surprised at the request preferred, so natural from the lips of a weary traveller (comp. Genesis 24:17). We may rather imagine her as hastening to procure what was asked for, whilst not failing to point out how inconsistent with Jewish principles it was to ask even for such a favour as this. As has been said above, the maxims of the Jews respecting intercourse with the Samaritan people varied much at different times, and it is not easy to say what rules prevailed at he period with which we are here concerned. One precept of the Talmud (quoted in the Diet, of the Bible, iii. 1117) approves their mode of preparing the flesh of animals; others commend their unleavened bread, their cheese, and finally all their food. Elsewhere, however, we find restrictions; and the wine, vinegar, etc., of the Samaritans are forbidden to every Israelite, their country only with its roads and its other products being regarded as clean. This narrative shows that it was held lawful to bay food in a Samaritan town, so that the words of this verse must probably be understood to mean that Jews avoided all familiar intercourse with the alien people, sought and expected no favours at their hands. It is usually assumed that the last sentence is inserted by the Evangelist in the interest of Gentile readers. It may be so, as such short parenthetical explanations are certainly to be found elsewhere in this Gospel. There seems, however, no sufficient reason for removing the clause from the woman’s answer. The repetition of the well-known maxim gives a piquant emphasis to her words, bringing out with sharp distinctness the contrast between the principles of the countrymen of Jesus and the request which necessity had extorted. The use of the present tense (‘have no dealings’) adds some support to this view; and one can hardly avoid the conviction that, had John himself given such an explanation, he would have so expressed himself as to avoid all appearance of discordance with his statement in John 4:8. John 4:10. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. We may well believe that there was something in the manner of Jesus, when uttering His first words, that invited conversation, and was intended to lead the woman to inquiry. This point gained, His next words could but cause surprise and excite remark. Her answer had told of her recognition of Him as a Jew: His reply declares her ignorance of Him and of what He was able to give. The ‘gift of God’ is probably not different from the ‘living water’ afterwards mentioned. John himself gives an explanation of the latter in hap. John 7:39, and his interpretation must be applied here also. ‘Living water,’ then, denotes the gift of the Holy Spirit. This was pre-eminently the promised gift of the Father (see especially Isaiah 44; Joel 2), beautifully and most aptly symbolized by the fresh springing water, which wherever it comes makes the desert rejoice, and everything live (Ezekiel 47:9). This was also the especial gift of the Son (see chap. John 1:33), in whom the promises of the Father are fulfilled (2 Corinthians 1:20). Had the woman known God’s gift, known also that the Dispenser of this gift stood before her, she would have been the petitioner, and He, with no delay and without upbraiding, would have given her living water. John 4:11. She saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? In the answer of Jesus there was much to cause surprise, especially in the emphatic reference to Himself; but there was nothing in the actual terms used that compelled the hearer to seek for a figurative meaning. ‘Living water’ was a phrase in ordinary use in speaking of the fresh bubbling spring or the flowing brook. ‘Isaac’s servants digged in the valley and found there a spring of living water’ (Genesis 26:19, margin). Wherever running water is spoken of in the ceremonial law, the same expression is used. Hence nothing more than the fresh spring that supplied the well might at first be presented to the woman’s mind, and that this precious gift came of the Divine bounty would be no unfamiliar thought. Though, as a Samaritan, she might know little or nothing of God’s promise of His Spirit under this very emblem, or of Jeremiah’s comparison of God Himself to a fountain of living waters (Jeremiah 2:13), yet reflection would suggest some such meaning. At present, however, she answers without reflection, and perceives no higher promise than that of the Creator’s bounty, attained without the use of ordinary means. John 4:12. Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle? It was from Joseph that the Samaritans were wont to claim descent; all the district around belongs! to his children. But Jacob here receives special mention as the giver of the well. The well was his; he drank of it himself. Again the thought is forced upon us, that the Samaritan woman had sought this well partly on account of its connection with the fathers of her people. The feeling may have been tinged with superstition, but it was honourable in itself. The first part of her answer (John 4:11) showed how limited the range of the woman’s thoughts still was: in the words of this verse we see her dawning conviction of the Stranger’s greatness, and the impression made upon her by His manner and His words. John 4:13. Jesus answered and said unto her, Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again. The question receives no direct reply: the greatness of the Giver must be learnt from the quality of the gift. Even the living water from Jacob’s well has no power to prevent the return of thirst. John 4:14. But whosoever hath drunk of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of springing water, unto eternal life. The living water of which Jesus speaks becomes in him who hath drunk of it a perennial fountain,—a fountain of water that is ever springing up in freshness and life, of water that not only is itself living, but that brings and gives eternal life. As before, this water is the Holy Spirit. The whole thought closely approaches that of chap. John 7:38. There the promise is, that out of the heart of him who comes unto Jesus that he may drink, who believes in Jesus, there shall flow rivers of living water; ‘And this spake He of the Spirit.’ The Holy Spirit is the special gift of Jesus; and, reciprocally, it is through the Holy Spirit that the believer remains united to his Lord in an abiding fellowship (chap. John 16:14-15), and that Jesus lives in him (chap. John 17:23). These truths of the later discourses are really present here: Jesus, who first gives the living water, becomes in him that hath received it the fountain which supplies the same stream of life for ever. The end is life eternal, not attained in the remote future, but begun and actually present in every one who has received the water that Jesus gives; for all those to whom the Spirit is given experience that union with God which is eternal life (see the note on chap. John 3:14). John 4:15. The woman saith unto him. Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come all the way hither to draw. These are words of simple earnestness. In the mysterious words of the Jewish traveller one thing was plain,—instead of the water she came to draw, water was offered that would satisfy thirst now and for ever. Could she gain this gift, she would no longer need to traverse the distance from Sychar to Jacob’s well. Though much nearer than Shechem, El-Askar is perhaps three-quarters of a mile from the well. The later narrative makes it impossible for us to regard this answer as one either of flippancy or of dulness of spiritual perception. It is in every way more probable and true to nature to consider it as the expression of a bewildered mind eager to receive such a gift as has been offered, little as she could comprehend of what nature the gift could be. If we are right in the conjecture that other than common motives brought her to the well (see the note on John 4:12), it is still easier to understand her reply. With this verse comp. chap. John 6:34. John 4:16. He saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The promise Jesus has given is one of satisfaction,—a promise, therefore, which cannot be understood or fulfilled till the want has been clearly apprehended and felt. These sudden words are designed to produce this effect He who ever ‘discerned what was in the man’ with whom He spoke, well knew what answer His words would call forth. Her past life and her present state proclaimed guilt and disappointment, carnality and wretchedness; all this she must recognise and feel before His gift can be hers. John 4:17. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. The effect is produced. The woman’s words are a genuine confession,—an acknowledgment, perhaps of wretchedness, certainly of guilt.Jesus saith unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband. He accepts the truthfulness of her statement, but shows her how fully her life is known to Him. In this answer the emphasis lies on ‘husband’ the woman’s words are repeated with their order changed. ‘I have no husband:’ ‘Well saidst thou, Husband I have not.’ John 4:18. For thou hast had five husbands. The ‘five’ were no doubt lawful husbands, from whom she had been separated either by death or by divorce.And he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: this thou hast said truly. In contrast with the lawful marriages is set the present unlawful union with one who was no husband. Her life was sinful: in what degree we cannot learn from this brief statement. An age in which divorce was freely allowed cannot be judged by the same rules as one of stricter principles. Whatever may have led her to an evil life, it is plain that her heart was not yet hardened. John 4:19. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Nothing can be more misleading than the idea that she is seeking to turn the conversation from an unwelcome subject, or to lead it to other topics than herself. Her answer is rather a fresh illustration of her inquiring and earnest character, notwithstanding all the sinfulness of her life. When her delighted wonder has found expression in her immediate acknowledgment, ‘Sir, I behold that thou art a prophet,’ she eagerly lays before Him a question which to her was of all questions the most important. John 4:20. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men must worship. ‘This mountain’ is of course Gerizim, near the foot of which they were standing. With this mountain was connected, as she believed, all the religious history of her nation; for in the very Scriptures which the Samaritans possessed (the Pentateuch) the name of Gerizim had been inserted in the place of the holy city of the Jews. She could point to the sacred spot on which their temple had stood, then and in all succeeding ages up to our own time pre-eminently ‘holy ground.’ Her question was not prompted by mere curiosity or an interest in the settlement of an ancient controversy. It was a question of life and death to her. The claim of the Jews was exclusive. Not only ‘ought’ men to worship in Jerusalem, but that was the place where men must worship,—the only true holy place. One cannot but think that their confident and consistent maintenance of this first principle had long disturbed her mind; and when she saw in the Stranger one who could declare God’s will, she eagerly sought for the resolution of her doubt. As long as she knew not with certainty where was God’s true altar, she had no means of satisfying her religious wants. That her national pride had not stifled every hesitation on such a point as this plainly attests her earnestness: it is no ordinary candour that can look on the supremacy of Gerizim or Jerusalem as an open question. Her words imply a willingness to accept the revelation of the truth, whatever it may be, if only she can learn where with acceptance she may appear before God. John 4:21. Jesus saith unto her, Believe me, woman, an hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father. The woman can hardly have doubted that the decision of a Jewish prophet would be in favour of Jerusalem, but the answer of Jesus sets aside all ideas of sanctity of place. With neither of these two most hallowed spots shall the thought of true worship be bound up. In saying ‘an hour cometh,’ Jesus shows that He is not repeating a truth belonging to the revelation of the past, but is proclaiming a new order of things. Yet the chief characteristic of the new order is, after all, not the equality of places where men worship, but the clear knowledge of the Being to whom worship is paid: from this the former flows. Samaritans shall offer worship in spite of Jewish exclusiveness, for they shall worship the Father. ‘Israel is my son, even my first-born,’ were God’s words to Pharaoh; but now He offers the name to all, and the words of Jesus imply the abolition of every distinction, not of place only but of nation, in the presence of God, and for the purpose of true worship. John 4:22. Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know. The two questions at issue between Jews and Samaritans were those of holy place and holy Scripture. The former, though of far inferior importance (as the Jews’ themselves were by their ‘dispersion’ being gradually trained to know), was the more easily seized upon by national prejudice and zeal. Of this question Jesus has spoken. He passes on immediately to the other, which the woman had not raised, but which was of vital moment. The Samaritans did really worship God,—there is no slur cast on the intention and aim of their worship; their error consisted in clinging to an imperfect revelation of Him, receiving Moses but rejecting the prophets. Hating and avoiding Jews, they cut themselves off from the training given by God to that people through whom His final purposes were to be made known to the world. It was the essential characteristic of the whole of Jewish history and prophecy that it gradually led up to the Messiah; that the successive prophets made known with increasing clearness the nature of His kingdom; and that every one who could understand their word saw that the Divine purpose to save the world was to be accomplished through One arising out of Israel. He who knew not God as thus revealing and giving salvation did not really know Him. Every Jew who truly received and understood the oracles of God committed to his trust (Romans 3:2) might be said to ‘know’ the object of his worship; and it is because our Lord is speaking of such knowledge,—knowledge respecting God given by the Scriptures which the Jews possessed,—that He says ‘that which we know,’ not ‘Him whom we know.’ The Samaritans then worshipped that which they knew not,—in this more enlightened than the Athenians who built an altar to an unknown God, but inferior even to those of Israel who had ‘a zeal of God but not according to knowledge,’ and standing far below those meant by our Lord when He says ‘we worship,’—we, namely, who have really appropriated Israel’s inheritance of truth and hope.Because the Salvation is of the Jews. ‘The Salvation’ is that foretold in Scripture, and long waited for. The words are those of Jesus; but, remembered and quoted as they are by the Evangelist, they show how unfounded is the charge sometimes laid against this Gospel, that it is marked by enmity to the Jewish people. It is only when ‘the Jews’ have apostatized and rejected Jesus that the term becomes one of condemnation, designating the enemies of all goodness and truth. John 4:23. But an hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth. This verse links itself with both the preceding John 4:21-22. To no place of special sanctity shall worship belong: though ‘the salvation is of the Jews,’ this involves no limitation of it to the Jewish nation: on the contrary, an hour cometh when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth. ‘An hour cometh’ had been said before by Jesus (John 4:21), but He could not then add ‘and now is;’ for, till the truth set forth in John 4:22 had been received, Samaritans could not truly worship ‘the Father.’ Now, however, they and all may do so. But the added words ‘and now is’ imply still more than this. Following the declaration that the Messianic salvation comes from among the Jews, they are no obscure intimation that, in Himself, the hour so long waited for has arrived, and thus they at least prepare for the direct announcement to be made in John 4:26. The word ‘true’ here is that which has been already spoken of (see note on chap. John 1:9, the only place before this in which it has as yet occurred) as so common and so important in this Gospel. The worshippers denoted by it are not merely sincere, free from all falsehood and dishonesty; they offer a worship that deserves the name, that fully answers to the lofty, noble, pure idea that the word ‘worship’ brings before the mind. In the day now dawning on the world such worshippers as these will worship the Father in spirit and truth. It is difficult to exhaust the meaning of these words, but we must start from the two thoughts of the verses which immediately precede: the first and chief points in the interpretation are,—not in sacred place but in spirit (John 4:21), not in imperfection of knowledge but in truth (John 4:22). The very name by which Jesus indicates the object of all worship, ‘the Father’ (a name no longer used of a chosen nation, but offering to each man a personal relation to God), had prepared the way for the abolition of all limitations of place: the leaching is completed here, when man’s spirit is declared to be the ‘hallowed ground’ where he may approach his Father and his God. Again, in the past all knowledge of God had been imperfect,—not merely as our knowledge of the Infinite must be limited, but also in comparison with what may be known by man. Even Jews who held the oracles of truth saw in them as ‘in a glass darkly;’ Samaritans who rejected the words of the prophets were far more ignorant. The law had been but a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things (Hebrews 10:1); type and figure concealed whilst they revealed the future blessing. But ‘the hour now is’ when the truth of God is revealed,—‘truth’ as well as ‘grace’ has come (chap. John 1:17); and (in the full knowledge of it) worship may now be offered to the Father. Read in connection with other parts of our Lord’s teaching, the words ‘spirit and truth’ express much that could not be apparent at the moment when they were spoken. The Son appearing as the revealer of the Father, Himself the Truth, Himself giving to men the Holy Spirit who alone can hallow man’s spirit as the sanctuary of worship,—all these are thoughts which cannot but press on us as we read this verse.For the Father also is seeking such, them that worship him. The hour of this real worship is already come, for the Father also is seeking such real worshippers. They are offering Him real homage, for He on His part is seeking them: His seeking—through His Son, come to save (John 4:23), and to seek that He may save (Luke 19:10)—explains and renders possible this worship. There is much difficulty in determining the true meaning of the original in this clause. It is usually explained to mean either, ‘The Father seeketh that His worshippers be such’ (i.e., that they should worship in spirit and truth), or, ‘For such the Father seeketh to be His worshippers.’ Both interpretations involve serious difficulties, partly of language, partly of meaning. On the whole, the translation given above seems most probable, but its force is not at once apparent. There is a curious variation in the Greek words, which is often considered accidental, or at all events too minute to be significant, but which we must regard as intentional and important. In John 4:21 and in the first part of Joh 4:23 the word ‘worship’ has its usual construction, but in this clause the case which follows the verb is suddenly changed, and a very unusual construction is introduced. We may represent the force of the word as it is commonly used by ‘offer worship to;’ but as used in the clause before us and in John 4:24, the connection of the verb with its object becomes more direct and close. An English reader can feel the force of a sudden transition from ‘offering worship to the Father’ to ‘worshipping the Father.’ The former may or may not be real and successful, and may be used of a lower as well as of the highest homage; the latter implies actual attainment of the end desired,—reaching Him in worship, if we may so speak; and thus it may almost be said to contain in itself the qualifying words of the preceding clause, for the ‘real’ offering of worship to God is equivalent to worshipping Him. If this view is correct, and we are persuaded that such a writer as John could not so vary the language without design, the meaning of the clause is: For also the Father is now seeking such men,—those, namely, who actually worship Him. There is thus a mutual seeking and meeting on the part of the Father and His children. John 4:24. God is spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Such worship as is described in the last verse is the only real worship that can be conceived. This verse does not say what men must do, in the sense of what men ought to do. It is the nature of worship in itself that is described. No other worship than that which is offered in spirit and truth can possibly be actual worship of God (the same idea is here expressed as in the last clause of Joh 4:23), because ‘God is spirit.’ We must not render these words ‘God is a spirit,’ for it is not personality that is spoken of, but abstract being, the nature of the Divine essence. Since the spiritual presence of God is everywhere, Gerizim and Jerusalem lose all claim to be the special places for His worship. Not the outward action of the worshipper, not the forms he uses or the gifts he brings, but his spirit alone can be brought to meet the spiritual presence of God. Where this is done, God Himself meets the spirit which He has sought and prepared, and to which He has made known the truth lying at the foundation of all worship, the truth which reveals Himself. In this wonderful passage are concentrated many of the most essential truths of New Testament teaching. The historical development of God’s plan, the preparation for Christianity made by Judaism, the idea of progress from the outward to the inward, from the sensuous to the spiritual (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:46), the independence of forms which marks the essence of religion, and yet its freedom to clothe itself in form so long as the spirit is not lost,—these are the lessons taught here; and however special the form in which they are presented, they are in perfect accord with the whole course of New Testament doctrine.—The main principles of these verses would be understood by the woman to whom our Lord was speaking. But a day in which such principles should be realised must surely be that for which Samaria as well as Judea was waiting,—the ‘latter days’ of Messiah’s advent? John 4:25. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (which is called Christ). There is nothing surprising in her avowal that a Deliverer was looked for. We know from other sources that this was, and still is, an article of the Samaritan as of the Jewish faith; from age to age this people had waited in expectation of ‘the Converter’ or ‘the Guide.’ But the use of the Jewish name ‘Messiah’ is more remarkable. We might suppose that it pointed to an approach towards Jewish faith and thought effected in this woman’s heart by the teaching of Jesus, were it not that John 4:29 seems to show that the name was understood by Samaritans in general. Yet it could hardly be otherwise. Separated as the nations were, the famous name which the Jews universally applied to the Deliverer, for whose coming both peoples alike were waiting, would naturally be known far beyond the limits of Judea. The explanatory parenthesis, ‘which is called Christ,’ was no doubt added by the Evangelist, who afterwards (John 4:29) translates the word without any mention of the Hebrew form.When he is come, he will tell us all things. There can be little doubt that the Samaritan hope was mainly founded on the great passage in the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy 18:15-18 (see note on chap. John 1:21). The language here used, ‘He will tell us all things,’ at once reminds us of Deu 18:18, ‘He shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.’ The dependence of the Samaritans on the Pentateuch alone would naturally lead to their giving prominence to the prophetic aspect of the Coming One, so emphatically presented in this passage of the Law, rather than to the aspects under which the Deliverer is viewed in the later books of the Old Testament. The woman’s words, indeed, may not convey her whole conception of Messiah, for the context has pointed only to revelation and teaching; but it is more than probable that many elements of the Jewish faith on this subject would be unknown in Samaria. If, however, the Samaritans expected less than the fuller revelation warranted, they at least escaped the prevalent Jewish error of looking for a Conqueror rather than a Prophet, for a temporal rather than a spiritual King. John 4:26. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. She has sought and found the truth. The hope rising in her heart receives full confirmation; and a revelation not yet so clearly and expressly given by Jesus to Israel is granted to this alien, whose heart is prepared for its reception. John 4:27. And upon this came his disciples; and they marvelled that he talked with a woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her? To talk with a woman in public was one of six things forbidden to a Rabbi. As the disciples were returning from the village, they wonderingly descry their Master thus engaged. Their surprise, no doubt, found expression in these very questions (asked among themselves) which the Evangelist speaks of as not addressed to their Lord. ‘What seeketh He? what can He be in quest of that we cannot furnish? or, if He is not seeking anything, why is He talking with a woman?’ The questions uttered to one another they would have at once addressed to Jesus, but awe checked their impulse to speak. Something in His look may have restrained them; or the eager wondering attitude of the one, and the solemn earnestness of the Other, proclaiming the willing hearer and the earnest Teacher, may have forbidden them to interrupt such intercourse. John 4:28. The woman therefore left her water-pot, and went her way into the city. ‘Therefore, ‘—because, the conversation being interrupted, there was nothing to restrain her impulse to make known the marvels she had heard. In her eagerness she leaves her waterpot behind: the ‘living water’ has banished the thought of that which came from Jacob’s well.And saith to the men, whom she would naturally meet on the roads and in the streets. John 4:29. Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did. She fixes on the wonderful knowledge which the Stranger had displayed: what had impressed her must also convince them. Let them come for themselves, not rest on her testimony; and let them draw their own conclusions.Can this be the Christ? Her own belief she expresses in the form of doubt, or problem to be solved; and every reader must feel how natural and wise was her procedure. To have declared herself convinced that the Stranger was the Christ would have done little towards persuading the men of her own village: even to have quoted the declaration which Jesus made might have been without effect upon those who had seen or heard nothing to authenticate such words. John 4:30. They went out of the city, and were on their way unto him. This verse is here introduced partly to show the immediate success of the woman’s message (no slight evidence of the preparedness of Samaria for the gospel), and partly to make plain the words of Jesus in a later verse (John 4:35). John 4:31. In the mean while the disciples prayed him, saying, Rabbi, eat. Remembering His exhaustion with the journey (John 4:6), they begged Him thus to take advantage of this interval of rest. John 4:32. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not. Literally, I have an ‘eating’ to eat. The word for ‘meat’ is in John 4:34 is different from that used here, which rather denotes the meal, the partaking of the food, than the food itself. This ‘eating’ the disciples ‘knew not. The common rendering entirely obscures the meaning: our Lord does not say’ know not of, but ‘know not,’—ye have no experience of it. As yet, they had not learned the power of such work as His (the complete fulfilment of His Father’s will, John 4:34) to satisfy every want. John 4:33. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Their perplexity is like that of the woman of Samaria in regard to the living water (John 4:11). John 4:34. Jesus saith unto them, My meat if that I should do the will of him that sent me, and accomplish his work. This is the first of many similar sayings in this Gospel (John 5:30, John 6:38, John 7:18, John 8:50, John 9:4, John 12:49-50, John 14:31; John 15:10, John 17:4), expressing our Lord’s perfect loyalty to His Father’s will, and complete devotion to the accomplishment of His Father’s work.The pursuit of this is not His joy, His purpose, His refreshment only, but His very food, that without which He cannot live. The ‘will’ to be ‘done’ may perhaps remind us of the action of the hour or the moment; the ‘work’ to be ‘accomplished,’ of the complete expression and fulfilment of the ‘will.’ John 4:35. Say not ye,—Has not your language this day been,—There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest? As harvest began in the middle of April it was now the middle of December.Lo! I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and behold the fields, that they are white for harvesting. As in this chapter we have heard of a natural and a spiritual eating or drinking,—water (John 4:10), food (John 4:32),—so here, introduced with equal suddenness, we have the thought of a spiritual harvest. Yet, distant as must have seemed the harvest to the disciples when they looked upon the fields, far more distant would seem the day when Samaritans could be gathered in to the garner of the Lord. But, lo! they are bid see, the fields are already white for harvesting. These words, we cannot doubt, were spoken by Jesus in sight of the Samaritans flocking towards Him (John 4:30): He saw the preparation of their hearts, the impression made by the woman’s message, the faith which His own words would immediately bring forth; nay, He saw a harvest far more glorious than that of this day’s labours, even that of the salvation of the world (comp. note on John 4:42). John 4:36. Already he that reapeth receiveth reward, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. The figure is continued and amplified. Not only are the fields ready for harvesting, but the reaper is even now at work, and receiving his reward; and how glorious a reward! Not a lifeless store, but (as in the case of the springing water, John 4:14, and the eating that abideth, chap. John 6:27) fruit gathered for life eternal,—fruit that shall endure for ever in the fruition of the new life which Jesus brings. And all this takes place ‘already’ (the word even standing emphatically at the head of the sentence), that in the spiritual field—so quickly does the harvest follow the sowing of the seed—sower and reaper may rejoice together. John 4:37. For herein is the word true, One soweth, and another reapeth. For, in the spiritual field of which Jesus speaks, the familiar saying is true, has full reality (the word used signifying ‘true,’ as opposed not merely to what is false, but to all that is partial and imperfect),—that one has the labour of the sower, another the joy of the reaper. John 4:38. I sent you to reap that whereon ye have not toiled: others have toiled, and ye have entered into their toil. The disciples are the reapers of this harvest; their commission—including, however, that of the disciples of Jesus throughout all time—was to reap a harvest which had not been prepared by their own toil. Whatever toil may be theirs, it is toil in reaping,—in joyfully gathering the results of earlier toil. The surprise and gladness with which they would shortly witness the faith of the men of Sychar was an emblem of what should repeat itself continually in the history of the Church. While the disciples are reapers, this harvesting in Samaria shows clearly who is the sower, whose has been the earlier toil. The words point to Jesus Himself. From beginning to end of the narrative His ‘word,’ first in the conversation with the woman, and then as spoken to the Samaritans (John 4:39), is the instrument by which the joyful result is gained. Nor must we limit our thought of His ‘toil’ to what is related of the work of this evening by Jacob’s well. The ‘toil’ that has made any harvest possible is that of His whole mission. All that was necessary that He might be able to say ‘I am the Christ,’ the self-renunciation and sorrow and pain of His atoning and redeeming work,—virtually included in His one act of acceptance of that work, and present to His thought from the beginning,—is involved in His ‘toil.’ He says, indeed, ‘Others have toiled,’ and neither here nor in chap. John 3:11 can we take the plural as simply standing for the singular. He Himself is chiefly intended, but others are joined as having shared in the preparatory work. He had been alone in conversing with the woman of Samaria; but He had taken up and made use of all that she had received from the teaching of Moses (John 4:25), and all that the Jews had learnt from the prophets. Thus He includes with Himself those who had prepared the way for His coming. For Him, and therefore with Him, they too had ‘toiled;’ but all His servants who come after Him find the field prepared, the toil past, the harvest of that toil ready to be reaped. John 4:39. And from that city many of the Samaritans believed in him because of the word of the woman, bearing witness, He told me all things that ever I did. The arrangement of the words shows the prominence which John would give to the thought that many Samaritans believed in Jesus. Their faith, too, was only mediately called forth by the woman’s word, for the Evangelist describes her by his favourite and most expressive term, as one ‘bearing witness’ concerning Jesus. John 4:40. When therefore the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would abide with them: and he abode there two days. Mark the contrast between Judea repelling and Samaria inviting: a dead and petrified orthodoxy may be more proof against the word of life than heresy. John 4:41-42. And many more believed because of his word; and they said unto the woman, No longer because of thy speaking do we believe: for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world. Among those that heard the Saviour were evidently some who had first believed because of the woman’s testimony (‘No longer . . .’): hearing for themselves, they were led into a deeper faith.—There is nothing disparaging, as some have supposed, in the use of the word ‘speech’ or ‘speaking’ in regard to the woman’s message: the expression is simply equivalent to because thou spakest, and relates to the fact of speaking, in contrast with the substance of the teaching,—the ‘word’ of Jesus Himself.—The last words in the confession of the Samaritans (this is indeed the Saviour of the world) contain no real difficulty. The teaching of Joh 4:21-24 directly led to the recognition of this truth. It was much to realise that Jesus, as Messiah, was a Saviour, not merely a Prophet who would bring a revelation from God. But when the thought of a Saviour of Jews alone is once overpassed, there is no intermediate position between this and the conception contained in the words before us—a Saviour of the world. The Evangelist, in recording them, plainly intends to point out to us the special significance of the whole narrative: the conversion of Samaritans was a promise of the conversion of the world. This section of the Gospel brings Jesus before us in Galilee, in His intercourse with the Galileans, and in particular with the king’s officer, who may be regarded as in a certain sense their representative. The object is still the same as that which we have traced from chap. John 2:12. Examples have been given of the manner in which Judea and Samaria submit to the word of Jesus, and these are now crowned by an instance of similar submission on the part of Galilee. The section divides itself into two subordinate parts—(1) John 4:43-45, introductory, after the manner of the introduction to the story of Nicodemus in John 2:23-25, and of that to the visit to Samaria in John 4:1-4; (2) John 4:46-54, the account of the intercourse of Jesus with the king’s officer. John 4:45. When therefore he was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all things whatsoever he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast. The ‘feast’ is no doubt the Passover of which we read in chap. 2; and the faith of these Galileans is precisely similar to that of the ‘many’ spoken of in John 4:23 of that chapter,—real, but not of the highest kind. John 4:46. He came therefore again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. His coming revives the fame of that first miracle, and the report of His arrival quickly spreads.And there was a certain king’s officer, whose son was sick at Capernaum. This officer was probably in the (civil or military) service of Herod Antipas, a Tetrarch, but often styled a king (see Matthew 14:1; Matthew 14:9; Mark 6:14, etc.). The officer himself may have been in attendance on the court in Tiberias, but his son (probably an only son, as the Greek literally means ‘of whom the son . . .’) was lying ill at Capernaum. John 4:47. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death. The faith of this father rested’ on the miracles of which he had heard. Would Jesus but come down from Cana to Capernaum, his son also might be healed. But Jesus must always reprove the spirit which requires ‘signs and wonders’ before yielding faith; and He does it now. John 4:48. Jesus therefore said unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.The charge against the father is that his apparent faith is only thinly-veiled unbelief.—The words seem most suitably addressed to a Jew (comp. Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:1; 1 Corinthians 1:22): on the other hand, the officer’s connection with the court leads rather to belief that he was a Gentile. As to ‘signs,’ see the notes on chap. John 2:11; John 2:23. As a ‘sign’ is the highest, so a ‘wonder’ is the least noble name for a miracle. In so far as the miracle is a prodigy and excites amazement, it is a ‘wonder.’ John 4:49. The king’s officer saith unto him, Lord, come down ere my child die. The answer of Jesus, which had seemed perhaps to imply cold neglect, calls forth an impassioned appeal for pity and help; there were no moments to be lost,—even now the help may come too late. Jesus was but educating—refining and deepening—his faith. John 4:50. Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. The man believed the word that Jesus spake unto him, and he went his way. Jesus does not need the passionate appeal: the prayer has been already granted. ‘Thy son liveth’ does not mean, ‘is made to live now after thy second petition’; but, ‘even while the word is in thy mouth, or before it was so, thy son liveth.’ The meaning, in short, is not, I perform the cure at this instant; but rather, I have performed it, the work is done, thy son is recovered. He will not come to heal the child; there is no need that He should do so, the child is already whole. Will the father believe the word? He will, for his faith is purified and changed: it is now faith in the word of Jesus, though no sign or wonder has been seen. John 4:51. And as he was now going down, his servants met him, saying that his son lived. The word ‘now’ (or ‘already’) may appear superfluous, but it may possibly imply that some time had elapsed since the words of Joh 4:50 were spoken,—‘when he had now begun the journey.’ Business may have detained him for a few hours in Cana; and if it did so, it would be a testimony to the firmness of that faith with which he had now believed in Jesus. ‘Going down,’—because Cana is situated in the hilly district, several hundred feet above the level of the Sea of Galilee. John 4:52. He enquired of them therefore the hour when he began to amend. They said therefore unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. As the distance between Cana and Capernaum is not above five-and-twenty miles, it may seem strange that the officer should not have reached his home the same day. If the ‘seventh hour’ were reckoned from sunrise, the time of the cure would be a little later than noon; in that case it would be necessary to suppose that the servants were following the familiar Jewish reckoning of time, and regarding sunset as the commencement of a new day. It seems, however, much more probable (see the note on John 4:6) that by the ‘seventh hour’ we must understand 6 to 7 P.M. Even without the supposition that the father had been detained in Cana, this will suit all the circumstances of the narrative.—The words ‘began to amend’ do not suggest any hesitation on the father’s part as to the completeness of the cure. He had believed the word ‘thy son liveth’ (John 4:50), and what he asks now is as to the hour at which his child had been stopped upon the road to death, and turned back upon that to full health and strength. John 4:53. So the father perceived that it was at the same hour in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house. Believed—that is, with a faith increased and confirmed: true faith he had manifested before.Many have supposed that this king’s officer may have been Chuza, ‘Herod’s steward (Luke 8:3), whose wife Joanna was amongst those women who ministered of their substance to the wants of Jesus and His disciples. John 4:54. This Jesus again did, as a second sign, having come out of Judea into Galilee. The order of the original is remarkable, and we endeavour to represent it by a translation which, if literal, is yet sufficiently idiomatical. ‘This’ stands alone; ‘a second sign’ is in apposition with it. There is thus by means of ‘again’ and ‘second’ a double statement as to the position of the miracle; and as we know that other miracles, not numbered, were wrought in Galilee (chap. 6), and that there had already been ‘signs’ also in Judea (chap. John 2:23), the two points upon which our attention is fixed seem to be—(1) that this miracle was wrought in Galilee; (2) that it was a second miracle there. The first of these points receives importance from the fact that the ‘sign’ now related was done after Jesus had left ‘His own country,’ rejected by ‘His own’ to be accepted by Galileans: the second magnifies the sign itself, for the mention of it as a ‘second’ appears to flow from the tendency of the Evangelist to give double pictures of any truth which possesses in his eyes peculiar weight. This is the case here. From the first Jesus showed that His mission was not confined to Judea. It included Galilee, a province representative not of Jews only but of Gentiles, out of which the Jews thought that no prophet could come (John 7:52): it was not a local but a universal mission.It is not necessary to discuss the question whether this miracle is identical with that related in Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10. We may wonder that such a question was ever raised. One point of similarity exists, in that in each case the cure was performed at a distance: in all other respects the narratives are wholly different,—agreeing neither in time, nor in place, nor in the station of the persons concerned, nor in the character of the faith evinced. With the beginning of this chapter we enter upon the fourth and leading division of the Gospel, extending to the close of chap. 12. Its object is to set Jesus forth in the height of His conflict with ignorance and error and sin. More particularly, the Redeemer appears throughout it in the light in which He had already been presented in the Prologue, as the culminating-point and fulfilment of all previous revelations of God, whether in the Old Testament or in nature. In chap. 5 He is the fulfilment of the Sabbath, the greatest of all the institutions given through Moses. The subordinate parts of the first section of the chap. are—(1) John 5:1-9, the account of the miracle at the pool of Bethesda; (2) John 5:10-18, the opposition of the Jews, leading to the proclamation of the great truths contained in the second section. John 5:2. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep-pool the pool which is surnamed in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porticos. The use of the present tense, there is, may seem to indicate that the pool still remained after the destruction of Jerusalem; unless indeed we adopt the opinion that, as John in all probability committed to writing very early his recollections of his Lord’s discourses and works, an incidental mark of his practice is left us in this verse.—The translation of the words that follow is much disputed. The Greek word for ‘pool’ may be written in two ways. That which is usually adopted gives the meaning, ‘there is by the sheep ....a pool, that which is surnamed,’ etc.; and the question is how the ellipsis is to be filled up. There is no authority for supplying ‘market,’ as is done in the Authorised Version; and that method of supplying the blank is now generally abandoned. The idea of most writers on the Gospel is that the ‘sheep-gate’ (Nehemiah 3:1; Nehemiah 3:32; Nehemiah 12:39) is intended, but we have found no example of a similar omission of the word ‘gate.’ We are thus led to examine the other mode of writing the Greek word ‘pool,’ from which results the translation, ‘there is by the sheep-pool the pool that is surnamed;’ and to this rendering of the sentence there appears to be no valid objection It may, indeed, seem strange that the situation of the pool called Bethesda should be defined by its proximity to another pool about which no information is preserved; but it must be remembered that in questions relating to the topography of Jerusalem arguments from the silence of historians are not worth much. Early Christian writers also (Eusebius and Jerome) do actually speak of a sheep-pool in Jerusalem in connection with this passage. Ammonius tells us that the pool was so called from the habit of gathering together there the sheep that were to be sacrificed for the feast: similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia. And it is very interesting to notice that an early traveller in the Holy Land (about the first half of the fourth century) speaks of ‘twin pools in Jerusalem, having five porticos.’ We conclude therefore that John defines the position of the pool with which the following narrative is connected by its nearness to another pool, probably of larger size, and at that time well known as the ‘sheep-pool.’ It is remarkable that of the other pool the proper name is not mentioned, but only a Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic second name or surname. What this name is and what it signifies can hardly be determined with certainty, as several forms of the name are given in Greek manuscripts and other authorities. If we assume that Bethesda is the true form, the most probable explanation is ‘House of grace.’ It is easy to see that such a name might naturally arise, and might indeed become the common appellation amongst those who associated a beneficent healing power with the waters of the pool; and it is also easy to understand how it was the second name that lingered in John’s thought,—a name which to him bore a high significance, recalling the ‘grace’ which came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17), and of which a wonderful manifestation was made at this very spot. The pool called Bethesda had five porticos; probably it was five-sided, and surrounded by an arched verandah or colonnade, closed in on the outward side. The hot springs of Tiberias are so surrounded at this day, and it is at least possible that the style of architecture may be traditional. John 5:3. In these lay a multitude of sick folk, of blind, halt, withered. Under the shelter of these porticos many such were laid day after day. The general term ‘sick folk’ receives its explanation afterwards as consisting of those who were blind, or lame, or whose bodies or limbs were wasted.—The omission of the remaining words of Joh 5:3 and of the whole of Joh 5:4 is supported by a weight of authority which it is impossible to set aside. The addition belongs, however, to a very early date, for its contents are clearly referred to by Tertullian early in the third century. It is evidently an explanatory comment first written in the margin by those who saw that the words of Joh 5:7 imply incidents or opinions of which the narrative as it stands gives no account. The well-intentioned gloss was not long in finding its way into the text; and, once there, it gave the weight of the apostle’s sanction to a statement which really represents only the popular belief. It will be seen that, when the unauthorised addition is removed, there is nothing in the text to support the impression that wonderful cures were actually wrought. The phenomena are those of an intermittent spring; and the various circumstances described, the concourse of sick, the eager expectation, the implicit faith in the healing virtue of the waters and in the recurring supernatural agency, find too many parallels in history to make it necessary to suppose that there was any supernatural virtue in the pool. It may be observed that the ordinary translation of the added words is not quite correct. The angel’s visit was not looked for ‘at a certain season’ (as if after some fixed and regular interval), but ‘at seasons,’ from time to time. John 5:5. And a certain man was there, which had been thirty and eight years in his sickness. This sufferer (apparently one of the ‘withered,’ though not altogether destitute of the power of motion) had endured thirty-eight years of weakness. How long he had been wont to resort to Bethesda we cannot tell: it may have been only for days or even hours. John 5:6. Jesus seeing him lying there, and perceiving that he hath been now a long time in that case, saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? The first movement is altogether on the side of Jesus: comp. John 5:21 (‘whom He will’). His knowledge of the case is by direct intuition (comp. John 2:25), not, as we believe, the result of inquiry. In Matthew 8:2 the leper’s words to Jesus were, ‘Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean,’ and the answer was, ‘I will.’ Here the address of Jesus contains His ‘I will,’ for His question to the man is ‘Dost thou will? if thou dost I do also.’ Jesus has the will to heal him: does he answer this with a corresponding will, or is he like those to whom Jesus would have given life, but who ‘would’ not come to Him? (John 5:40). It will be observed that there is no broad separation made between bodily and spiritual healing. The man certainly understood the former, but we cannot limit the meaning of Christ’s words by the apprehension of those to whom He speaks, and the subsequent narrative seems to imply more than the restoration of bodily health. John 5:7. The sick man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water hath been troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. The man does not give a direct answer to the question ‘Wilt thou?’ but the answer sought is implied. He had the will, but he had not the power to do what he believed must be done before healing could be obtained. The very extremity of his need rendered unavailing his repeated efforts to be the first to reach the waters when the mysterious troubling had taken place. He had no friend to help, to hurry him to the pool at the moment when the waters were thought to have received their healing power. John 5:8. Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. The cure is performed in the most simple and direct manner. It is not said that Jesus laid His hands on him (Luke 13:13), or that He touched him. He speaks: the man hears the voice of the Son of God and lives (John 5:25; John 5:28-29). John 5:9. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked. The result is described in words which are a simple echo of the command. Whilst they testify the power of the healing word, they also bring into view the man’s ‘will’ and ‘faith,’ as shown in his immediate readiness to obey the command of Jesus. Immediately he was made whole, and took up his bed (the mattress which, laid upon the ground, had formed his bed), and walked.And it was the sabbath on that day. The verses which follow show how important is this notice. As Jesus chose out this one sick man to be the object of His grace, so He of set purpose chose the sabbath day for the performance of the miracle. John 5:10. The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day, and it is not lawful for thee to take up the bed. The Jews—some of the rulers of the people (see note on John 1:19)—who had not been present at the miracle met the man as he departed carrying his bed. As guardians of the law they challenge him, and condemn the bearing of burdens on the sabbath. It is very important for us to determine whether in so doing they were right or wrong. Were they faithfully carrying out the letter of the law of Moses, or were they enforcing one of those traditions by which they destroyed its spirit? We have no hesitation in adopting the former view. The question must be decided apart from the miracle, of which at this moment the Jews seem to have had no knowledge. It is true that, even had it been known by them, their judgment would not have been altered; they would have equally condemned the healing on the sabbath (see Luke 13:14), since there had been no question of life and death. When, too, they afterwards hear what has been done (John 5:11) there is no change in their tone and spirit; and our Lord’s own reference to this miracle (chap. John 7:23) seems to show that, so far from convincing them, it had roused their special indignation. But at the point of time now before us the lawfulness of healing on the sabbath was not in question. They met a man carrying his bed in the streets of Jerusalem on the sacred day. The law of Moses forbade any work on that day; and the special enactments in the Pentateuch (the command to kindle no fire, Exodus 35:3, and the judgment on the man who gathered sticks, Numbers 15:35) show how this law was to be interpreted. In Jeremiah 17:21-23, moreover (comp. Nehemiah 13:19), this very act, the bearing of burdens, is explicitly condemned. What could they do but condemn it? Would the same act be regarded otherwise in England at the present hour? One other consideration remains, and it is decisive. Our Lord’s answer to the Jews (John 5:17) makes no reference to their casuistical distinctions or to traditions by which the law was overlaid. It differs altogether in tone and spirit from the reproofs which we read in Luke 13:15; Luke 14:5. Had their objection lain against the healing, we cannot doubt that they would have brought on themselves the like rebuke: here however they were right in holding the man’s action, so far as they understood it at the moment, to be an infraction of their law. John 5:11. But he answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. Whether the man knew the Rabbinical saying that a prophet’s command to transgress the letter of the law was to be obeyed, save in the case of idolatry, may be doubted; but the impression made on him by the majesty of Jesus was sufficient to guide his answer. Divine power had healed him: a command from One who wielded such power could not transgress the law of God. John 5:12. They asked him, Who is the man which said unto thee, Take up, and walk? The mention of the cure has no effect in leading them to suspend their judgment. It would indeed present to them a new transgression of the law; but they content themselves with passing it by, and laying stress on what they consider an undeniable breach of the very letter of the commandment. This complete indifference to the work of mercy plainly illustrates the hard-hearted malice of ‘the Jews.’ John 5:13. But he that was healed wist not who it was. We need not wonder that this man, unable to move from place to place, perhaps only recently come to Jerusalem, had no previous knowledge of Jesus.For Jesus withdrew himself, a multitude being in that place. After his cure, too, he could hear nothing of his benefactor, for, to avoid the recognition and enthusiasm of the multitude (comp. chap. John 6:15), Jesus withdrew,—literally ‘slipped aside,’ became suddenly lost to sight.—Here, as always, the ‘multitude’ or mass of the people is to be carefully distinguished from ‘the Jews.’ The conflict between Jesus and the Jews has begun: all His actions deepen their hatred against Him. The ‘multitude,’ on the other hand, is the object of His compassion: from time to time they follow Him eagerly, however slight may be their knowledge of His true teaching and aims (John 6:2; John 6:15). In subsequent chapters we shall often have to call attention to the contrast between ‘the Jews’ and the ‘multitude;’ and it will be seen that some passages are almost inexplicable unless this most important distinction is kept clearly in view. John 5:14. After these things Jesus findeth him in the temple courts. Some time afterwards, probably not on the same day, the man is found in the temple courts. There is no reason to doubt that he had gone there for purposes of devotion, having recognised the Divine deliverance. Throughout the narrative he stands in strong contrast with the Jews, resembling in this the blind man of whom we read in chap. 9.And said unto him, Behold, thou hast been made whole: sin no longer, that some worse thing come not unto thee. The words of Jesus imply much more than the general connection of sin and suffering; they show that in this case the sickness had in some way been the result and the punishment of sin. Yet sorer judgment will follow a return to the life of sin (Matthew 12:45). John 5:15. The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus which had made him whole. The Jews asked who had commanded him to take up his bed. The man’s reply, given as soon as he had learnt the name of his Deliverer, was that Jesus had made him whole. The careful variation in the expression seems to repel the supposition that he gave the information through ingratitude or in treachery. Probably his motive was a sense of duty to those who, whatever might be their spirit, were constituted authorities who had a right to be satisfied as to all breaches of the law, with whom also would rest the decision whether he must bring a sin-offering to atone for his violation of the sabbath. Whilst, however, this may have been the man’s motive, we can hardly doubt that John (who here uses a word, ‘declared,’ which with him often has a solemn significance) sees in the act a Divine mission. In his eyes the man is for the moment a prophet of the Most High, a messenger of warning, to the guilty Jews. John 5:16. And for this cause did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath day. The man whose cure had been the occasion of the action taken by the Jews now passes from view. For the second time Jesus and ‘the Jews’ are brought face to face. He had appeared in the temple (John 2:14) to put an end to the abuses they bad permitted or fostered, and to vindicate the holiness of His Father’s house. Then He offered Himself to Israel as the Son of God; He declared Himself the antitype of their temple, the idea of which (as God’s dwelling-place) had its fulfilment in Himself alone. As by supernatural influence on those who trafficked in the Holy Place He had then challenged the attention of the rulers of Israel, so now by a wonderful sign He fixed on Himself the eyes of all (John 7:21). This time it is not on the temple that He lays His hand, but on the law, the cherished commandment of the sabbath. It is not as one who with authority checks abuses which none could defend, though from them many derived gain,’ that our Lord now appears in Jerusalem: He comes as one who claims to be above the law, having the right, as Lawgiver, to set aside its letter. As the temple had its idea fulfilled in Himself, so was it with the sabbath. As to the Son of God God’s house belonged, so to the Son of God belonged that Rest of God of which the sabbath was a type; and the sabbath cannot be broken by the Son of God. This is the light in which the following verses teach us to regard the whole narrative. The choice of the sabbath day for the miracle is the kernel of the paragraph. Had the Jews been teachable and free from prejudice, had they taken the miracle as the starting-point of their reasonings, they would have been prepared for hearing the ground of the claims of Jesus thus to regulate their law. ‘How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?’ (John 9:16) was in truth a convincing argument, and by yielding to its force they would have been led to Jesus as humble seekers after truth. But because He ‘did these things,’ wrought such works and showed that He would persevere with them, they became and continued to be His persecutors. John 5:17. But he answered them, My Father worketh until now: I also work. In three different ways does our Lord rebut the charge which His foes so often brought against Him, that He broke the sabbath. At one time He showed that it was not the law but the vain tradition that He set aside (Matthew 12:11; Luke 13:15; Luke 14:5); at another He declared Himself as the Son of man Lord of the sabbath, and taught that the law of the sabbath must be determined from its aim and object (Mark 2:27-28); here only does He take even higher ground. God rested from His works of creation on the seventh day; this day was hallowed and set apart for man’s rest from labour,—a rest which was the shadow of the rest of God, and which was designed to remove from man everything that might hinder him from entering in spirit into that fellowship with God which is perfect rest. From the creation to this very moment the Father hath been working; in His very rest upholding all things by the word of His power, providing all things for His creatures, working out the purpose of His love in their redemption. ‘My Father worketh until now,’ with no pause or intermission: ‘I also work.’ He who can thus call God His Father finds in the works of His Father the law of His own works. No works of the Father can interrupt the sabbath rest: no works of the Son on earth can break the sabbath law. The 19th and 20th verses more fully explain what is expressed in these majestic words. John 5:18. For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. The Jews do not fail to see that the argument rested on the first words, ‘My Father.’ He who could thus speak, and who justified His works by the works of God, was calling God His own Father in the highest sense which these words can bear, and was claiming equality with God. It has been objected that, though the brief assertion of Joh 5:17 does really imply all this, it is not probable that so momentous an inference would have been drawn from words so few. But it is sufficient to reply that, whilst John gives to us the exact substance of the words of Jesus and the impression which they made upon the hearers, we have no reason to suppose that all the words spoken are recorded. The meaning which we gather from those that stand written before us probably could not be conveyed by spoken words without repetition and enlargement. The thought of the condensation which must have taken place in the record of these discourses of our Lord is that which fully justifies the devout reader’s effort to catch every shade of meaning and follow every turn of expression.—The answer Jesus has given does but repel the Jews. We are told what the persecution of Joh 5:16 meant,—even then they had sought His life, for now they sought the more to kill Him. From this point onwards we have the conflict that nothing could reconcile, the enmity of the Jews which would not and could not rest until they had compassed the death of Him who had come to save them. The performance of the miracle of healing on the sabbath had roused the active opposition of the Jews to Jesus, and that again had led to the great declaration contained in John 5:17, in which Jesus announces His equality with God. This announcement only excites the Jews to greater rage; and Jesus is thus led, according to His custom in this Gospel, to present in still fuller and more forcible terms the truth by which their anger and opposition had been aroused. The discourse may be divided into three subordinate parts—(1) John 5:19-29, where, with a thrice repeated ‘Verily, verily’(the progress of the thought is pointed out in the Exposition), Jesus speaks of Himself as the Worker of the Father’s works, the Revealer of the Father’s glory; (2) John 5:30, a verse at once summing up what has preceded from John 5:19, and introducing the remainder of the discourse; (3) John 5:31-47, where Jesus passes from the ‘greater works’ that He does to the witness borne to Him by the Father, pointing out at the same time the true nature of the evil principles within the Jews which prevented their receiving that witness. John 5:20. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth. The relation of the Son’s acts to those of the Father has been connected with the figure of ‘seeing:’ the converse is here presented, as ‘showing.’ The Father ‘showeth’ what Himself doeth; the Son ‘seeth.’ The principle of the relation between the Father and the Son, out of which this communion springs, is ‘love,’—an eternal and continuous and infinite love, the source of an eternal and continuous and perfect communion. The same English words have occurred before, in chap. John 3:35; but the original expression is not the same. We shall have occasion in several passages to notice the two Greek words in question, which, as a rule, must be rendered by the same English word, ‘love.’ Starting from the use of the words between man and man, we may say that the one (Φίλίω) denotes rather the tender emotional affection, that the other (άγαπάω) is never dissociated from intellectual preference, esteem, choice. The one term is not necessarily stronger than the other. The latter may be more exalted, as implying the result of intelligence and knowledge; the former may be more expressive, as implying a closer bond and a warmer feeling. The first word is most in place when the two who are united by love stand more nearly on the same level, the second is commonly used when there is disparity. The former occurs thirteen times only in this Gospel; once of the Father’s love towards the Son (here), and once of His consequent love to those who love the Son (John 16:27); three times of the love of Jesus towards His disciples, and six times of their love to Him; the other two passages are John 12:25 (‘he that loveth his life’) and John 15:19 (‘the world would love its own’). It does not occur in John’s Epistles, and twice only in the Apocalypse (Revelation 3:19, Revelation 22:15). On the other hand, the latter word occurs no fewer than thirty-seven times in John’s Gospel and thirty times in his Epistles. In the Gospel it is used seven times of the love between the Father and the Son; once of the love of God to the world (John 3:16), and three times of the Father’s love to those who are Christ’s; eleven times of the love of Jesus towards His own nine times of their love towards Him, and four times of the mutual love of the disciples. In the remaining passages (John 3:19 and John 12:43) it denotes preference or choice. The fitness of the employment of the two words is very clear in almost all these instances. The first class is that with which we are now concerned, both words being used to denote the love existing between the Father and the Son. The particular passages will be noticed as they occur, but the verse before us and John 3:35 are sufficient to show clearly the general principle ruling this whole class. Here, as the context brings into relief the essential relation between the Son and the Father, that word is chosen which most befits the unity of their Being. In John 3:35, again, the context fixes our attention on Him whom God hath ‘sent:’ not the essence but the work of the Son is the leading thought,—not the Word ‘in the beginning with God, but the Only-begotten Son given that the world might be saved: the other word, therefore, is there used. And he will shew him greater works than these. The word ‘showeth’ in the first part of the verse includes all time: here the future tense is used, not as pointing to a change in the relation of the Son to the Father, as if the ‘showing’ and the ‘seeing’ would in the future grow in completeness and intensity, but only because the eternal purpose of the Father for mankind is fulfilled in time, and because the Saviour is looking at successive stages of His work, as developed in human history.—The ‘greater works’ must not be understood to mean simply greater acts, more wonderful miracles, all that we commonly understand by the miracles of Jesus being rather comprehended under the word ‘these.’ Further, our Lord does not say ‘greater works than this ‘miracle, but greater works than ‘these:’ and lastly, to compare one of the Saviour’s miraculous deeds with another, to divide them into greater and less, is altogether foreign to the spirit of the Gospels. The key to the meaning of the ‘greater works’ is given by the following verses; they include the raising of the dead, the giving of life, the judgment. That ye may marvel. The design of these greater works, of this higher and more complete manifestation of Jesus, is ‘that ye may marvel.’ ‘Ye,’ as throughout this discourse, is an address to those who opposed Him, who ‘would not come’ to Him, who refused to believe His words. The meaning of ‘marvel,’ therefore, does not differ from that which we observed in chap. John 3:7 : it is not the wonder of admiration and faith, but the marvelling of astonishment and awe. John 5:21. For even as the Father raiseth up the dead and maketh to live, so the Son also maketh to live whom he will. This verse begins the explanation of the ‘greater works’ which the Father ‘will show’ unto the Son. In speaking of these, however, the present not the future tense is used, for some of them are even now present in their beginnings, though future in their complete manifestation. The first example of these works of the Father, which ‘the Son also doeth in like manner,’ is raising up the dead and making to live. Are the words to be understood in their ordinary sense, or are they figurative? This question can only be answered from the context. On one side John 5:25 is decisive, death being there used of a spiritual state, and not with a physical reference only. On the other hand, John 5:28 unquestionably speaks of the raising of the dead out of their graves. As, therefore, the verses which follow John 5:21 certainly contain an expansion and exposition of the first words of the discourse (John 5:17; John 5:19-21), the general terms of Joh 5:21 must be employed in their widest sense, including both a physical and a spiritual resurrection and gift of life. This is the more natural, as the miracle of healing has been the fountain of the discourse, and we have seen that in such miracles of our Lord the physical and spiritual worlds are in a remarkable way brought together.—The work spoken of is divided into two parts, the raising and the giving of life. The former word ‘raising’ is that used in John 5:8 (‘Rise’), and is the first part of the command which then gave life. It is the word rendered ‘awake’ in Ephesians 5:14, a passage which the verse before us at once recalls. Whether used literally or in reference to a spiritual resurrection, it denotes the first step in the process of ‘making to live.’ Either word might stand by itself to indicate the work: neither in 2 Corinthians 1:9, ‘God which raiseth the dead,’ nor in Romans 4:17, ‘God who maketh the dead to live,’ is an imperfect act described. But the description is more vivid here, as we see first the transition and then the completed gift. In the language of this Gospel, ‘life’ has so deep a significance that ‘maketh to live’ must not be limited to the initial ‘quickening,’—it is the whole communication of the fulness of life. If this view be correct, we can find no difficulty in the omission of the word ‘raiseth’ in the second half of the verse. Once mentioned, it presents the work of giving life so vividly, that afterwards the one word ‘maketh-to-live’ is sufficient to bear all the meaning. So in John 5:8 and John 5:11. The command to the sick man had been, ‘Rise and . . . walk:’ when the result is described and the command related by him who has been healed, nothing is said of the arising, for it is included in the gift of life. God ‘maketh alive’ (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6): ‘God hath given to us eternal life’ (1 John 5:11). However understood, whether physically or spiritually, this is the work of the Father; both in the physical and in the spiritual sense, it is also, we now learn, the work of the Son. In one respect the later part of the verse is not less but more detailed than the earlier. No one can doubt that ‘whom He will’ lies implicitly in the first words, but the thought is expressed in regard to the Son only; and the best illustration of it as applied to Him is given by the narrative itself. Amongst the crowd of sick Jesus chose out one especially wretched and consciously helpless, and bestowed on him the free gift of life. So (Matthew 11:25) the wise and prudent are passed by, and babes are the objects of the Fathers merciful will. The Son’s will is the manifestation of the Father’s purpose. There is no suggestion of an absolute decree. The cure of the sick man was to a certain extent dependent on his own will: ‘Hast thou a will to be made whole?’ (John 5:6). The same will to be quickened is necessary to all to whom the will to quicken on the part of the Son extends. What is the source of the will in them is a question not raised: enough that the light appears, and they are attracted to the light and open their hearts to receive it. John 5:22. For moreover the Father judgeth no one, but hath given all judgment unto the Son. This verse must be taken in connection with John 5:19, ‘The Son can of Himself do nothing save what He seeth the Father doing.’ By thus connecting the two verses, it becomes plain that our Lord does not assert that judgment is not in a certain sense exercised by the Father, but that the Father has not reserved judgment to Himself,—that with all other things, it too is given unto the Son. The Father showeth the Son all things that Himself doeth: from this complete manifestation nothing is excepted,—not even that final arbitrament which is the prerogative of the Supreme. Hence there is no contradiction between this verse and John 5:30 below, where Jesus says, ‘I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear, I judge;’ nor will John 8:50 present any difficulty. By ‘judgment,’ as in chap. John 3:17-19, we must certainly understand a judgment that issues in condemnation: the parallelism between John 3:18, ‘He that believeth in Him is not judged,’ and John 5:24, ‘He that heareth my word and believeth Him that sent me hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment,’ is remarkably close. All judgment future and present, the final award with all that foreshadows it, the Father hath given, by a bestowal which can never be revoked, unto the Son. The connection between the John 5:22 and the John 5:21 verses is now plain. The Son maketh to live whom He will; but there are some on whom He does not bestow life (compare John 5:40); them therefore He judges, He condemns,—for not even is this Divine prerogative withholden from Him; nay, all judgment hath been given unto the Son. John 5:23. That all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. These words express the purpose of the Father in giving all judgment to the Son. They remind us of the closing words of Joh 5:20, which also express His purpose, but there is a significant difference between the two verses. There we read ‘that ye may marvel,’ here ‘that all may honour:’ there it is the confusion and amazement of foes, here it is the honour rendered by all whether foes or friends. It is true, indeed, that the ‘judgment’ of John 5:22 implies condemnation, and that, by consequence, this verse might seem to relate to foes only and not obedient subjects in the kingdom of God. But the ‘all’ is rightly introduced, for when judgment has compelled the honour of unwilling adoration, much more may it be expected that willing hearts will see the unity of the Father and the Son, and will honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which sent him. It was in their zeal for the honour of the Father, as they supposed, that the Jews refused to honour Him who was God’s Son. But so truly one are the Father and the Son, that all who dishonour the Son dishonour the Father. The Father orders all things as the does that He whom He sent into the world may receive equal honour with Himself; and all who refuse honour to the Son resist the Father’s purpose. Similar words are found in one of the earlier Gospels (Luke 10:16), yet no teaching is more characteristic of the fourth. John 5:24. Verily, verily, I say unto you. The second ‘Verily, verily,’ introducing the second step in the argument. He that heareth my word, and believeth Him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life. This verse has a close connection with the last, the words ‘Him that sent me’ taking up the similar words in John 5:23; and those who by hearing Christ’s words give honour to the Father being set over against those who were there spoken of as dishonouring the Father. But the verse has also a very important connection with the three preceding verses. They have stated the work of the Son as it has been given Him by the Father; this states the same work in its effect upon believers. The comparison of the terms employed in the several verses is very instructive, and the advance from a principle asserted of the Son to the same principle viewed in its application to men is most perceptible. The Son maketh to live the dead, even those whom He will (John 5:21): he that heareth His word hath eternal life, and hath passed out of his state of death into life (John 5:24). All judgment is given unto the Son (John 5:22): into this judgment he that believeth does not come (John 5:24). There is special significance in the words ‘believeth Him that sent me:’ our Lord does not say ‘believeth in Him,’ for that which He has in view is the acceptance of God’s testimony concerning the Son (1 John 5:10). Such hearing and believing imply the full acceptance of Christ, and thus lead directly to that ‘believing in the Son’ which (chap. John 3:36) gives the present possession of eternal life. The believer has passed into a state to which judgment does not apply; he has received into himself that word which (chap. John 12:48) will at the last day judge all who reject it. Believing in Christ, he has life in Him, and to all that are in Christ Jesus there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1). John 5:25. Verily, verily, I say unto you. The third ‘Verily, verily,’ introducing the third step in the argument. An hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that have heard shall live. What was said of Joh 5:24 applies here also; for this verse has a direct connection with that which precedes it (‘heareth my word’ rises into ‘shall hear the voice of the Son of God’); and yet a still more important link unites it with the opening words of the discourse, especially with John 5:20, ‘He will show Him greater works.’ In the 21st and 22d verses, these works are looked at in their own nature as done by the Son; in the 24th verse, they are looked at in their effect on the believer. Now, the ‘will show’ is brought into prominence, for it is of the historical fulfilment of those words that the verse before us speaks. ‘An hour cometh’ when the Son’s power to give life to the dead (John 5:21) shall be manifested. Of the two spheres in which this power is exercised this verse has in view one only; the ‘dead’ are those who are spiritually dead. In regard to these alone could it be said that the hour has already begun (‘an hour cometh, and now is’), or would the limitation in the last words be in place, ‘they that have heard shall live.’ The general meaning therefore is the same as that of the last verse; but, as it is to ‘the dead’ that the Son speaks, we here read of ‘the voice’ and not ‘the word.’ In saying ‘the voice of the Son of God,’ Jesus recalls to our thought all the majesty of His first words (John 5:11; John 5:17; John 5:19). John 5:26. For even as the Father hath life in himself; so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself. The dead shall hear the voice of the Son and live, for the Son hath life and can impart life. This is the connection between John 5:25-26. The Father who is the primal fountain of life gave to the Son to have life in Himself. As in John 5:19-21, that which belongs to the Father and that which belongs to the Son are designated by the same words, while the subordination expressed in John 5:19-20, by the figurative words ‘showing’ and ‘seeing,’ is here (as in John 5:22) expressed by the word ‘gave.’ It is therefore the essential nature of the Son that is spoken of, and not His work in redemption.—‘To have life in Himself’ is the loftiest expression that can be used: the unchangeable possession of life exactly similar and parallel to that of the Father, such possession as enables Him to be the Giver of life to others, belongs to the Son. John 5:27. And he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man. The Son ‘maketh to live,’ but He maketh to live ‘whom He will’(John 5:21), or (as we read in John 5:25), He giveth life to those who have heard His voice, and not to all. Where, then, He is not the Giver of life, He is necessarily the Judge. The one thought involves the other, both in John 5:21-22, and here. The Father who gave to the Son the possession of life gave Him judgment also. This we read in the 22d verse, but the truth now wears a new form; for, although the word ‘gave’ is repeated in John 5:27, it is in relation to a gift and a sphere altogether different from those of which the 26th verse speaks. There the essential attributes of the Son are before us, including the prerogatives of the Word made flesh: here we read of a gift which belongs to time and not eternity, a gift which the Son receives ‘because He is a son of man.’ The former verses that speak of giving life and of judging (John 5:21-22) may have an extent of application of which we know nothing; this verse relates to the judgment of men by One who is very man. Such is the force of the words ‘a son of man.’ In every other passage of this Gospel it is ‘the Son of man’ of whom we read: here only, and in Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14, is the definite article wanting. No expression brings out so strongly the possession of actual human nature, and for this purpose it is employed. God’s will is to judge the world by ‘a man whom He ordained’ (Acts 17:31); and the verse before us, though comprehending much more than the last judgment, seems, as may be inferred from the peculiarity of the expression ‘execute’ or ‘perform judgment’ (literally ‘do judgment’), and from the presence of this thought in the immediate context (John 5:28-29), to look especially towards the final scene. But the judgment is one that issues in condemnation, and it is the Father’s will that ‘a son of man’ shall pronounce the sentence, as one who has taken on Himself human nature in all its reality and completeness, in all its faculties, affections, and feelings. Because He has done so, He is fitted to be a Judge of men, and to draw from the consciences of the guilty an acknowledgment of the righteousness of their doom. As the Son of God having life in Himself, He gives life, and those who are united to Him by faith have possession of a life that is divine. But as a son of man He judges; as One who has been in the same position with those standing at His bar, as One who has fought the same battle and endured the same trials as they. Thus they behold in their Judge One who entirely knows them; His sentence finds an echo in their heart; and they are speechless. Thus it is that judgment becomes really judgment, and not merely he infliction of punishment by resistless power. John 5:28. Marvel not at this. Jesus has been speaking of works at which they may well marvel (John 5:20); but great as these may be, there is yet a greater.Because an hour cometh, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice. That the future alone is spoken of is clear from the omission of the words ‘and now is’ found in John 5:25. The resurrection is not spiritual and figurative, for the words are ‘all that are in the graves, ‘not’ all that have heard,’—shall go forth, not ‘shall live.’ The consummation of the work of Jesus is the general resurrection both of the righteous and the wicked. Now all shall hear His voice, to which before (John 5:25) some only had given heed. All shall go forth, but not all to a resurrection of life. John 5:29. And they that have done good shall go forth unto a resurrection of life; but they that have committed evil unto a resurrection of judgment. Those who have committed evil, whose deeds have not been the abiding fruit and work of the truth, but merely the repeated manifestation of evil in its vanity and worthlessness (see John 3:20), shall go forth to a resurrection to which belongs abiding judgment. And these alone come into judgment (compare John 5:24). As in John 3:18 it is said that ‘he that believeth in Him is not judged,’ so here, ‘they that have done good shall go forth unto a resurrection of life.’ The difference between the two passages is, that in the one the faith is named; in the other, the works which are the expression of the life that follows faith, the abiding fruit of faith. It will be observed that the expressions ‘resurrection of life’ and resurrection of judgment denote states, not acts, of resurrection. No general judgment, therefore, is here mentioned: all that is spoken of is a general resurrection, on the part of some to a continuing life, of others to a continuing judgment. John 5:30. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just. This verse is the dividing line of the discourse, belonging at once to both parts, summing up (to a certain extent) what has gone before, leading on to the new subject which occupies the remainder of the chapter. The last word spoken was ‘judgment.’ Jesus now returns to it, and it is not strange that He should do so. He is speaking in the presence of the Jews, His determined foes, who refuse life, whom He judges and cannot but judge. Hence this lingering on judgment, and the recurrence to the first thought of the discourse (John 5:19), so as to show that this judgment is not of Himself, but belongs both to the Father and to the Son.—The figure of Joh 5:19 is changed. There ‘seeing ‘was the word chosen, as most in harmony with the general thought of works done; here it is of judging that Jesus speaks, and hence the same thought of communion with the Father is best expressed by ‘hearing.’ One characteristic of this verse is so marked as of itself to prove that the verse is closely related to those which follow. From the beginning of the discourse (John 5:19) Jesus has spoken of the Father and the Son. Now He directly fixes the eyes of His hearers upon Himself (‘I can,’ ‘I hear,’ ‘I judge’); and this mode of speech is retained to the very end of the chapter.Because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. That His works have not been and cannot be against the authority and will of God, Jesus has shown by pointing out their essential unity with those of the Father (John 5:19). That the judgment He must pass is just, He has shown by the same proof,—‘as hear I judge.’ But a second proof is now given, or rather (perhaps) a second aspect of the same truth is brought into relief, that thus His words of rebuke and warning may be more effectually addressed to the Jews. His action is never separate from that of the Father,—there can be no variance: His will is ever the will of His Father,—there can be no self-seeking. It was because the opposite spirit dwelt and reigned in the Jews that they were rejecting Him, and bringing judgment on themselves.—The transition to the first person, ‘I,’ ‘my,’ suggests an objection that would arise in the minds of the Jews. This is met in the verse that follows. John 5:31. If I bear witness concerning myself, my witness is not true. The word ‘I’ is emphatic,—‘if it is I that bear witness.’ The words plainly mean ‘I and I alone,’ for no one is discredited because he testifies to himself, although he is not credited if no other witness appears on his behalf. The Jews may have understood Jesus to mean: If I have no other witness to testify concerning me, my testimony cannot claim to be received. But there is more in His words. In the consciousness of oneness with the Father, He would say that if it were possible that His own witness should stand alone, unaccompanied by that of the Father, it would be self-convicted, would not be true: He, in making the assertion, would be false, for He is one with the Father, and His statement, as that of one who was false, would be false also. He must therefore show that the witness He bore to Himself was really borne to Him by the Father: the Father’s witness even the Jews will acknowledge to be true. To this, therefore, He proceeds. John 5:32. It is another that beareth witness concerning me. Not ‘There is another,’ as if He would merely cite an additional witness. He would lay the whole stress of the witnessing upon this ‘other witness.’ This witness is the Father,—not John the Baptist, who is mentioned in the next verse only that it may be shown that his testimony is not that on which Jesus relies.And I know that the witness which he witnesseth concerning me is true. These words are not said in attestation of the Father’s truth, a point admitted by all: they are the utterance of the Son’s profound consciousness of His own dignity and union with the Father. John 5:33. Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness unto the truth. As if He said: Had I not this all-sufficient witness,—were it possible for me to appeal to any human witness, I might rest on your own act. Ye yourselves have made appeal to John, and he hath borne witness to the truth (chap. John 1:19-27). Your mission and his answer are unalterable and abiding facts, which press upon you still and cannot be set aside. What he attested is the truth. Jesus does not say ‘hath borne witness to me,’ perhaps because that to which John bore witness was only a revelation from God (compare chap. John 1:34), a declaration of the truth which he had received from God; perhaps because the whole lesson of this passage is that there is only one real witness to Jesus, even the Father speaking in the Son and drawing out the answer of the heart to Him. John 5:34. But not from a man do I receive the witness. Great as was the witness of this greatest of prophets, yet John was only a man, and his witness therefore is not the real testimony to Jesus; it is a higher which is given Him, and which He receives (comp. John 5:36). Hence the definite article before ‘witness.’Howbeit these things I say that ye may be saved. Insufficient as was John’s testimony for the production of faith in its deepest and truest sense, yet Jesus had referred to it, recognising its value as part of the Divine arrangements for leading men to Himself. It ought to have brought them to Jesus: and then, as they listened to His own word, the true and complete witness would have been given. The following words set forth more fully the true position of the Baptist, in his value and in his imperfection. John 5:35. He was the lamp that burneth and shineth. John’s great work had been to bear witness of Jesus, to point to Him. By a sudden transition this is expressed very beautifully in a figure. As the Psalmist said of God’s word that it was a lamp unto his feet and a light unto his path (Psalms 119:105), showing him the right path preserving his feet from wandering, so does Jesus represent John’s mission here. The lamp been supplied with oil and has been lighted for a special purpose; it is not self-luminous, shining because it is its nature to give light. The lamp too burns as it shines; its light is transitory, and may well be so, because in proportion as its purpose is accomplished may the light diminish: when its end is answered, the lamp may be extinguished (comp. John 3:30). And ye desired for a season to exult in his light. Alas! for them the lamp failed to fulfil its purpose. Instead of learning the way to Jesus by its means, they thought only of the light itself. No doubt this light was beautiful and attractive, but it had been designed only to guide to Him who would prove ‘the true light’ unto all that followed Him (chap. John 1:9, John 8:12). The Jews are evidently censured, but not (as some maintain) because they had exulted instead of mourning. There had been no call to mourning. The very exhortation to repentance, to prepare for the coming of Him for whom Israel had long waited, contained in it glad tidings of great joy.’ The transient acceptance of John himself, instead of the acceptance of his message in its true and permanent significance, is the fault for which the Jews are here condemned. John 5:36. But the witness that I have is greater than that of John. Our Lord does not say ‘1 have greater witness than that of John,’ as if He was about to specify additional testimony of greater weight than the Baptist’s. No, that testimony to the truth was good, was useful (John 5:33-34), but ‘the witness’ which He has—the only witness to which He appeals—belongs altogether to another order, not human, but Divine. Other witness may prepare the heart, external testimony may point the way, but there is only one evidence offered by Jesus Himself.For the works that the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness concerning me, that the Father hath sent me. The evidence is works that the Father hath given Him to accomplish; and these works are His evidence, not as external evidence merely, but because, as expressive of the Father in Him, they appeal to that inner light in men which ought to have led men to recognise the Father in the Son. Of these ‘works’ miracles are one part, but not the whole. In two other passages our Lord uses similar language to this, speaking of the ‘accomplishment’ of the work of the Father (chap. John 4:34) or of the work which the Father hath given Him to do (chap. John 17:4); and in both the work is more than miracles. True, we read in these of ‘the work,’ not ‘the works,’ but the difference is not essential: the many works are the many portions of the one work. Nor need we go beyond this discourse itself to see that the very widest meaning must be assigned to ‘works.’ The keynote is struck by John 5:17, which speaks of the ‘working’ of the Father and the Son; and in John 5:20 we read of the ‘greater works’ which the Father will show unto the Son. The ‘works’ then here denote all that has been referred to in earlier verses (John 5:20-30), whether present or future, the works of quickening, raising, judging, all that the Son does and will do until the purpose of the Father is accomplished and the redemptive work complete. These works, being manifestations of His own nature, are essentially different from all external testimony whatever.—Such as they are, they have been ‘given’ Him by the Father to accomplish: they are described not as a charge but as a gift (as in John 5:22; John 5:26-27): and they are the very works which He is now doing and habitually does. Special significance attaches to these added words, ‘the very works that I do,’ for they show that the witness given by the Father to the Son is given in ‘works’ now presented to their view. Every word and every deed of Jesus is, as a work, bearing testimony to the truth that the Father hath sent Him; for, where the heart of the beholder is prepared, every work reveals the presence of the Father, and is manifestly a work of God. John 5:37. And the Father which sent me, he hath home witness concerning me. As if Jesus said: And thus, in the abiding gift of the ‘works,’ it is the Father that sent me that hath borne witness of me.—‘Hath borne witness’ corresponds with ‘hath given;’ each points to the continued possession of a gift bestowed, the Father’s abiding presence with Him whom He ‘sent ‘and’ sealed (chap. John 6:27). Hence we must not suppose that a new witness of the Father—direct (as some say), in contrast with the ‘mediate’ testimony of the works—is here intended. If the ‘works’ include the whole manifestation of the Son, the whole of the tokens of the Father’s presence in Him and with Him, they are no ‘mediate’ testimony; no testimony can be more direct.Never have ye either heard a voice of him or seen a form of him. The Father has borne witness, but they have not known His presence. In the words of Jesus He has spoken, and the ear not closed through wilfulness and unbelief would have recognised the voice of God. In the actions and the whole life of Jesus He has manifested Himself, and the spiritual eye, the man ‘pure in heart,’ would have ‘seen God.’ It had been otherwise with ‘the Jews.’ Whilst our Lord had been working in their midst they had heard no voice of the Father, they had seen no form of Him. This was a proof that they had never received in their hearts God’s revelation of Himself. Had they done so, had they (to use our Lord’s figurative language,—no doubt suggested by the thought of the words which He had spoken and the miracles which He had shown to them) ever been acquainted with the Father’s voice, they would have recognised it when Jesus spoke: had the eyes of their understanding ever been enlightened so as to see God, they would have seen the Father manifested in their very presence in His Son. What is in these two clauses couched in figurative terms the next clause expresses clearly. John 5:38. And ye have not his word abiding in you; because whom he sent, him ye believe not. ‘Word’ here must not be understood as directly signifying the Scriptures of the Old Testament: it is rather the substance of God’s whole revelation of Himself, however and wherever made. This revelation received into a believing heart becomes God’s word in the man, and to this word answers The Word, in whom God has perfectly revealed Himself (compare Hebrews 1:1-2). By all previous teaching concerning Himself God has prepared the way for man’s reception of His Son. He who did not recognise the Son as the Sent of God, showed by this very sign that the preparatory work had not been effected in him,—that he had not God’s word abiding in his heart. So in the next chapter Jesus teaches that ‘every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto Him’ (chap. John 6:45). The refusal therefore of the Jews to believe Him, that is, to accept His claims, is of itself a proof that they have had no spiritual aptitude for discerning the presence and the revelation of God. It will be seen that, as in the first clause of Joh 5:37 we cannot accept the view that a new witness is introduced, different from the works, so here we cannot believe that the ‘voice,’ ‘form,’ and ‘word’ are to be limited to the manifestation of God in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. No doubt this is the most prominent and important part of our Lord’s meaning, but we must not exclude God’s revelation of Himself in providence and in the heart of man, for in all things He had pointed to His Son.It should be mentioned that some have supposed the clause ‘never have ye heard a voice of Him’ to refer to the voice of God at the Baptism of our Lord. But such an interpretation is surely impossible. The tone of the two verses here is one of reproach; but that voice was not intended for the ears of the Jews, and their failure to hear it was no matter of rebuke. This explanation, too, would not diminish but increase the difficulty of the words ‘or seen a form of Him,’ words startling to every Israelite (compare Deuteronomy 4:12), and, we believe, only to be accounted for when regarded as closely connected with and suggested by the words and deeds of Jesus. John 5:39. Ye search the Scriptures. The link connecting this verse with the last is the mention of God’s ‘word.’ We have seen that our Lord had referred in a marked though not an exclusive manner to the Scriptures. To the Jews indeed it might seem that He intended to speak of these alone; and that He should deny Jews the glory which they esteemed most highly, by declaring that they had not God’s ‘word abiding in them, would arouse their wonder and their wrath. Now, therefore, Jesus allows them the praise that was their due, but shows also that the very possession of which they boasted had been so used by them as to increase their condemnation.—Because ye think that in them ye have eternal life: and it is they which bear witness concerning me John 5:40. And ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. The Jews did search the sacred writings,—to do so was their honour and their pride. Their own belief was that in possessing them they possessed eternal life; as one of their greatest teachers said, He who has gotten to himself words of the Law has gotten to himself the life of the world to come. But these very Scriptures were the writings that bore witness concerning Jesus (see the note on John 5:38). Had they entered into their spirit, they would have joyfully welcomed Him; yet they refused to come (it was not their will to come,—see John 5:6) to Him for life. Such is the general meaning of the verses. The Jews had used the witness of the Scriptures as they had dealt with that given by the Baptist (John 5:35). What was designed as a means had been made by them an end; what should have led them to Christ detained them from Him. In a certain sense the Scriptures did contain eternal life, in that they bore witness of Him who was the true bestower of this gift; but as long as men busied themselves with the words of Scripture to the neglect of its purpose, believing that the former would give all they needed and sought, the Scriptures themselves kept them back from life.—It is a little difficult to decide what is the reason for the emphasis which in the original is laid on ‘ye’ (‘ye think that,’ etc.). The meaning may be: ye yourselves set such honour on the Scriptures that ye think eternal life is found in them. In this case an argument is founded on their own admissions. Or our Lord may intend to refer to this doctrine respecting the Scripture as their belief only not the truth, not His teaching; ye think that in the Scriptures ye have eternal life, but it is not truly so,—eternal life is given by me alone. The latter meaning seems most in harmony with the context. So understood, the words do indeed rebuke that view of Scripture which rests everything on the letter, and also the inconsistency between the reverence which the Jews paid to the sacred writings and their neglect of the purpose they were designed to serve; but to the Scriptures the highest honour is assigned, for Jesus says, ‘it is they which bear witness concerning me.’ When thus interpreted in the sense in which it appears necessary to understand them, the words of Joh 5:39 supply a lesson almost the opposite of that usually drawn from them. While they exalt instead of depreciating the Scriptures, their main object is to warn us against putting them into an undue position, or supposing that they are more than a guide to Him in whom alone life is to be gained (comp. John 6:63). The ordinary rendering of the first word (‘Search ‘for ‘Ye search’) seems altogether inconsistent with the course of thought in these verses. John 5:41. Glory from men I receive not. The last nine verses have been an expansion of Joh 5:31; this verse goes back to the 30th, in which Jesus first contrasts His spirit with theirs, His devotion to the Father’s will with their self-seeking. The rest of the chapter is a development of this thought. Yet there is no abrupt break at John 5:40. Jesus has been speaking of the refusal of the Jews to ‘believe ‘Him and ‘come to’ Him as the sufficient and certain evidence of the evil of their hearts. But in so speaking He is not aiming at His own honour, or seeking fame from men. In every claim for Himself He seeks His Father’s glory; and the possession of that spirit is the test of the truth and righteousness which are well-pleasing to the Father: see chap. John 7:18, John 12:43. John 5:42. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I know,—that is, I have discerned you, I have read your hearts. Love to God is the foundation of the spirit of self-sacrifice, through which a man seeks not his own but the Father’s will. When love to God rules, therefore, the guiding principle is not the desire after glory from men. The Jews whom our Lord was addressing believed themselves zealous for God; but in the very service which they offered Him they were guilty of self-seeking. They valued themselves on what they presented to Him, and yet they presented not that which most of all He sought,—the love in which self is lost. What striking words are those of this verse to address to men who spent their days in searching the Scriptures and in honouring the divinely-appointed institutions of the Law! Their error was that they had not entered into the spirit of these things, had not seen why God had given them, had not therefore understood that glorious righteousness of God in the presence of which man feels himself to be nothing. They had thought that to God these things were an object in themselves. They had brought God down to the level of caring for that in caring for which as his highest good a man feels himself exalted and glorified. John 5:43. I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not. Referring everything to His Father’s power and presence, in everything doing His Father’s will and not His own, at all times seeking His Father’s glory, Jesus came ‘in His Father’s name.’ Because that was His spirit, they did not receive Him.If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. So far has self-seeking gone with them, that they can understand no other course of action than that which is animated by this principle. If a man come in the opposite spirit to that displayed by Jesus,—setting forth himself alone, seeking his own ends, and guided by no will but his own, though all under the guise of promoting the glory of God,—such a man they will be able to understand. They will sympathize with his motives, will even enthusiastically embrace his cause. The other course they cannot comprehend; so far as they do understand it, it is a constant reproach to them. This is a terrible description of those who were then the rulers of ‘God’s people Israel: ‘but, alas! the words apply with perfect fitness to the spirit which in every age of the history of Christ’s Church has contended against God whilst professing to do Him service; which in every age has tried to stop the progress of truth,—sometimes without, at other times within, the Church,—as truth has striven to pierce through forms that, once good, have with the course of time stiffened into the rigidity of death. Nothing can save from that spirit but the higher and nobler spirit breathing in the words, ‘glory from man I receive not.’ John 5:44. How can ye believe, receiving glory one of another? As in the preceding verses, the word receive is to be understood as implying a desire and a ‘seeking’ on their part. Such love of honour from men is altogether inconsistent with the ‘believing’ of which our Lord speaks. He is not referring to a merely intellectual act, but to an act which is also moral,—not to believing an assertion, but to believing in Him. Where there is self-seeking there can be no true faith.And the glory that is from the only God ye seek not. They who thus sought glory from men sought not glory from ‘the only God.’ The Jews were the champions of the doctrine of the unity of God, and, in the very pursuits and aims which our Lord condemns, persuaded themselves that they sought the glory of God and merited reward. But with such aims it was impossible to please Him, and thus they missed the recompense which comes from ‘the only God,’ who is the ‘only’ dispenser of true glory. John 5:45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye have placed your hope. These words do not diminish, but increase the severity of our Lord’s condemning words. Their objects of trust have been successively taken away. They have the Scriptures, but they have so used them as to miss their whole design; they are rejecting Him of whom they witness, and are offering to God a labour and a zeal which have no value in His sight. The chief tenet in their faith is that ‘God is one’ (Deuteronomy 6:4; James 2:19); but, in the absence of the ‘love of God’ from their hearts, their zeal for orthodox faith has not gained for them the ‘glory that is from the only God.’ There has been more, however, than misuse and loss. Their very lawgiver Moses, in whom they had set their hope, is already their accuser before God. No further accusation is needed. No more crushing blow could be given to their pride. Moses their accuser before God! Yet it was so. When we refuse to enter into all the parts of God’s plan, the very parts of it for whose sake our refusal is given, and whose honour we imagine we are maintaining, turn round upon us and disown our aid. John 5:46. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me: for he wrote concerning me. Our Lord, no doubt, refers in part to special predictions (such as that of Deu 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:18); but more especially He refers to the whole revelation contained in the books of Moses, and by parity of reasoning to the whole Old Testament—the Scriptures of Joh 5:39. In all the revelation given through him Moses wrote concerning Jesus. His great purpose was to prepare the way for the true Prophet and Priest and King of Israel. Christ was ‘the end of the law.’ Had, therefore, the Jews ‘believed Moses,’—that is, accepted his witness in its true character, and entered into its spirit,—they would have been led by that preparatory prophetic teaching to believe the Christ of whom Moses wrote. John 5:47. But if ye believe not his writings, how will ye believe my words? if however they did not truly believe the written word, which was constantly in their hands, which was the object of so much reverence, which, as written, could be studied again and again for the removal of every difficulty and the investigation of every claim, then might it well be expected that they would refuse to receive the words which Jesus spoke. The sixth chapter continues the conflict of Jesus with the Jews, under the same point of view as that which we found to be prominent in chap. 5. As in that chapter Jesus was the fulfilment of the sabbath, so in this He is the fulfilment of the Passover; He is the true bread, the true substance of our Paschal feast. The section now before us, contained in the first part of the chapter, may be divided into three subordinate parts—(1) John 6:1-13, the miracle of the multiplying of the bread; (2) John 6:14-15, the effect produced by the miracle upon the Galilean multitude, leading Jesus to withdraw to the other side of the sea; (3) John 6:16-21, the storm and the reassuring of the disciples. John 6:2. And a great multitude followed him, because they beheld the signs which he did on them that were sick. The Greek words are very expressive pointing clearly to repeated miracles of healing, on account of which crowds followed him continually from place to place. This is the only verse in John’s Gospel corresponding with the many passages in the Synoptic Gospels that briefly record a multitude of such works (Matthew 4:24; Matthew 8:16; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 15:30; Mark 6:56; Luke 9:11, etc.); and it refers to that very Galilean ministry to which those records belong. In Judea, as in unbelieving Nazareth (Mark 6:5), ‘He could not do many mighty works.’ John 6:3. And Jesus went up into the mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. He retired for the purpose of rest and prayer, and that he might instruct his disciples,—the twelve who had just returned from their mission (Mark 6:30). ‘The mountain’ we must probably understand in a general sense as meaning the high ground near Bethsaida. In this part the eastern hills closely approach the lake. John 6:4. Now the passover, the feast of the Jews, was nigh. On the words ‘of the Jews’ see the notes on John 1:19, John 2:13. The addition here serves to explain why Jesus did not go up to the Passover. He had been rejected by the Jews at the former Passover (John 2:18): the feast, which had before that time been robbed by them of its sanctity, belonged after their rejection of Him no longer to His Father but ‘to the Jews.’ But if Jesus did not visit Jerusalem for this festival, why is it mentioned here? It certainly serves a chronological purpose (though it must be remembered that we cannot say with absolute certainly that this was the Passover immediately following that of Joh 2:11); but even in such incidental notices as these John has not his eye only or chiefly on chronology. Some have supposed that it is to account for the crowds which followed Him, and which may have consisted mainly or partly of the Galilean caravan on its way to the holy city to attend the feast. But John 6:2 makes this unlikely, for it gives an entirely different explanation of the concourse. Besides which, John 6:5 seems to connect the notice of the season and the miracle to follow in such a way as to suggest rather an internal than an external relation between them. It is probable, therefore, that the Evangelist by this mention of the Passover intends to show us the light in which the whole narrative should be viewed. The miracle and the discourses alike relate to the true Passover, the reality and substance of that feast which has now, alas! become ‘the feast of the Jews.’ John 6:5. Jesus therefore having lifted up his eyes, and having seen that a great multitude cometh unto him. The place in which the multitudes were gathering was a desert plain at the foot of the hills.Saith unto Philip, whence are we to buy bread, that these may eat? It was as they drew near that Jesus addressed the question to Philip. The other narratives say nothing of it, but all represent the disciples as coming to their Lord when the day began to wane to beg Him to send away the multitudes. Our Lords question to Philip, then, is entirely independent of the later petition of the twelve. Even were it otherwise, however, and were John referring to the same point of time as the other Evangelists, there would be no ground whatever for asserting that there is any discrepancy between the narratives, for none of them can contain all that passed between the disciples and their Master. Besides this, the eleven may not have heard the words, of may not have seen their significance if they did hear them. John 6:6. Now this he said proving him: for he himself knew what he was about to do. Why Philip was addressed is a question often raised. The mention of the circumstance may be only the graphic touch of an eye-witness, and there may be nothing important in the Master’s choice of the disciple whose faith He is to try. Yet it is more likely that some special reason did exist. Philip may have had something to do with making provision for the wants of the company of disciples: this is not inconsistent with chap. John 12:6. Or there may have been something in the character of Philip’s mind that led to the special selection of him for trial; and the incident related in John 12:22 has been appealed to as showing a tendency on his part to a caution that might become excessive and obstructive to the development of faith. A more correct explanation may be that, intending to manifest Himself as the fulfilment of what is written in the law, Jesus turns first to one who had confessed Him as the subject of ‘the law and the prophets’ (John 1:45). He would test him, and try whether he had entered into the full meaning of his own confession. John 6:7. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one may take a little. As the number of the men alone proved to be five thousand, an expenditure of 200 ‘pence’ (i.e. 200 denarii) would allow less than a denarius, or about eight-pence of our money, to twenty-five persons, and that sum would not purchase in ordinary times more than five or six ounces of bread for each. Philip might well say that it was ‘not sufficient for them.’ John 6:8. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him. On the appellation here given to Andrew see on chap. John 1:40. Andrew is again associated with Philip in chap. John 12:22. John 6:9. There is a little lad here which hath five barley loaves and two fishes: but what are they among so many? John shows Andrew as standing somewhat in advance of Philip, in that he does not hesitate to think that their little store may be set before the multitude, though he is perplexed at his own suggestion. This is in accordance with the fact that in the lists of the apostles Andrew takes precedence of Philip. John 6:10. Jesus said, Make the people sit down. ‘The people,’ a general word, including both men and women, is used here. They are directed to sit down, partly for the sake of order and ease in the distribution of the food, but also because the Lord is preparing to set a feast before them, and they sit down with Him as His guests. Now there was much grass in the place. So Mark speaks of the ‘green grass,’—a minute but interesting coincidence. The circumstance is one that an eye-witness would naturally note, especially after relating the direction given that the multitude should sit down. John alone has given the season of the year (John 6:4); on this day of early spring the grass would be flourishing and abundant.So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. The ‘men’ are now singled out for special mention, probably because they, according to the custom of the East, sat down first. We may also suppose that the number of women and children would not be very large. John 6:11. Jesus therefore took the loaves: and when he had given thanks he distributed to them that had sat down; likewise also of the fishes as much as they would. Jesus alone is mentioned, but there is no doubt that He employed the agency of His disciples. In Mark 6:41 we read that Jesus gave the loaves to His disciples to set before the multitude; but, in the very same verse, that the ‘two fishes divided He amongst them all;’ yet we cannot doubt that the mode of distribution would be the same in both cases. However done, the work of distribution was really His, and the Evangelist would fix our thoughts on Him alone. This miracle, as has often been remarked, is (with the exception of our Lord’s resurrection) the only one related by all four Evangelists. The differences in the accounts are very slight. It is curious to note that in all the other narratives of it our Lord is said to have ‘blessed’ before He brake the loaves, whereas in the two accounts of the feeding of the four thousand He ‘gave thanks’ before breaking the bread: here, however, giving thanks takes the place of blessing. When the miracle is referred to below (John 6:23), the Lord’s ‘giving thanks’ is brought into prominence. This would seem to show that the word is here used with intentional significance, probably with marked reference to the Paschal meal, at which thanksgiving played so important a part. There is a striking resemblance indeed between the description before us and the accounts of the last supper, especially that given in 1 Corinthians 11. John 6:12. And when they were filled, he saith unto his disciples, Gather together the pieces that remain, that nothing be lost. The earlier Gospels relate the act of the disciples, but not the command of Jesus. John, everywhere intent on what his Master did and said, preserves for us this word. The design of the command is to bring out the preciousness of the food which Jesus had given,—not to teach a lesson of economy, or to reprove the over-scrupulous calculations of Andrew and Philip. It is usual to understand by ‘pieces’ the fragments broken by the multitude during their meal; but it is more probable that they were pieces broken by our Lord,—pieces that remained undistributed or unconsumed because of the abundance of the supply. John 6:13. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with pieces from the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. The repetition of the words, ‘the five barley loaves,’ is remarkable; the writer wishes to lay emphasis on the identity of the fragments with the loaves of the original supply. Mark speaks of the collection of the fragments of the fishes (John 6:43); John, intent on the idea to be unfolded, alike in the scene and in the discourse that followed it, passes by this circumstance. The number of baskets was twelve. We can hardly doubt that each Apostle had his own ‘basket,’ and that each of these was filled. Nor is it fanciful to see in this a token that what was symbolized by the precious bread was destined for each tribe of Israel. In every narrative of this miracle the same word (cophinus) is used for basket; in the accounts of the feeding of the four thousand (Matthew 15:37; Mark 8:8) the word is entirely different; and where the two miracles are referred to together, each retains the word that belongs to it; so that in Matthew 16:9-10, and Mark 8:19-20, the word ‘baskets,’ repeated in our translation, answers to different words. John’s agreement with the other Evangelists in so minute a point as the use of cophinus in connection with this miracle is interesting and important. John 6:14. When therefore the people saw the sign that he did, they said. ‘The people,’—i.e., the people of Joh 6:10, those who had been fed and satisfied. Are we, however, to understand that they saw the ‘wonder,’ but saw in it no ‘sign,’ as it is said by our Lord below, ‘Ye follow me not because ye saw signs;’ or may we suppose that even to this multitude the miracle was a sign, like the miracles of healing which they had witnessed before? (John 6:2). The latter interpretation is nearer to the words of John, and is more probable. If in any sense the cures were ‘signs’ to the beholders, the multiplying of the loaves must have been a greater ‘sign. Their own words confirm this, for they receive the miracle as the heaven-appointed token of the mission of Jesus. Still they did not really look beneath the surface; in the depth of meaning which the word has to John, the wonderful work was not apprehended as a ‘sign.’ Our Lord’s design in this chapter is, as we shall see, to remove their ignorance on this very point.This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world. To an Israelite a miracle at once suggested the thought of a prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1), as the general name for one who had received a Divine mission. But here it is of the Prophet that they speak, no doubt referring to the promise of Deu 18:15 (see note on chap. John 1:21). The general expectation which lay in the hearts of men at this time clothed itself in different forms of expression, according to the events which drew it forth. Perhaps the miracle of Elisha (2 Kings 4:43) rose to their thought, or that of Elijah (1 Kings 17:14); and the memory of their ancient prophets drew along with it the promise of the Prophet now to come. More probably it was to the miracle of the manna that their minds recurred, and the work of Moses brought to recollection the promise which Moses left behind him for the last days. The words used by the people leave no doubt that here at least the Prophet is identified with the Messiah, whose most frequent designation seems to have been ‘He that cometh’ (Matthew 11:3, etc.), or more fully, ‘He that cometh into the world’ (comp. chap. John 1:9). John 6:15. Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and carry him off to make him king, retired again into the mountain himself alone. The thought of ‘Messiah’ is the connecting link between the exclamation related in the last verse and the purpose here mentioned. The Messiah is to reign in the royal city: to Jerusalem therefore they would now carry Him by force, and there proclaim Him king. Their words here given are taken up again in chap. John 12:13, when the Galilean multitudes go to meet Him to escort Him in triumph into Jerusalem, crying out, ‘Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel.’ But the hour for a triumphant entry has not yet arrived. Jesus reads their purpose, and frustrates it by retiring again to ‘the mountain’ (John 6:3), from which He came down to teach the multitudes and to heal their sick (Luke 9:11). The first two Evangelists tell us that He retired into the mountain ‘to pray;’ but the two motives assigned are in no way inconsistent with each other. Our Lord’s withdrawal from view after His miracles is frequently noticed in this Gospel. The reason here explained would naturally operate at other times also; but there are peculiarities of language which seem to show that John beheld in all the ‘signs’—which were occasional manifestations of the glory of Jesus—emblems of His whole manifestation, of all that lay between His coming forth from the Father and His final withdrawal from the world and return to the Father. There is a beautiful harmony between the prayer of which other Gospels speak, the solitariness (‘Himself alone’) here brought before us, and the later words of Jesus, ‘He that sent me is with me, He hath not left me alone’ (chap. John 8:29), ‘I am not alone, because the Father is with me’ (John 16:32).No one can read the four narratives of this miracle without being struck with their essential harmony in the midst of apparent diversities. Every narrative contributes some new feature; almost every one introduces some particular which we cannot with positive certainty adjust with the other narratives, though we may see clearly that in more ways than one it might be so adjusted. It is especially necessary in this place to call attention to these other narratives, because John alone records the impression made upon the multitude, and (as has been well suggested by Godet) this impression may explain a very remarkable word used both by Matthew and by Mark. These Evangelists relate (Matthew 14:22; Mark 6:45) that Jesus ‘compelled’ His disciples to return to their boat until He should have dismissed the people. No motive for the compulsion is supplied by the two writers who use the word. If, however, this was the crisis of the Galilean ministry, and the multitudes, impressed by other recent miracles, and moved beyond measure by the last, must now be withheld from their premature design to proclaim Him king, it becomes necessary forcibly to separate the disciples as well as Himself from the excited crowds in the hour of their highly-wrought enthusiasm. Even though Jesus Himself were absent, yet if the contagious excitement of the people should communicate itself to the Galilean disciples also, the plan of His working would (humanly speaking) be frustrated. Perhaps, too, this decisive breaking with the impulses of the multitude, this practical renunciation of the honours the people would confer and of the political sovereignty to which they would raise Him, may furnish one reason for John’s selection of this miracle, already so well known in the Church. Another reason is made evident by the discourse of this chapter. John 6:16. And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea. Before Jesus retired to the mountain He had constrained His disciples to leave Him for the shore: when they had left He dismissed the people, withdrawing from them, probably by exercising such influence as is implied in chap. John 5:13, John 8:59, John 10:39. John 6:17. And entered into a boat, and were coming over the sea unto Capernaum. And darkness had already come on, and Jesus was not yet come to them. Probably they were intending to coast along the shore of the lake between Bethsaida-Julias and Capernaum: in this they were no doubt following their Master’s directions. The words that follow show clearly that they expected Him to rejoin them at some point on the coast. John 6:18. And the sea was raging by reason of a great wind that blew. The darkness and the storm rendered their position one of great peril. There had arisen one of those sudden and violent squalls to which all inland waters surrounded by lofty hills intersected with gullies are liable. Many travellers bear witness to the fact that such storms beat with peculiar force upon the sea of Galilee. In the present instance the ‘great wind’ would seem to have been from the north. The immediate effect of the storm was to drive the disciples out to sea till they reached the middle of the lake, which is at its broadest a little south of their starting-point. John 6:19. So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs. If the wind had driven them southwards soon after their starting, they would be near the eastern coast at a point where the lake is about forty furlongs broad. If therefore they had rowed twenty-five or thirty furlongs, they would not be far from ‘the midst of the sea’ (Mark 6:47). The agreement between the two narratives is clearly ‘undesigned,’ and therefore the more interesting.They behold Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the boat: and they were afraid. When Jesus drew near to the boat, it was the ‘fourth watch’ (Matthew 14:25), and therefore the darkest part of the night; some eight or nine hours had passed since they left Him with the multitude. The wind was boisterous, the sea raging, their strength was spent with rowing (Mark 6:48), when suddenly they behold Jesus walking on the sea, in the immediate neighbourhood of the boat. They knew not that it was He, and were terrified. John 6:20-21. But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid. They were willing therefore to receive him into the boat. His voice and manner were enough to remove all their fears. They would have kept away from the apparition, affrighted; but now their will was to receive their Master. This renewed mention of the ‘will’ (compare chap. John 5:6; John 5:40) is striking and characteristic. In the first two Evangelists we read of our Lord’s entering the boat, and some have thought that the words here present a difficulty as implying a desire on the part of the disciples that was not fulfilled. But there is really no discrepancy whatever. John mentions the will only, assuming that every reader would understand that the will was carried into effect (comp. John 1:43, John 5:35).And immediately the boat was at the land whither they went. They were making for Capernaum, and this town they reached immediately. It is plain that John intends to relate what was not an ordinary occurrence but a miracle. The first two Evangelists do not speak of it, but their words are in perfect harmony with John’s account, for immediately after the lulling of the wind then mention the completion of the voyage.This is the fourth of the ‘signs’ recorded in this Gospel. Unlike the former miracle (the feeding of the multitude), it is not mentioned again or in any way expressly referred to; hence we have less certainty as to the position assigned to it by the Evangelist. That to him it was not a mere matter of history we may be sure; but the event is not as closely interwoven with the texture of his narrative as are the other miracles which he records. The thoughts which are here prominent are the separation of the disciples from their Lord, their difficulties amid the darkness and the storm, their fear as they dimly see Jesus approaching, the words which remove their fear, their ‘will’ to receive Him, the immediate end of all their trouble and danger. The cardinal thought is their safety when they have received Jesus. The narrative is connected with that which precedes in that, here as there, all attention is concentrated on the Redeemer Himself, who in sovereign power and in infinite grace manifests His glory. It is still more closely joined with what comes after, as it teaches on the one hand the safety of all who are with Him (John 6:37-39), and on the other the necessity of man’s receiving Him, opening his heart to His words, committing Himself to Him by faith (John 6:40). We cannot doubt that the question of Jesus and the answer of the twelve, of which we read in John 6:68, are closely linked with the teaching of that night in which the disciples found at once the end of peril and rest from toil when they saw and received their Lord. In the miracle of the multiplying of the bread Jesus has symbolically presented Himself as the true bread of life. This thought is now unfolded in the various discourses with which the remainder of the chapter is occupied, while at the same time the effect of these discourses is traced upon the different classes of hearers introduced to us. The subordinate parts of this section are determined by the mention of these—(1) John 6:22-40, a discourse addressed to the ‘multitude,’ which must here, as elsewhere, be carefully distinguished from the ‘Jews;’(2) John 6:41-51, a discourse to the ‘Jews’ who had ‘murmured’ at the words spoken to the multitude. The discourse contains the same great truths as those previously dwelt upon, but in a sharper and more pointed form; (3) John 6:52-59, a discourse by which the ‘Jews’ are still further irritated. Formerly they murmured; now they strive among themselves, and the discourse becomes still sharper and more pointed than before; (4) John 6:60-66, in which the effect of the truths spoken by Jesus shows itself even upon the disciples, many of whom are so offended that they walk no more with Him; (5) John 6:67-71,—while many of the disciples are thus offended, the Twelve, with the exception of Judas, are drawn more closely to Jesus, and Peter in their name makes confession of his faith. John 6:23. Howbeit there came boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat the bread, after that the Lord had given thanks. Whilst they were still in wonder and doubt, other boats came across the sea near to the scene of the miracle of the preceding day. These boats were from Tiberias, and from the boatmen who brought them the multitude would learn at once that neither Jesus nor His disciples had gone thither. John 6:24. When the multitude therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they themselves got into the little boats, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. If Jesus was neither on the eastern shore nor at Tiberias, He might be sought near Capernaum, in the direction of which town the disciples had sailed. John’s words clearly imply that there was an eager and diligent search for Jesus on the part of the multitude before they left the spot where they had witnessed His power. The prominence given to the thought of Jesus in these verses is very marked. What is said of the disciples has no independent value: their movements are described solely that light may be thrown upon those of their Master. When convinced that it was vain further to prosecute the search in that region, the multitude obtained possession of the smaller boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus. John 6:25. And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him. Rabbi, when camest thou hither? The ‘other side’ denotes the western coast. Their question on finding Jesus in Capernaum but partly expresses their thoughts, which would rest as much on the how as on the ‘when’ of His coming to this place. He had not left the eastern shore with His disciples; the storm of the night must have forbidden any attempt to make the passage then; and, as they well knew, He had not come to the western shore in their company. The question is not answered, but the eager search which it implied is made to lead the way to deeper instruction as to the miracle which had drawn them to follow Him. John 6:26. Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were satisfied. This solemn declaration is only seemingly discordant with John 6:2 or John 6:14. Those who witnessed a miracle of Jesus, and did not understand its significance, might be said to see the sign and yet not to see it. Indeed, John 6:14 seems to imply a third condition of mind, intermediate between these. Those who had eaten of the loaves saw in the miracle the proof that Jesus was the Prophet who should come: they saw that the wonder was significant, but the words before us show that even this stood below the true perception of the ‘sign.’ The miracle had led the thoughts of the multitude to the power and dignity of the miracle-worker, but had suggested nothing of a higher and a spiritual work, symbolized by the material bounty that had been bestowed. The design of the work in its relation to the Saviour was to manifest His glory as the Giver of the highest blessings; in its relation to the people, to fix their eyes on Him and to awaken their desire for that of which the bread had been the sign. Part of this purpose has been attained,—they have sought Him eagerly, with toil and trouble:—He must now so complete their training that they may be led to leave the carnal and seek the spiritual, that they may be brought to behold in His deeds not merely the tokens of His power to satisfy every earthly desire of His followers, but the impress of His Divine character and work. John 6:27. Work not for the eating which perisheth. The rendering ‘work’ is required to bring out the connection with the following verse, in which the same word is used. The language of the original is very expressive:—‘Work,’ use all the energies of your nature, not unto partaking of perishable but of imperishable food. It is not an act of life but the active life itself that is referred to, and the object of this whole life. When we bring together this verse and that which precedes, we cannot doubt that our Lord, in speaking of working for perishable food, alludes to the labour which the multitude had undergone in their persistent search for Him. As their object in thus seeking Him had been carnal, not spiritual, this act of theirs (good and wise in itself,—most blessed, had the aim been higher and more true) was a fitting type of their life, a life occupied with the search after material good and the satisfaction of lower wants and desires.But for the eating which abideth, unto eternal life which the son of man shall give unto you. In contrast with what they had sought in thus toiling to discover Him, Jesus sets the feast which it is His glory to offer and of which they should be eager to partake. As in John 4:14 He had spoken of the gift of water which had power to quench for ever the recipient’s thirst, so here He speaks of an eating that abides and never perishes. That verse and this are closely parallel, and each helps to explain the other. In the one Jesus says what the water that He giveth shall become in him that receiveth it: here in like manner it is not of meat that He speaks, but of ‘eating,’—not of food itself, but of food appropriated. In both passages the words ‘unto eternal life’ occur; and in each case there is some difficulty in determining whether the phrase belongs to the word preceding or to the whole thought of the clause. Yet, as in the first it is probable that ‘life eternal’ is the end attained when the fountain is opened in the soul, so in this verse ‘unto’ does not seem to belong to ‘abideth,’ but to express the object of that ‘eating’ for which they may and ought to work. Not the eating that perisheth, but the eating that abideth, must absorb their labour, that they may thus win eternal life. If this is the connection intended by John, we must certainly join the second relative ‘which’ (not with ‘eating,’ but) with the words that immediately precede, viz. ‘eternal life.’ There is nothing difficult in such a connection of the words: on the contrary, it is easier than any other, and best agrees with the following verses and with other passages in the Gospel. Almost uniformly in this chapter Jesus speaks of Himself as the bread of life, and of the Father as the Giver of the bread, while ‘eternal life’ is the result of receiving Him as the living bread (John 6:33; John 6:51; John 6:54). A close parallel is found in chap. John 10:28, ‘I give unto them eternal life,’ as also in chap. John 17:2; and the connection of the ‘Son of man’ with this gift reminds us at once of chap. John 3:14. How this gift will become theirs the later verses explain: the two points here are that this life is obtained from the Son of man—from the God-man alone, and that it is a free gift from Him. This is not inconsistent with the ‘working’ of which Jesus has spoken. The multitudes had toiled, in that they had put aside all obstacles to come to Him: having come to Him they may receive His free gift. The reception of the gift is opposed to labouring for wages or for merit, but not to earnest effort. The gift can be bestowed in its fulness on those only whose one thought and one effort are bent on receiving it: were there no such activity on our part, we could not be in a position to receive the gift without destroying the nature we possess.For him the Father, God, did seal. For this very purpose that He might be the Giver of eternal life, was He made the Son of man, was He sent by the Father into the world. (Compare chap. John 10:36, John 17:2.) He came commissioned by the Father: on Him the Father’s seal was set. The reference is not to the miracle just related, as if Jesus would say that what they had themselves seen was the Father’s attestation of Him, the evidence which should have led them to believe in Him. This is but a small part of the truth, as what is said in chap. 5 on the witness of the Father very plainly shows. There, however, the thought is made to rest on the continued and abiding testimony of the Father: here the whole attestation is looked upon as concentrated in one past act of the Father, as included and implied in the act of ‘sending’ the Son: and this Father is ‘God,’ that God whom they themselves allowed to be the supreme source and end of all things. The special reference to the Father in this verse, where Jesus speaks of the gift of eternal life, receives its explanation from John 6:57 (which see). John 6:28. They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? Our Lord’s answer seems to have been but little comprehended by ‘the multitude.’ They reply with an earnest inquiry, taking up all that they have understood, but missing the central point of His words. He had first bidden them work, His last word had spoken of the Divine authority He bore: their answer deals with ‘works of God,’ but contains no reference to eternal life or to the promise of a free gift from the Son of man. The works of the law were to them a familiar thought, and they understood that God through His new prophet was commanding them to do some new work. Their question, ‘What must we do,’ shows a teachable disposition, and a willingness to learn from Him what was the will of God. But what did they mean by ‘the works of God’? The expression is used in various senses in the Old Testament. The works of the Lord may be the works done by Him, or they may be the works which He commands and which are according to His mind. In this verse we cannot think of miracles, nor is it easy to believe that the people can have had in their thoughts the works which God produces in those who are His. In its connection here, the expression recalls such passages as Jeremiah 48:10; 1 Corinthians 15:58; Revelation 2:26. The whole phrase (with slight alteration) occurs in Numbers 8:11, in the Septuagint: ‘Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord . . . that they may work the works of the Lord.’ As the meaning in these passages is the works which the Lord would have them do, as the works of the law are those which the law prescribes, so here the works of God signify those which He commands, and which therefore are pleasing to Him. John 6:29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he sent. The one work which God would have them do is believing in Him whom He sent. The people had spoken of ‘works,’ thinking of outward deeds; but that which God commands is one work, faith in Jesus. This faith leads to union with Him and participation of His Spirit, and thus includes in itself all works that are pleasing to God. We must not suppose that our Lord intends to rebuke their question, ‘What must we do,’ as if He would say, It is not doing, but believing. The act of believing in Jesus, the soul’s casting itself on Him with perfect trust, is here spoken of as a work, as something which requires the exercise of man’s will and calls forth determination and effort. It is very noticeable that these words of Jesus directly touch that thought in John 6:27, which their answer (John 6:28) neglected. The work of theirs of which He had spoken was their toil to come to Him: He had prescribed no other work, but had sought to lead them to the higher object,—the attainment of the abiding nourishment, unto eternal life offered by the Son of man. So here: every disturbing or extraneous thought is put aside; and, with even unusual directness, force, and simplicity, Jesus shows that the one cardinal requirement of the Father is the reception of the Son by faith. John 6:30. They said therefore unto him, What then doest thou as a sign, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work? The words of Jesus had now become too plain to be misunderstood. It was clear that He would turn them away from such works as they had had in view, and fix all thought upon Himself; while at the same time His words breathed no spirit of mere self-assertion, but claimed to be an expression of the Divine will. Such a claim no other prophet had ever made; such a claim can only be justified by some special sign which no one can challenge or mistake; and the sign must correspond with the claim. The day before Jesus had been with them as a Teacher only: the miracle had constrained them to acknowledge Him as ‘the Prophet who should come.’ But the words He has just used can only suit One who is higher even than Moses. Before they can believe Him when He thus speaks (note the significant change from ‘believe in Him,’ John 6:29, to ‘believe thee,’ i.e. accept thy claims) some sign equal to the greatest wrought by Moses, or even some greater sign, must be displayed. John 6:31. Our fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness. Amongst the miracles wrought by Moses the Jews seem (and with reason) to have assigned to the manna a foremost place. In a Hebrew commentary on Ecclesiastes there is preserved a saying of great interest in connection with this passage: ‘As the first Redeemer made the manna to descend, as it is written, Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you; so the later Redeemer also shall make the manna to descend, as it is written, May there be abundance of corn in the earth’ (Psalms 72:19).As it is written, He gave them bread out of heaven to eat. Of the many characteristics distinguishing the miracle of the manna, one is here dwelt upon,—neither the abundance of its supply nor its continuance, but its source: it was ‘bread out of heaven.’ The bread with which they themselves had just been fed, though marvellously increased in quantity, was still natural bread, the bread of earth: ‘bread out of heaven’ was the proof received by their fathers that their Benefactor was the God of heaven. What similar evidence could Jesus offer? The words here quoted from Scripture do not exactly agree with any passage of the Old Testament. In Psalms 78:24 we read (following the Greek version), ‘And He rained for them manna to eat, and gave them bread of heaven;’ and in Exodus 16:4, ‘Behold I rain for you bread out of heaven.’ The words in the verse before us are therefore substantially a quotation from the psalm, with one important change introduced from the narrative of Exodus, ‘out of heaven’ for ‘of heaven.’ The change is important, because it points more distinctly to the source of the supply and not its quality only, and because the expression ‘out of heaven’ is taken up by our Lord and used by Him with marked emphasis. John 6:32. Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you. The gravity of the truth declared in this verse is indicated by the solemn ‘Verily, verily,’ which now occurs for the second time in this discourse.Moses gave you not the bread out of heaven; but my Father giveth you the bread out of heaven, the true bread. If we compare these words with John 6:26, in which the formula ‘Verily, verily’ is first used, we easily trace the advance in the thought. There, in general terms, the people are enjoined not to set their thought on the perishable food; here Jesus declares that the true bread given out of heaven is not the manna, but that which His Father is at this moment offering them. In the words of Joh 6:31, ‘he gave them bread,’ the multitude may have had Moses in their thoughts; but that is not the meaning of the psalmist, the context having the clearest reference to God. It is probable that our Lord here mentions Moses only to point out more distinctly the past and inferior gift of the manna by the servant of God, in contrast with the true bread now offered to them by the Father. It was not Moses who gave the manna; still less had their fathers received from him the true bread of heaven. The Father, who gave to their fathers the symbol, offers the reality now. ‘My Father,’ Jesus says, because He is leading His hearers onwards to the truth declared in the next two verses, that the ‘true bread’ given out of heaven is Himself, the Son. John 6:33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world. The ‘bread of God’ is the bread which God gives (John 6:32). It is not easy to decide on the translation of this verse. The Greek equally admits of two renderings, either ‘he that cometh,’ or ‘that (bread) which cometh.’ If the former is correct, our Lord begins here to identify Himself with the ‘true bread;’ if the latter, the figure is retained unexplained until John 6:35. The expressions in John 6:50; John 6:58 do not decide the point; for after John 6:35 the descent from heaven might with equal propriety be connected either with the bread or with Him whom the bread symbolized. Nor does the present tense ‘cometh down ‘compel us to refer the word to the bread; for Jesus might be designated ‘He that cometh from heaven’ (comp. chap. John 3:31) as correctly as ‘He that came from heaven:’ one description relates to nature and origin, the other to a past fact of history. On the whole, however, it seems best to carry on the thought of the bread in this verse. The very word ‘come down’ is used (Exodus 16) in the account of the manna; and the answer of the multitude in John 6:34 seems to show that no new and (to them) strange thought has come in since the mention of the Father’s gift. But if the figure is still continued in this verse, it is only a thin veil that conceals the truth. In John 6:27 the Son of man is He who gives eternal life; here it is the bread of God that giveth life unto the world.—The last word is very significant. The manna had been for ‘the fathers;’ the true bread is for the world. We are reminded at once of chap. John 3:16, ‘God so loved the world,’ and of chap. John 4:42, ‘the Saviour of the world.’ The unlimited offer also recalls chap. John 4:14, ‘Whosoever hath drunk of the water that I will give him;’ and in both cases the result is the same. John 6:34. They said therefore unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. We cannot see in these words the mere expression of a desire that earthly wants may be satisfied (comp. John 4:15). This would have incurred rebuke (comp. John 6:26), and not led to clearer teaching, such as is found in the coming verses. Jesus, moreover, is not dealing with ‘the Jews’ (who meet us at John 6:41), but with the multitude,—people who were indeed no more than half enlightened, but whose minds were not shut against the truth. His words in the following verses are altogether such as He was wont to address to men who truly sought the light, though not fully conscious of what they sought.John 6:35. Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life,—the bread, that is, that contains life in itself, and thus is able to give life unto the world. The Father giveth ‘the true bread’ (John 6:32 in giving His Son; the Son of man giveth eternal life (John 6:27) in imparting Himself. To this declaration everything has been leading,—the bread of the miracle, the manna, every reproof (John 6:26), every encouragement (John 6:27).He that is coming to me shall in no wise hunger. The original words are chosen with exquisite delicacy. The figure is not that of one who has achieved a toilsome and lengthened journey (as if the words ran, ‘he that at length has reached me’), but that of one whose resolve is taken, and who sets out in the right way,—he that ‘is coming’ unto Jesus shall cease to hunger. Other passages may speak of the disciple as one who has come to Jesus; this with equal truth represents him as one who is coming towards Jesus, whose aim and desire and constant thoughts are towards his Lord. The hunger of the spirit ceases, the restless want and search for satisfaction are at an end; the ‘true bread,’ that which gives real sustenance, is received.And he that believeth in me shall in no wise ever thirst. In these words we have an image similar to the last, but not the same. The quenching of thirst is even a stronger figure than the satisfaction of hunger, and thus (as usually in the poetry of the Old Testament) the thought of the second member is an advance upon that of the first. It may seem remarkable that ‘ever’ is not joined with both members of the verse; but (as the other words also show) the first simply expresses once for all the cessation of hunger,—hunger is at an end; whilst the second suggests the continuous presence of that which banishes thirst. Faith is really set forth in both clauses. The first presents it in the simplicity and power of the act of will,—the will turned towards Jesus; the second brings it into prominence as the continuous movement of the soul towards union with Him. It is not right therefore to interpret the ‘coming’ as part of the ‘believing,’ or to take either as denoting a momentary act belonging to the beginning only of the Christian life. Each figure, with a force peculiarly its own, expresses the abiding relation of the true disciple to his Lord; but only by a combination such as is here given could we have vividly presented to us both the immediate and the continuous satisfaction of spirit which Jesus imparts. There is probably another reason for the introduction of the figure of ‘thirst.’ It is not with the manna alone that Jesus is now healing. He had fed the multitudes with bread, but the meal at which He entertained them as His guests was designed to be the symbol of the Paschal feast (see the note on John 6:4). It was natural therefore thus to enlarge the symbols, that his feast may be kept in mind, and the way prepared for the words of later verses (John 6:53-56). John 6:36. But I said unto you, that ye have indeed seen me, and believe not. When had such words been uttered? Certainly the reference is not to chap. John 5:37, spoken in Jerusalem to the Jews, not to the multitude in Galilee. It is not likely that Jesus is speaking of words of censure not recorded in this Gospel; and it is hardly possible to understand the simple expression ‘I said unto you’ in the sense, I would have you know, ‘this is what I would say.’ We must take the words as referring to the substance, to the spirit if not the letter, of something previously said in this chapter, and we can do this without any violence of interpretation. It is remarkable that the people themselves have used words almost identical (John 6:30): ‘What doest Thou as a sign, that we may see and believe Thee?’—that is, may see Thee in Thy working, and believe Thee. This is a confession on their part that as yet they had seen no sign that had led them to see and believe Him. The words of Jesus in John 6:26 imply that in truth they had not seen ‘signs:’ they had seen His miracles, but these had not so proved themselves to be’ signs ‘as to lead the people to see and believe Him. The charge, therefore, that ‘they seeing saw not’ is perfectly equivalent to what is said in that verse; they had indeed seen Him in the works which were the manifestation of Himself, but they had not been led to faith. The charge is very grave, but it is not made in anger, nor does it leave the accused in hopelessness: not judgment, but encouragement, is the spirit that pervades this part of the discourse. Perhaps it is for this very reason that the word is ‘I said,’ not ‘I say.’ The fact was so; it may be so still; but the state is one that need not last,—even now it may pass away. John 6:37. All that which the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that is coming to me I will in no wise cast out. These words have been understood by some as a reproach: ‘How different are ye from those whom my Father giveth me!’ but such an interpretation is quite inconsistent with the context. At present, indeed, those to whom Jesus speaks are not believers; but even in their case His mission may not be a failure,—they may be given to Him, and He will not cast them out. Up to this point the only gift spoken of has been a gift to men (John 6:27; John 6:31-34), especially the Father’s gift of the Son to be the bread of life. Here the converse is suddenly introduced—the Father’s gift to the Son. What Jesus brings to men is the Father’s gift to them: what Jesus receives in the homage and belief and love of men is the Father’s gift to Him. The form of expression is remarkable, ‘all that which the Father giveth me.’ A passage closely akin to this we find in chap. 17 (which has many points of contact with this chapter), and in close connection with the gift which (John 6:27) the Son bestows, the gift of eternal life. The passage Isaiah 17:2 : ‘As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, in order that all that which Thou hast given Him, He may give to them eternal life.’ In both these verses the totality of the Father’s gift is presented first, and then the individuals who compose this gift and who themselves receive the gift which the Son bestows. The gift of the Father must not be understood by us in the sense of a predestinating decree. Both here and in the other passages of this Gospel where we read of the Father as giving to the Son His people (chaps. John 6:37; John 6:39, John 10:29, John 17:2; John 17:6; John 17:9; John 17:24, John 18:9), it is the moral and spiritual state of the heart that is thought of under the word. This state of heart by which they are prepared to listen to the voice of Jesus is due to God alone. The truth expressed here by ‘giving’ is expressed in John 6:44 by the ‘drawing’ of the Father, and in John 6:45 by ‘learning’ and ‘hearing’ from Him. Such preparation of heart is necessary: as Chrysostom expresses it, faith in Jesus is ‘no chance matter, but one that needs an impulse from above,’—from Him who worketh in us both to will and to work (Philippians 2:13). The test, then, of this work in the heart is the coming to Christ. The two words ‘come’ in this verse are different: in the first instance the meaning is ‘shall reach me;’ in the second we might almost render the words ‘he that is coming towards me.’ What was said on the 35th verse is fully applicable here, for the expression is the same. We cannot read the words without being reminded of the most touching of the Saviour’s parables: the prodigal arose and came towards his father, but when he was yet a great way off his father ran to meet him. John 6:38. Because I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. The previous verse was full of the power and energy of love; but even then Jesus expresses no feeling or purpose of His own as the motive of His acts. He will cast out none, because such is the Father’s will, and to do this will He has come down from heaven (comp. John 6:33). It may be well, however, to observe that a different preposition from that in John 6:33 is here used: here ‘from,’ for it is the work of Jesus; there ‘out of,’ for it is the heavenliness of His origin that is the prominent thought. John 6:39. And this is the will of him that sent me, that all that which he hath given me, of it I should lose nothing. Here, as in John 6:37, the gift of the Father is represented in its totality, ‘all that which.’ As no part of the precious gift to the multitude, the gift which symbolized Himself, must be left to perish (John 6:12), so no part of the still more precious gift of the Father may be lost by the Son. But should raise it up at the last day. Should raise ‘it,’ the whole, all that is comprehended in the gift. The ‘last day’ can denote only one great period of resurrection for the whole Church of God,—again a proof, as in John 5:28-29, that the teaching of our Lord in this Gospel is not confined to the spiritual aspect of death and resurrection. It is not the gift of eternal life that belongs to the last day. Whosoever receives the Son at once receives in Him life eternal (John 3:36, John 6:33-35); but the day of the resurrection of the body witnesses the completion of that gift of eternal life which is now bestowed. In the next verse the present and the future gifts are combined. John 6:40. For this is the will of my Father, that every one which beholdeth the Son and believeth in him should have eternal life, and that I should raise him up at the last day. This verse is no mere repetition of the last, but differs from it in two important points. As in John 6:37, we pass from the thought of the general body of the Church to that of the individual members: in the Father’s will every member is embraced. Secondly, the bond of connection with Jesus is viewed from its human rather than from its Divine side. In the last verse Jesus spoke of ‘all that which’ the Father had given Him; here He speaks of ‘every one which beholdeth the Son and believeth in Him.’ The word ‘beholdeth’ is especially noteworthy, clearly including as it does an act of the will. ‘Seeing’ may be accidental, may be transient: he who ‘beholds’ is willing to stand and gaze on the object presented to his view. The word is full of instruction (comp. John 8:51, John 12:45, John 14:17, John 17:24).At this point our lord’s discourse is interrupted. Hitherto He has been addressing the multitude: now, for the first time in this chapter, we are to read of ‘the Jews.’ i.e. (as we have observed in earlier chapters) adherents of the ruling party which was violently hostile to Jesus. Whether these Jews were amongst the multitude hitherto addressed in this discourse we cannot tell. If so, they had occupied no prominent place, but were lost in the crowd. But, as there is nothing to show that the paragraph which follows this verse relates to the same day, it is very possible that the Jews were not present at the miracle or when Jesus spoke of the bread of life, but were afterwards informed of His words. This latter supposition becomes more probable as we look into the circumstances. We know that on the day of the feeding of the multitude the Passover was at hand (John 6:4); and we cannot doubt that, however anxious the enemies of our Lord might be to linger near Him that they might catch Him in His talk, they would scrupulously observe the ritual of the feast. If we turn to Mark, we find two passages that distinctly speak of scribes who came down from Jerusalem to Galilee: one of these passages (John 3:22) belongs to a date somewhat earlier than that of the events related in this chapter, the other (John 7:1) comes in shortly after the narrative of Christ’s walking on the sea of Galilee. The same remarks apply to the Gospel of Matthew. It seems probable, therefore, that these agents of the hostile and influential party in Jerusalem hastened back to Galilee after the Passover, to resume their machinations against the prophet whom they both hated and feared. John 6:41. The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, I am the bread which came down out of heaven. The ‘murmuring’ denotes more than that indistinct complaining to which we generally apply the word. The frequent and indignant expressions of discontent by the Israelites when journeying in the desert are expressed by the same word in the Septuagint, and this (comp. 1 Corinthians 10:10) seems to have fixed its meaning in the New Testament. The Jews did not complain in the presence of Jesus, but sought to foment discontent and ill-feeling amongst those who at the time had been willing hearers of His words. It is characteristic of the spirit and motives of these enemies of our Lord that their charge against Him is put in the most captious form. As in the very similar case related in chap. John 5:12, the words of nobler meaning are as far as possible left out: nothing is said about ‘the bread of life’ or ‘the bread of God.’ Indeed the bread is a mere link of connection, dropped as soon as it has served to introduce the words joined with it, to which they can (as they think) attach a charge of falsehood. On the offer of life, eternal life, they will not dwell. John 6:42. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I have come down out of heaven? At this time, then, it is clear that Jesus was generally regarded as Joseph’s son: the calumnies which at a later period were current amongst the Jews had not yet been resorted to. The words of the Jews do not imply that Joseph was still living, as the word rendered ‘know’ may simply denote their being acquainted with a fact,—they knew that Joseph and Mary were His parents. We need not wonder that they are ignorant of the miraculous conception. John 6:43. Jesus answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. For such murmurers Jesus has only reproof. It is very strange that in our day some writers on this Gospel should have had difficulty in understanding why Jesus did not refute the objection raised by declaring the truth of the miraculous conception. Men who could so mutilate His words as practically to pervert their meaning would have been brought no nearer to conviction by such a statement, however made, but would have gathered from it material for still more malicious accusation. At first the reply of Jesus deals only with the spirit His opponents manifest. John 6:44. No one can come to me except the Father which sent me shall have drawn him. In these words He would tell them that (as their unbelief and resistance show) they have not that special divine teaching without which they cannot understand Him. Hence He speaks not of the ‘drawing’ of God, but of that of the ‘Father which sent’ Him. Only like can understand like. It is as the Father of the Son that God works in us that spirit in which the Son can be received by us. The ‘drawing’ is not precisely the same as the ‘giving’ of John 6:37, but describes, so to speak, the first stage of the ‘giving;’ he that ‘hath been drawn’ by the Father is he that is given to the Son.And I will raise him up at the last day. As the initiative of salvation belongs to the Father, the completion is the work of the Son. The Father draws and entrusts; the Son receives, keeps, imparts life, until the glorious consummation, the final resurrection. Between these two extreme terms ‘draw’ and ‘raise up’ is included all the development of the spiritual life (Godet). John 6:45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Jesus confirms His word by a testimony from the Old Testament, not now taken from the Law (comp. John 6:31), but from the Prophets. The use of the plural ‘prophets’ has been thought to prove that the reference does not belong to any one passage; and we may certainly say that an inclusive expression like this may have been used designedly, as implying that there are many such promises, and that this tone of promise is characteristic of the book of the Prophets. Still the word which introduces the quotation, ‘And,’ a word quite needless for the Speaker’s purpose, shows conclusively that the quotation is direct. There can be no doubt that the words are taken from Isaiah 54:13, with one or two slight alterations. They describe the great and general privilege of Messianic times. The retention of the words ‘thy children’ (addressed to Jerusalem in Isaiah 54:13) might have seemed to limit the promise, which, belonging to the ‘latter days,’ is really free from all such limitations. It has been suggested (by Godet) that the synagogue lesson for the day (see John 6:59) may have included these very words (comp. Luke 4:17-21). Be this as it may (and there is no improbability in the conjecture), the quotation was well known, and carries out and illustrates the words of Joh 6:44. The truth of that verse is set in a new light,—presented on its human rather than on its Divine side. The ‘drawing’ is a ‘teaching:’ he that hath been drawn by the Father, is he that hath truly received the teaching of the Father.Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. Such true reception of the teaching is emphatically described in these words. Two stages in human experience, implied in the successful result of teaching, are separated from each other. All who hear may also learn, but many hear who will not heed, and therefore cannot learn; just as there are many who see the Son but will not remain to ‘behold the Son’ and to believe in Him (John 6:40). These varied expressions illustrate one another with wonderful beauty and power. Not one allows us to think of compulsion or the forcing of man’s will: all with one voice give glory to the Father as the source of every impulse towards the light and the life. The variety of expressions used by Jesus in the inculcation of this truth, so characteristic of the present chapter, may well remind us of the variety of the means employed by the Father in the prosecution of the work. Thus the ‘drawing’ may present to our thought especially an inward influence; the ‘teaching’ may suggest the application of Scripture truth; whilst the giving brings into view the final act of the Father when the design of His love has been fulfilled. But while each term may lead us to think most of one aspect of the Father’s work, every term really includes all its aspects and denotes the whole work. John 6:46. Not that any one hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen the Father. The words just spoken, ‘he that hath heard from the Father,’ might be understood to point to a direct communication: this however would imply a close relation to the Father such as is possessed by One alone, who hath ‘seen the Father.’ His saying that all who come to Him have first ‘heard from the Father’ might lead His hearers to infer that the descent out of heaven likewise implied nothing more than could be said of all. Such an inference this verse is intended to preclude. If they would really be ‘taught’ of the Father it can only be through Him. John 6:47-49. The Pharisees therefore answered them, Have ye also been led astray? Hath any one of the rulers believed in him, or of the Pharisees? But this multitude which understandeth not the law are cursed. In such a matter as the acceptance of any man as Messiah, the judgment of the rulers (members of the Sanhedrin) must surely be decisive; but what ruler or (to take a wider range, and include all who accurately interpret the Law and uphold its majesty) who of the Pharisees has sanctioned the claims of Jesus? The foolish multitude may have done so, in this showing an ignorance which, in the mind of the Pharisees, deserves and brings with it a curse.—of such contemptuous treatment of the common people, as distinguished from ‘the disciples of the wise,’ many examples may be produced from the sayings of Jewish Rabbis.—Once more it may be noted, our Lord’s enemies pronounce their own condemnation in proclaiming their unbelief. John 6:48. I am the bread of life. Having prepared the way by the declaration of the necessity of faith, He reaffirms what (in John 6:35) He had said of Himself. He is the bread which contains life in itself, and which therefore can give and does give life to all who receive and assimilate it.—It is interesting to observe, at a point where the discourse is really higher than it was before, a shortening of the formula employed, similar to that already met by us in John 1:29; John 1:36 (see note on John 1:35-36). John 6:49. Your fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness, and died. No other bread has given life eternal. Even the manna, the bread given out of heaven, did not bestow life on their fathers, who (as the people themselves had said) ate the manna in the wilderness. It seems very probable that the addition ‘in the wilderness’ is more than a mere repetition of the words of Joh 6:31. It recalls Numbers 14:35, Psalms 95:8-11, and other passages in which ‘the wilderness’ is specially mentioned as the scene of disobedience and of death; and thus the fathers, who (Deuteronomy 1:32) ‘did not believe the Lord’ and died, are contrasted with the believer who ‘hath eternal life’ (John 6:47). John 6:50. This is the bread which cometh down out of heaven, that any one may eat thereof, and not die. The ‘bread that cometh down out of heaven’ (repeated from John 6:33) is of such a nature, and has such an object, that one may eat of it and not die. We are not to press too much our Lord’s use of ‘one’ or ‘any one’ in this verse; but we may at least say that His studious avoidance of every word of limitation points once more to the unbounded offer of life, the offer to ‘the world’ (John 6:33). When John 6:49-50 are compared, a difficulty presents itself. It may be said that the antithesis is not complete, for is not death used in two different senses? The fathers died in the wilderness: he that eateth of the true bread shall not die. There is exactly the same twofold use of the word in chap. John 11:26 (see the note on that verse). It is sufficient here to say that in neither verse is the meaning as simple as the objection supposes. In John 6:49 we must certainly recognise a partial reference to death as a punishment of sin, and by consequence to that moral death which even in this world must ever accompany sin. In John 6:50 again physical death may seem to be excluded, but we shall see that John elsewhere regards the believer as freed (in a certain sense) even from this, so entirely has death for him changed its character,—so complete is the deliverance granted by his Lord. John 6:51. I am the living bread which came down out of heaven. Once more Jesus declares that the bread of which He has spoken is Himself; but the assertion is expressed in words that differ significantly from those before employed. For ‘the bread of life’ He says now ‘the living bread:’ for ‘cometh down,’ an expression which might seem a mere figure denoting heavenly origin, He says ‘came down,’ speaking of an actual historical descent out of heaven. The former change especially is important. He has been speaking of the bread as given, but is about to declare Himself to be the Giver: therefore He says that He is the living bread, that can give itself, and with itself its inherent life. There was nothing in the ‘bread of life’ that would necessarily suggest more than means and instrument. If the tree of life in Paradise bestowed immortality on man, it was but by instrumental efficacy. ‘The living bread’ is a thought absolutely unique, and the words compel the thinks of the hearers to rest on the person of the Speaker, who in the possession of this life, and not as the precious but lifeless manna, descended out of heaven.If any one shall have eaten of this bread, he shall live for ever. These words partly repeat and partly extend those of the preceding verse. There the nature and object of the bread are given; here the assurance that every one who makes trial of the promise shall certainly find it fulfilled to him in the gift of a life that lasts for ever.And moreover the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The personal significance of the preceding words is now made even more direct, and the meaning intended cannot probably be mistaken. He gives; the bread He gives is His flesh; the gift is for the life of the world. The questions which these words have raised will be best considered in connection with our Lord’s own comment in the following verses. John 6:52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? As before, the Jews take hold of those words which are most susceptible of a merely material sense. Every word that points to a spiritual meaning they ignore; but in doing so they themselves give evidence of the clearness with which our Lord had now shown that His intention had been to fix the whole thought of His hearers on Himself, and not on His gifts. The contention of the Jews became violent as they talked of the words of Jesus: the Evangelist’s expression, literally taken, points to ‘fighting’ rather than strife (comp. Acts 7:26; 2 Timothy 2:24; James 4:2). John 6:53-55. Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. As to the general meaning of this important passage there can be little or no doubt. There are some new expressions, but on the whole the imagery agrees with that employed in the earlier part of the chapter, and the blessings offered by Jesus are described again in identical language. Here, as before, life, eternal life, is promised; again ‘eating’ is the figure which describes the mode of receiving life; as in John 6:35; John 6:48; John 6:51, Jesus identifies Himself with that which when eaten gives life; and, as in John 6:44 (compare John 6:39-40), He promises that He will raise up at the last day every one who has thus received eternal life. The agreement then between these verses and the earlier part of the discourse is so marked that there can be no change in the general sense: all the expressions in previous verses in which figure is wholly or partially set aside may be brought in here also to elucidate the meaning. Our Lord therefore still teaches in regard to all who come to Him, who believe in Him, who are intimately joined to Him in the union of faith and, receiving all from Him, may be said to appropriate to themselves Himself, and to feed on Him,—that these and these alone have eternal life. There is nothing here that alters this foundation truth. The phraseology of these verses (and John 6:51) is new in the following respects: (1) Instead of the one metaphor of eating we have two, ‘eating’ and ‘drinking;’ (2) The figure of bread is dropped, giving place to ‘flesh,’ the flesh of the Son of man, which flesh is given by Him for the life of the world. (3) For the first time Jesus makes mention of His ‘blood,’—the drinking of this blood gives life. The introduction of the second metaphor, ‘drinking,’ at once recalls John 6:35, where ‘thirst’ is as suddenly brought in. As in that verse, so here, one purpose answered is the more complete realisation of a feast: the Paschal mead is always present in the symbols of this chapter. Whether this is to be taken as the only purpose will depend on the answer given to other questions which must now be asked. Does Jesus, in speaking of His flesh given for the life of the world, expressly refer to His death, His atoning death? Is it in order to point more clearly to that truth that He here brings in the mention of His blood? Are we to understand that there is a strict and real difference between the things signified by eating His flesh and drinking His blood? The last question may easily be answered: there is certainly no such difference. In John 6:35 there is a very beautiful and rapid change of aspect, but no substantial change of thought: coming to Christ is believing in Him, and the result is the satisfaction of every want, whether represented as hunger or as thirst. When the ‘flesh’ is first mentioned (John 6:51) it stands alone, as the Saviour’s gift for the life of the world; and below (John 6:57) ‘eating’ alone is spoken of, yet the result is life. As a rule, indeed, flesh is contrasted with blood in biblical language, and the two are joined together to express the physical being of man; but it is not uncommon to find flesh used by itself in this sense. Thus in the first chapter of this Gospel we read that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ whereas in Hebrews 2:14 we are taught that the Son took part in flesh and blood. It is therefore quite in accordance with the usage of Scripture that the same idea should be expressed now by the one term and now by the two combined; and the context (as we have seen) shows that this is the case here. The two expressions of these verses are thus substantially equivalent to the one expression of Joh 6:57. But it does not follow from this that our Lord had no special motive for thus varying His language. The cardinal thought is most simply expressed in John 6:57, ‘he that eateth me;’ and we may well believe that He would have so spoken in these verses also had He not intended to suggest special thoughts by the use of other words. In asking now what these special thoughts are, it is scarcely possible for us, in the light of events that followed, to dissociate the last clause of Joh 6:51 from the thought of death, or the mention of ‘the blood’ of the Son of man from the thought of the blood shed upon the cross. The words, indeed, would not at that time suggest such thoughts: they were rather a secret prophecy, like the mysterious sayings of chap. John 2:19 (‘Destroy this Temple’) and chap. John 3:14 (‘even so must the Son of man be lifted up’), and that saying so often repeated in the earlier Gospels, the command to ‘take up’ and to ‘bear’ ‘the cross.’ But this Gospel shows most plainly that the end was ever present to Jesus from the very beginning; and many of His words can only receive their proper interpretation by the application of this principle. There is another consideration which removes all doubt in this place, if the general view which has been taken of the chapter is correct. The figurative acts and language have been suggested by the Paschal meal which has just been (or is just about to be) celebrated in Jerusalem. The later chapters of the Gospel set forth Jesus as the fulfilment of the Passover, Jesus on the cross as the antitype and reality of the Paschal meal. This chapter in pointing to the type points continually to the fulfilment; but the Paschal lamb died, and the death of Jesus must therefore be regarded as part of the thought before us. Nor would it be safe to deny that mention of the blood here may even be connected, as some have supposed, with the command that the blood of the Paschal lamb should be sprinkled on the dwellings of the Israelites. So many are the links between symbol and reality which the Evangelist apprehends both in his own teaching and in the discourses recorded by him, that it is less hazardous to admit than to deny the possibility of such a connection. But even then the thought of blood shed upon the cross must not be kept separate and distinct from all else that Jesus was and did. The central thought of the chapter is undoubtedly that of a meal, a feast, an experimental reception of a living Christ which is symbolized by ‘eating’ and ‘drinking;’ and to that the whole interpretation must be subordinated. It cannot therefore be Jesus in His death, looked at as a distinct and separate act, that is before us in the mention of the blood. It must still be Jesus in the whole of His manifestation of Himself, living, dying, glorified; so that, if we may so speak, the death is to be viewed only as a pervading element of the life, only as one of the characteristics of that Christ who, not as divided but in all the combined elements of His humiliation and His glory, is from first to last the object of our faith and the satisfaction of our need. The main point, in short, to be kept in view is this, that we are here dealing with the actual nourishment, with the sustenance, with the life of the soul; with the believer, not as having only certain relations altered in which he stands to God, but as in fellowship and communion of spirit with Him in whom he believes. To maintain by faith that fellowship with Jesus in all that He was, is to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.It may be accepted as an additional proof of the correctness of what has been said, if we observe that the very same blessings now connected with eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus have been already connected with ‘coming to Him,’ with ‘believing in Him,’ and with ‘beholding Him.’ Thus, for the first of these, comp. John 6:35; John 6:55; for the second, John 6:47; John 6:54; for the third, John 6:40; John 6:54. It is clear, therefore, that the spiritual appropriation of the life and death of Jesus is described under all the different figures of this passage. All tell us of communion, of fellowship, of a feast,—of the Lamb of God not only as the Paschal sacrifice, but as the Paschal feast.The question now considered leads at once to another. What is the relation of these verses and this whole discourse to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? Many have held that the doctrine of the sacrament (not yet instituted, but present to the Redeemer’s mind) is the very substance of this chapter; whilst others have denied that there is any connection whatever between the two. We can adopt neither of these extreme views. On the one hand, the words of Jesus in this discourse can belong to no rite or ordinance, however exalted and however precious to His people. The act of which He speaks is continuous, not occasional,—spiritual, not external; every term that He employs is a symbol of trust in Him. But on the other hand, if alike in this chapter and in the records of the Last Supper the Paschal meal is presented to our thought, and if John specially connects this feast with the death of Christ, whilst all the other Evangelists bring into relief the relation of the Last Supper to the same death, it is impossible to say that the sacrament is altogether alien to this discourse. The relation of the Lord’s Supper to the teaching of this chapter is very nearly the same as the relation of Christian baptism to our Lord’s discourse to Nicodemus (see note on chap. John 3:5). In neither case is the sacrament as such brought before us; in both we must certainly recognise the presence of its fundamental idea. This discourse is occupied with that lasting, continuous act of which afterwards the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was made a symbol; and the sacrament is still a symbol of the unchanging truth so fully set forth in this discourse,—the believer’s union with his Lord, his complete dependence upon Him for life, his continued appropriation by faith of His very self, his feeding on Him, living on Him, his experience that Jesus in giving Himself satisfies every want of the soul.There is not much in the particular expressions of these three verses that calls for further remark. It will be observed that there are two links connecting them with our Lord’s first address to the multitude (John 6:26): He again speaks of the ‘Son of man,’ and the words ‘food indeed’ (literally ‘true eating’) at once recall ‘the eating that abideth.’ One expression in John 6:53 is very forcible, ‘Ye have not life in yourselves,’ implying, as it does, that they who have so eaten and drunk have life in themselves. These are words which our Lord could not use without intending a special emphasis (comp. chap. John 5:26): so complete is the believer’s appropriation of the Son, who hath life in Himself, that the same exalted language may be used of the believer also, whilst he abides in fellowship with his Lord. Then he has life in himself, but not of himself. This fellowship is the substance of the next verse. John 6:56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. The fellowship consists in this, that the believer abides in the Life, and that He who is the Life abides in the believer. Note that here it is not ‘hath eaten;’ the ‘abiding’ is dependent on the continuance of the appropriating act. John 6:57. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. He that sent the Son into the world is the living Father,—the Being who is eternally and absolutely the Living One. The Son lives because the Father lives. This reception of life (see chap. John 5:26) is the characteristic of the Son. So, with a relation to the Son similar to the Son’s relation to the Father, the believer who receives and appropriates the Son lives because the Son, who is Life, abides in him. This is the climax of the whole discourse: for even more exalted language expressive of the same truth, that the relation between Jesus and His own has its pattern in the relation between the Father and the Son, see chap. John 17:21; John 17:23. John 6:58. This is that bread which came down out of heaven. Here Jesus returns to the first theme. Since He has now set forth all that the true bread gives, the contrast with the manna is complete. ‘This’—of this nature, such as I have described it to you—‘is the bread that came down out of heaven.’ These last words illustrate the first clause of Joh 6:57, ‘the living Father sent me.’ Not as your fathers did eat and died: he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. The rest of the verse is in the main a forcible repetition of Joh 6:49-50. John 6:59. These things said he, as he was teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum. These words not only give information as to the place in which the discourse (probably John 6:41-58; see note on John 6:40) was delivered, but also show the boldness with which Jesus declared truths so new and so surprising to His hearers. He spoke thus in public teaching (comp. chap. John 18:20), and that too in the presence of His powerful enemies, and in the place where their influence was greatest. John 6:60. Many therefore of his disciples when they heard this said, This is an hard saying; who can hear him? The word ‘disciples’ is here used in a wide sense, including many more than the Twelve, and many who had never risen to a high and pure faith. The ‘saying’ can only be that of the preceding verses (John 6:53-57), and its hardness consisted in the fact that it pointed out one only way to life,—eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man. These words the disciples did not spiritually comprehend, and therefore they were repelled by them. John 6:61. But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured concerning this, said unto them, Doth this make you to stumble? He knew their thoughts, and because they are disciples, not Jews bent on opposing Him, He seeks to help them. John 6:62. What then if ye behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? The meaning of this ascent is surely clear in itself; but if it were not, the mention of a past descent (John 6:41; John 6:51; John 6:58) would remove all doubt. Our Lord certainly refers to His ascension into heaven. He would say: ‘Is the word that speaks of the descent from heaven, of the living bread that alone can give life, of the Son’s descent from heaven to give His flesh and His blood that the world may eat and drink and live, a stumbling-block to you? If, when I am here before you, you cannot understand what is meant by eating my flesh and drinking my blood,—cannot apprehend the spiritual meaning which such words must bear,—how much more will you, in this your carnal apprehension of what I say, be made to stumble if you should see me ascending where I was before, to be no longer upon earth at all!’ As the necessity of eating His flesh must continue, what will they think then? Then the sense they have put upon His words will indeed wholly break down: then at last they may come to see that the words can only be spiritually understood. John 6:63. It is the spirit that maketh to live; the flesh profiteth nothing. Jesus has spoken of ‘giving life,’ of the ‘eating of His flesh,’ as the means of gaining eternal life. In all this He has not the flesh but the spirit in view,—not the material reception of the flesh by the flesh but the appropriation of His spirit by the spirit of man. Such spiritual union of the believer with Him alone ‘maketh to live’ the flesh in itself is profitless for such an end. The words that live spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. The word ‘I’ is emphatic, as it repeatedly has been in this discourse. The emphasis which Jesus here and elsewhere lays upon His sayings is very remarkable. He is the Word, the expression of the Father’s nature and will; His sayings are to man the expression of Himself. The words or sayings just spoken to these disciples are spirit and are life. This is their essential nature. They may be carnalised, wrongly understood, wilfully perverted; but wherever they find an entrance they manifest their true nature. They bring into the receptive heart not the flesh but the spirit of the Son of man, and thus the man, in the true sense eating the flesh of the Son of man, has life. His words received by faith bring Himself. Thus He can in two verses almost consecutive (chap. John 15:4; John 15:7) say, ‘Abide in me, and I in you,’ and ‘If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you.’ John 6:64. But there are some of you that believe not. Even of these who had heard the last words, so mercifully spoken for the removal of their difficulties, there were some who continued in unbelief.For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that would betray him. Another remarkable declaration by the Evangelist of the Saviour’s penetrating discernment of all hearts (compare chap. John 2:24-25), and of His knowledge from the very beginning what would be the end of His earthly course. The words seem to imply that the germ of the traitor-spirit was already in the heart of Judas, who, like many others, loved rather the glory and honour which Jesus set aside (John 6:14-15) than the spirit and the life of His words. John 6:65. And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no one can come unto me, except it have been given unto him of the Father. They had seemed genuine disciples, but His words had been to them a stumbling-block and had not brought life. They had not really come to Him: they had not received from the Father the gift of ‘coming unto’ Jesus, but the failure had been by their own fault. Having resisted the drawing of the Father, they had lacked the due preparation of heart for receiving the words of Jesus (see the notes on John 6:37; John 6:44). John 6:66. Upon this many of his disciples went beck, and walked no longer with him. Another sad reflection, as in John 6:64 : the Evangelist cannot but record the repelling influence which the light exerted on those who were not of the light. These disciples seemed to have left all that they might be followers of Christ, but now they return to the homes and the occupations they had forsaken. (The usual rendering ‘walked no more’ is in itself perfectly correct, but may be possibly understood in the sense of ‘never more,’ a sense certainly not designed.) John 6:67. Jesus therefore said unto the twelve, Would ye also go? In contrast with the desertion of many is the strengthened faith of those who, being of the light, are attracted by the light. The ‘Twelve’ are here mentioned by John for the first time. John 6:68-69. Simon Peter answered him. In accordance with the earlier records Peter stands forth as the spokesman of the Twelve, and in answer to the question of Jesus makes a confession of their faith.Lord, to whom shall we go away? thou hast words of eternal life. (John 6:69) And we have believed, and we know that thou art the Holy One of God. The confession consists of three parts—(1) ‘Thou hast words of eternal life’ (see John 6:63); (2) ‘And we have believed’ (in contrast with John 6:64,‘there are of you some that believe not’); (3) ‘And we know,’ etc. These disciples have answered the revelation of Jesus by the faith which it demands; and now they ‘know’ with the practical knowledge of experience that Jesus is the Sent of God. The expression which Peter uses is ‘the Holy One of God.’ A similar phrase occurs in Psalms 106:16 in regard to Aaron, who is called ‘the holy one of Jehovah.’ In the case of the human priest and in that of his antitype our Lord, the general meaning is the same,—the consecrated one of God, or, in other words, He whom the Father sealed, He whom God has sent. The meaning of the word used here, ‘holy,’ must receive special consideration in other passages: see the notes on John 10:36; John 10:17. It is hardly necessary to say that the confession of Peter does not seem to be the same as that related in Matthew 16. John 6:70. Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve? and one of you is a devil. Alas! even in this small circle there is an element that the light attracts not but repels. In good faith Peter had spoken of all his brethren, when he said, ‘we have believed.’ He knew not, and probably Judas himself knew not, to whom Jesus referred. The germ of the future crime and that alone as yet existed. But from the beginning Jesus knew all. Amongst the disciples He knew who would desert Him: in this inner circle He knew who would show himself a traitor—‘a devil.’ Many weaker interpretations, but all baseless, have been given of this word. The traitor will do his work at the instigation of the Evil One, and animated by his spirit: his work will be the work of the devil: he himself in doing it will be the associate of Satan: nay, as we shall see, he will be more. John 6:71. Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot. Here we meet for the first time in this Gospel with the name Iscariot; and it will be observed that (as in John 13:26) it is connected not with the name of Judas (as in John 12:4, John 13:2, John 14:22) but with that of his father. In all probability the word signifies ‘man of Kerioth,’ a town in the tribe of Judah (see Joshua 15:25). Apparently Judas was the only apostle not of Galilee, and the peculiarity of his name (identical with Judah and ‘the Jews’) is certainly not overlooked by the Evangelist. Nay, more, not only is Judas of Kerioth, that town of Judah and the Jews, his father is so too. The double link of connection seems to deepen the thought.For he it was that was about to betray him—one of the twelve. Judas was not yet the traitor; ‘was about to’ expresses only the futurity of the event; but how much is the criminality of the germ already springing up in his heart heightened by the closing remark, in which we see at once the anger and the pathos of the Evangelist,—‘being one of the Twelve’ The same line of thought as that which we have found in the two previous chapters is continued in that before us. He who is the Fulfiller of the Sabbath and of the Passover is the Fulfiller also of the great feast in which the festivals of the Jewish year culminated,—that of Tabernacles. The first section of the chapter gives an account of the circumstances in which Jesus went up to this feast, the subordinate parts being—(1) John 7:1-9, Jesus declines to go up to it at the request of His brethren, for He can act only at the suggestion of His heavenly Father’s will; (2) John 7:10-13, He goes up when He sees that the hour for doing so is come. John 7:2. And the feast of the Jews, the feast of was at hand. This annual festival, the last of the three at which the men of Israel were required to present themselves before the Lord in Jerusalem, began on the 15th of Tizri, that is, either late in September or early in October. It had a twofold significance, being at once a harvest festival and a historical memorial of the earliest days of the nation. At the ‘feast of Ingathering’ (Exodus 23:16) the people gave thanks for the harvest, now safely gathered in: the ‘feast of Tabernacles,’ during the seven days of which they dwelt in booths or huts, recalled the years which their fathers spent in the desert (Leviticus 23:39-43). The mode in which the feast was celebrated must be noticed in connection with later verses (see note on John 7:38): here we need only add that this festival, spoken of by Josephus as ‘the holiest and greatest’ of all, was a season of the most lively rejoicing (see Nehemiah 8:16-18), and was associated at once with the most precious recollections of the past and the most sacred hopes for the future of the nation. In particular, as we shall see more fully hereafter, the feast had come to be regarded as the type and emblem of the glory of the latter day, when the Spirit of God should be poured out like floods upon the ground (Isaiah 35). On the expression ‘feast of the Jews,’ see the notes on chap. John 2:13, John 6:4. To what extent the joyous and holy feast of the Lord could be perverted by the malice and hatred of ‘the Jews’ this chapter will clearly show. John 7:3. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works that thou doest. His brothers, in thus urging Him to depart into Judea, have distinctly in mind (as appears from John 7:8) the approaching feast and the concourse of people which would soon be assembling in Jerusalem. It is important to keep this in mind ii we would understand the position occupied by the brothers of Jesus. They were not believers in Him (John 7:5), that is, they did not accept Him as the Messiah; in their own words they separated themselves from the number of His disciples (John 7:3); and as yet they were accounted by Him as belonging to ‘the world’ (John 7:7). On the other hand, there is no trace of disbelief or disparagement of His works; for the words, ‘Thy works that Thou doest,’ were not spoken in irony; and ‘if Thou doest’ (John 7:4) need not express the slightest doubt. To these ‘brethren,’ then, brought up in the prevalent Messianic belief, there appeared an inconsistency between the loftiness of His claims and the comparatively limited display of what He offered as His credentials; the reserve with which He manifested His powers went far with them towards destroying the impression made by His miracles. But one of the chief festivals was now at hand. Neither at the Passover of this year nor at the feast of Weeks (Pentecost) had He gone up to Jerusalem: why should He avoid publicity, and appear to shun that decisive testing of His claims which was possible in Jerusalem alone. By ‘Thy disciples,’ the brethren of Jesus do not simply mean ‘Thy disciples in Judea.’ In this case the word ‘there’ must have been inserted, as bearing the chief emphasis of the sentence. As we have just seen, the recent labours of Jesus in northern Galilee had been marked by privacy. For the most part the Twelve only had witnessed His works; at times some even of these had been excluded. At the feast the whole body of His disciples would be gathered together, and what might be done in Jerusalem would be conspicuous to all.—On the ‘brothers’ of the Lord see the note on chap. John 2:12; after this paragraph (John 2:5; John 2:10), they are not mentioned again in this Gospel; in chap. John 20:17 the words have a different meaning. John 7:4. For no one doeth any thing in secret, and himself seeketh to be in boldness. ‘To be in boldness’ may seem a singular expression; the Greek words, however, will not admit of the rendering ‘to be known openly;’ and it is clear that the form of the phrase is chosen so as to be in correspondence with what precedes, ‘doeth anything in secret.’ The Greek word rendered ‘boldness’ occurs nine times in I his Gospel, four times in John’s First Epistle, and eighteen times in the rest of the New Testament. In every case it denotes either boldness, as opposed to fear or caution (see John 7:13; John 7:26, John 11:54, John 18:20), or plainness of language as opposed to reserve (chap. John 10:24, John 11:14, John 16:25; John 16:29); here the meaning is ‘to take a bold position.’ Working miracles in secret and a bold claim of personal dignity and office are, in the view of these men, things incompatible with one another.If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world. These words are very remarkable. The brothers would use them as meaning ‘to all men,’ i.e. ‘to all Israel’ gathered together at the feast (comp. chap. John 12:19); but we cannot doubt that the Evangelist sees here the language of unconscious prophecy, such as appears in many other places of this Gospel, and in one case at least (chap. John 11:51) is expressly noted by himself. The words are now uttered with a true instinct; they will be fulfilled in their widest sense. John 7:5. For not even did his brethren believe in him. This verse seems to afford an unanswerable argument against those who hold that amongst these ‘brothers’ of our Lord were included two or three of the twelve apostles. How long this unbelief lasted we cannot tell: the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7, ‘Then He appeared to James,’ make it very probable that it was by our Lord’s resurrection from the dead that the brothers were led to a true belief in that Divine mission which, in spite of the earlier miracles they had witnessed, they had refused to accept. John 7:6. Jesus therefore saith unto them, My time is not yet present, but your time is alway ready. The answer is remarkably akin to that addressed to His mother in chap. John 2:4. Very different, probably, were the mother and the brethren in their measure of faith and in the motive of their words; but in each case there betrayed itself a conviction that Jesus might be influenced by human counsel in the manifestations of Himself. Here as there His time was at hand, but not yet ‘present;’ and until the moment appointed by the Father He whose will is one with that of the Father can do nothing. Such limitation did not apply to His brethren; they were not separated from the ‘world,’ and with that world they might at any time associate. John 7:7. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I bear witness concerning it, that its works are wicked. Jesus takes up the word which they had used; but in His mouth it has a depth of solemn meaning of which they knew nothing. With them the world was the whole body of Israelites, with whom lay the acceptance or rejection of His claims; with Him the world was a hostile power, to which indeed He will manifest Himself, but which He has come to subdue. Jesus and His brothers stand in opposite relations to the world,—they at one with it, He the Reprover of its wicked works. This difference of relation makes necessary a difference of action: they cannot understand, much less can they guide, His course. John 7:8. Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up yet unto this feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled. The words ‘not yet’ imply an intention of attending the festival, though as yet the appointed time had not come. The interval before it comes may be of the shortest, but the ‘not yet’ lasts till the ‘now’ comes, and then the obedience must be instant and complete. It is · well known that this verse furnished Porphyry, the assailant of Christianity in the third century, with one of his argument. In his Greek text of the Gospel the reading was, ‘I go not up unto’ (the word ‘yet’ being absent), and upon this Porphyry founded an accusation of fickleness and change of purpose. John 7:9. And when he had said these things unto them he abode still in Galilee. How long, we are not informed. As, however, it would seem that His brothers were on the point of setting out for Jerusalem, to be present at the beginning of the festival, and as He Himself was teaching in the temple when the sacred week had half expired (John 7:14), the interval spent in Galilee can hardly have been more than two or three days. John 7:10. And when his brethren had gone up unto the feast, then went he also up, not manifestly but as in secret. We must not sever ‘manifestly’ from ‘manifest thyself,’ in John 7:4. Had Jesus joined any festal band, it would have been impossible (without an express miracle) to restrain the impetuous zeal of Galilean pilgrims, of whom very many had witnessed His ‘signs’ and listened to His words. To have gone up publicly would have been to ‘manifest Himself to the world.’ At the next great feast, the Passover of the following year, He did enter the holy city in triumph, thus proclaimed King of Israel by the rejoicing multitudes. For this, however, the time was not yet come. It is very probable that this journey must be identified with that related in Luke 9:51 sqq. The privacy here spoken of has been thought inconsistent with Luke’s statement that Jesus at that time travelled through Samaria with His disciples, ‘sending messengers before him’ (Luke 9:52). But the divergence is only apparent. Jesus went up in secret, in that He avoided the train of Galilean pilgrims, who may have reached Jerusalem before He set out from Galilee; besides, it is probable that the route through Samaria, though not altogether avoided by the festal companies (as we know from Josephus), would be more rarely taken. The sending of messengers implies no publicity; for such a company as this, composed of Jesus and His disciples, such a precaution might well be essential. John 7:11. The Jews therefore sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? Their expectation that He would be present at this festival may have rested on no other ground than the national usage, to which Jesus had occasionally conformed even during His public ministry. Possibly His words (John 7:8) ‘I go not up yet’ may have become known to the Galilean multitude, and hence to the Jews. John 7:1 and John 7:13 seem to leave very little doubt that the ‘seeking’ was of a hostile character. By ‘the Jews,’ the Evangelist still means the ruling class, those whom worldliness and self-seeking had long since turned into the declared enemies of Jesus. John 7:12. And there was much murmuring among the multitudes concerning him. Some said, He is a good man: but others said, Hay, but he leadeth astray the multitude. From the ‘Jews’ the Evangelist turns to the ‘multitudes.’ Amongst these is eager discussion concerning Jesus; the speculation, the hesitation, the inquiry, were general, but all outward expression was suppressed. The use of the plural ‘multitudes’ seems to point to crowds rather than individuals as the disputants. The word ‘multitude,’ however, at the close of the verse is not without a contemptuous force,—it is the common crowd that He leads astray: possibly the multitudes of Jerusalem may be the speakers. John 7:13. Howbeit no man spake boldly concerning him, because of the fear of the Jews. Both sides, through their fear of the Jews, shrank from speaking out their thoughts. So complete was the ascendancy of these rulers over the people that no one ventured on any open discussion of the claims of Jesus. There was no doubt a belief that ‘the Jews’ were hostile to Him, but no public condemnation had been pronounced,—possibly no decision had been arrived at: till the leaders spoke out the people could only mutter their opinions.—Thus, then, the picture of what Jerusalem was at this moment is completed. Met together at the feast are Galileans, already half believers in Jesus, ready to be roused into enthusiastic activity by a display of His power; hostile Jews, the ecclesiastical authorities and those who shared their spirit, determined to crush out all inquiry as to His claims; and multitudes discussing these in secret, and revealing the utmost discordance of opinion. Everywhere we see movement, uncertainty, hope, or fear. In this section Jesus appears at the feast to which He went up when His Father’s, and therefore His own, hour was come. The opportunity afforded by it of teaching is embraced, and we are presented with the teaching and its effect. In the successive discourses recorded, the same general line of thought is to be traced as in chaps, 5 and 6. But a particular direction is given them by the circumstances amidst which they are spoken. Jesus comes again before us as the Fulfiller of the law, of the last and greatest of the annual feasts of Israel,—that feast which, in the language of the prophets, shadowed forth the gift of the Spirit and the highest glory of Messianic times. The effect is, as usual, twofold: some are attracted, others are repelled. The subordinate parts are—(1) John 7:14-24; (2) vers.; (3) John 7:32-36; (4) John 7:37-39; (5) John 7:40-44; (6) John 7:45-52. John 7:15. The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never leaned? The marvelling on the part of the ‘Jews’ (see note on chap. John 5:20) is not an astonishment that compels further inquiry and leads towards belief. They are baffled, and forced to acknowledge against themselves what they would fain have denied. It was only after a long series of years spent in study that the Jewish scholar was permitted to become a teacher, and was solemnly ordained a member of the community of doctors of the law. Jesus, it was known, had not been taught in the rabbinical schools, nevertheless He was proving Himself, in such a manner that His enemies could not gainsay the fact, a skilled and powerful teacher. Jewish learning dealt chiefly with the letter of the written Word (especially the Law), and with the body of un written tradition. The words which crown our Lord’s teaching at this feast enter into the very heart and express the inmost spirit of the whole Old Testament revelation (John 7:38-39). John 7:16. Jesus therefore answered them, and said. My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. It was the practice of Jewish Rabbis to proclaim from whom they ‘received’ their teaching, and to quote the sayings of the wise men who preceded them. What they proclaimed of themselves the teaching of Jesus proclaims of itself to all worthy listeners. His teaching, though He had never ‘learned’ it in the sense in which they use the term, is yet not His own; neither in its substance nor in its authority must they count it His. As His works were those which the Father gave Him to accomplish (chap. John 5:36), so His words were the expression of the truth which He has heard from God (John 8:40), and the Father hath given Him commandment what He shall say (John 12:49). Hence His words are God’s words, and the teaching comes with the authority of God. Such teaching is self-evidential, where man really wishes to hear the voice of God: for— John 7:17. If any one will to do his will, he will perceive of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself. Many a time did the Jews refuse to recognise the teaching of Jesus unless He could prove by a miracle that God was working with Him. Here He tells them that, had they the will to do God’s will, they would need no miracle in evidence that in His teaching they heard the words of God: as the child at once recognises his father’s voice, so would they, if living in harmony with God’s will and purpose, recognise in His voice the voice of God. Such recognition of the words of Jesus is the test, therefore, of a will bent on doing the will of God, and every such effort of will is consciously strengthened by His words; while, on the other hand, the heart which seeks its own glory and not the glory of God is repelled by them (chap. John 5:44). No words can more clearly show that the very end of the teaching of Jesus as set forth in this Gospel is not empty speculation but practical righteousness. It may be asked, Is our Lord merely stating a truth (‘he will perceive’), or is He also giving a promise (he shall perceive,—shall come to know)? Both thoughts are implied. Jesus does not say that the clear conception comes at once,—but come it will, come it shall. The last words must be carefully distinguished from those of chap. John 5:31, etc., ‘bearing witness concerning Myself.’ Here the word used refers to the origin, the source, of the speaking; and the meaning exactly agrees with chap. John 5:30,—there ‘doing, here’ speaking, from or of Himself.The words of Joh 7:17 are especially remarkable when we call to mind that they were addressed to persons all whose thoughts of revelation as a thing demonstrated to man were connected with tokens of the Divine presence appealing to the senses. What a new world did it open up to tell them that perception of the Divine origin of any teaching depends upon our seeing that it strengthens and perfects that moral nature which is within us the counterpart of the Divine nature! John 7:18. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory. If a man speaks from himself, giving out all that he says as coming from himself, it is clear that he is seeking the glory of no one but himself. If one who so acts is a messenger from another (and here the thought in the later words, ‘him that sent him,’ seems intended to apply to the whole verse), it is plain that his attitude is altogether false: he represents as ‘from himself’ that which really is ‘from him that sent him.But he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him. From the maxim contained in the first clause of this verse it follows at once that whoever is not seeking his own glory does not speak from himself. But every word of Jesus shows that He seeks His Father’s glory: hence it cannot be that He is speaking from Himself.—But as a messenger speaking from himself and aiming at his own glory is false to his position and work, so he that seeks the glory of the sender only is true to them, and there is no unrighteousness in him,—his work and duty as messenger are fully accomplished. These last words, like the first clause of the verse, are perfectly general, though absolutely realised in Christ alone. By Him the condition is completely fulfilled: of Him the freedom from unrighteousness is absolutely true. This verse connects itself with what precedes and with what follows: (1) A will to do God’s will will lead to right judgment respecting Christ (John 7:17), because he who has such a will can discern the complete submission of Jesus to the will of God, His complete freedom from self-seeking (John 7:18); (2) Is it thus proved to every one who is seeking to do God’s will that Jesus is the real messenger of God, accurately teaching His will, then the accusation which is in the minds of His enemies (John 7:21-22), that He has contradicted God’s will in the matter of the Sabbath (chap. John 5:18), must fall to the ground of itself. John 7:19. Did not Moses give you the law, and no one of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me? There are two ways in which this verse may be taken, and between them it is not easy to decide. They turn on the interpretation of ‘no one of you doeth the law;’ for this may find its explanation either in the words that immediately follow or in John 7:21-25. It may be best to give the connection of thought according to each of these views. In both cases the ‘law’ chiefly denotes the Ten Commandments. (I) The accusation of the Jews against Jesus, of having transgressed God’s will, must fall to the ground (John 7:18), but not so His accusation against them. Moses, whom all accepted as God’s true messenger, gave them the law, which therefore expressed God’s will, and yet every one of them was breaking the law, for they were seeking to kill Jesus. They were therefore self-convicted by their own works of opposing the revealed will of God: no wonder therefore that they had rejected Jesus. In favour of this explanation we may say that the words are (John 7:15-16) addressed to ‘the Jews,’ whose murderous intention Jesus well knew not to have been inspired by true zeal for the law,—that the words so understood aptly follow John 7:17-18,—and that we thus secure for the solemn expression doeth the law ‘a natural and worthy sense. (2) The other explanation connects this verse less strictly with John 7:18. In Jesus, as a true messenger, there is no unrighteousness. What they have called unrighteousness is altogether righteous,—nay, it is what they themselves habitually do, and rightly do. Moses gave them the law, the whole law, and yet there is no one of them that keeps the whole law. Every one of them (as the example afterwards given proves) sets aside one of two conflicting laws, breaks one commandment when there is no other way of keeping a higher command inviolate; and this is all that Jesus did in the act for which they seek to kill Him. This second explanation agrees well with what follows; and, although at first sight it seems almost too mild to be spoken to ‘the Jews,’ it has really great sharpness. It must have at once penetrated their hearts and thrown a light upon the guilt and folly of their conduct which they could only evade by again deliberately turning their eyes from the light. ‘No one of you doeth the law’ is also a very heavy charge. On the whole, the second interpretation seems preferable to the first. John 7:20. The multitude answered, Thou hast a demon; who seeketh to kill thee? It is important to observe that this answer is returned by the multitude, not by those to whom John 7:19 is addressed, and the multitude is apparently in entire ignorance of the designs of ‘the Jews.’ That the people should have thought possession by a demon the only possible explanation of the presence of such a thought in the mind of Jesus places in boldest relief the guilt of ‘the Jews.’ To bring this out is probably the explanation of the insertion of a remark for which it is otherwise difficult to account. John 7:21. Jesus answered and said unto them, did one work, and ye all marvel. This answer seems to have been addressed to the multitude, or rather to the whole body of those present including ‘the Jews,’ not to ‘the Jews’ alone (as is supposed by some who make John 7:20 a parenthesis): hence the calmness of the tone. ‘One work,’ viz. that recorded in chap. John 5:1-8,—the miracle, with all its attendant circumstances. Many other miracles had Jesus wrought in Jerusalem (chap. John 2:25), but this one had caused all the amazement and repulsion of feeling of which He is here speaking. John 7:22. For this cause hath Moses given you the circumcision (not that it is of Moses but of the fathers), and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. The very law was intended to teach them the fundamental principle upon which Jesus rested His defence, to look beyond the letter to the spirit, and to see that sometimes an ordinance is most honoured when its letter is broken. ‘For this cause ‘—to teach this lesson—Moses, who gave the Ten Commandments (John 7:19), one of which enjoined the sabbath rest, took up into the law which he gave (see John 7:23, ‘the law of Moses’) the far earlier ordinance of circumcision, laying down or rather repeating the strict rule that the rite must be performed on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:3). When this eighth day fell on the sabbath, the Jews, however inconsistent the rite might seem with the rigid sabbath rest, yet, with a true instinct, never hesitated to circumcise a child. They felt that to receive the sign of God’s covenant, the token of consecration and of the removal of uncleanness (and—may we add?—the token of the promise which was before and above the law, Galatians 3:17), could never be really inconsistent with any command of God. In acting as they did, therefore, they proved that in this matter the lesson which the lawgiver designed to teach had been truly learned by them; yet it was a lesson essentially the same as that which the healing by Jesus on the sabbath day had taught. This passage is of great interest as showing that in many respects the law, even whilst seeming to deal in positive precepts only, was intended to become, and in some measure actually was, a discipline, preparing for the ‘dispensation of the Spirit.’ John 7:23. If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken, are ye angry with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Their reverence for the law and their determination that it should not be broken led them to break the letter of the Fourth Commandment, or rather to do that which they would otherwise have thought inconsistent with its precept. How then can they be indignant at Jesus for the deed which He had done on the sabbath? He had performed a far more healing work than circumcision. He had given not merely a token of the removal of uncleanness, but complete freedom from the blight and woe which sin had brought (see chap. John 5:14) on the ‘whole man.’ It may be thought that in this last expression our Lord refers only to the cure of a disease by which the entire body had been prostrated; but the verse just quoted (chap. John 5:14), and the recollection of the figurative and spiritual application of the rite of circumcision with which the prophets had made the Jews familiar, warn us against limiting the miracle at the pool of Bethesda to the restoration of physical health. John 7:24. Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Righteously had they judged in regard to themselves. So let them judge His work, and they will see that, where they had suspected only the presence of iniquity, there was the highest righteousness. John 7:25. Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he whom they seek to kill? The speakers are a different class from those hitherto introduced,—‘they of Jerusalem:’ these seem to have more knowledge of the designs of ‘the Jews’ than was possessed by ‘the multitude’ (John 7:20). John 7:26. And, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Can it be that the rulers know that this is the Christ? No opinion as to these designs is expressed; there is neither sympathy nor blame; there is only bewilderment, occasioned by the inconsistency between the supposed wishes of the rulers and the boldness and freedom with which Jesus is allowed to speak. Can it be that there is some secret reason for this,—that the rulers have really made a discovery, which they will not allow—, that this is the Christ? The question is no sooner asked than it is answered by themselves:— John 7:27. Howbeit we know this man whence he is; but when the Christ cometh, no one perceiveth whence he is. In John 7:42 we read of the expectation that the Christ would come from Bethlehem (see also Matthew 2:5). But there is no inconsistency between this verse and that, for it seems to have been the belief of the Jews that the Redeemer would indeed first appear in Bethlehem; but would then be snatched away and hidden, and finally would afterwards suddenly manifest Himself,—from what place and at what time no one could tell. So Jesus warns His disciples that the cry will be heard, ‘Lo, here is the Christ; or, Lo, he is there’ (Mark 13:21). John 7:28-29. Jesus therefore cried in the temple-courts teaching and saying. Knowing that such words were in the mouths of the people of Jerusalem, Jesus cried aloud in the hearing of all. The word ‘teaching’ may seem unnecessary: it appears to be added in order to link what is here said to the teaching of Joh 7:14; John 7:16 : what He says is no chance utterance, but forms part of the teaching designed for this festival.Ye Doth know me, and ye know whence I am. Jesus allows that they had a certain knowledge of Him, but He does this for the purpose of showing immediately thereafter that it was altogether inadequate and at fault. It was indeed important in one respect, for it involved the acknowledgment of His true humanity; but, denying all else, refusing to recognise Him in His higher aspect, scouting His claims to be the Sent of God, the expression of the eternal Father, it was really no more than an outward and carnal knowledge of Him. There seems to be a distinction between ‘whence I am ‘and’ whence I come’ (John 8:14). The latter includes more directly the idea of the Divine mission of Jesus.And I have not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me. Words containing that true knowledge of Jesus which these men ‘of Jerusalem’ had not. It consists in recognising in Him the ‘Sent’ of Him who is ‘true,’ not merely veracious or faithful, but real, who is the ground and essence of all reality, the only living and true God. In this respect those to whom Jesus was now speaking did not know Him; they beheld the outward man; they did not behold the manifestation of the eternal God. This ignorance, too, arose from the fact that they did not know God Himself. They thought that they knew Him; but they did not, for they had not penetrated to the right conception of His spiritual, righteous nature,—a nature corresponding only to eternal realities, to what is ‘true.’ Not knowing God, how could they know Jesus who ‘manifested’ the true God, who was ‘from’ the true God, and whom the true God ‘sent’? Had they known the One they would have recognised the Other (chap. John 5:37, John 8:19). The words of Joh 7:28-29 are thus words of sharp reproof. John 7:30. They sought therefore to seize him. Jesus had not mentioned the name of God, but those with whom He spoke (familiar with modes of speech in which the Divine Name was left unspoken and replaced by a pronoun, as here, or by some attribute) did not miss His meaning. He had denied to them the knowledge of God, and at the same time had claimed for Himself the closest fellowship with Him, to be indeed the very expression of what He was.And no man laid his hand on him, because his hour was not yet come. Their zeal and enmity were at once aroused; the ‘men of Jerusalem’ followed in the steps of ‘the Jews’ (John 7:1). Yet they could not touch Him, for it was not yet God’s time. John 7:31. But of the multitude many believed in him, and said, When the Christ cometh, will he do more signs than these which this man hath done? The last verse showed how the hostility to Jesus was growing; this verse presents the brighter side. The division of the people goes on continually increasing: they who are of the light are attracted towards Jesus, they who are of darkness are repelled. The faith of these believers is real (‘they believed in Him’), though not so firm and sure as that which rests less on ‘signs’ than on His own word. John 7:32. The Pharisees heard the multitude murmuring these things concerning him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to seize him. To the various parties already mentioned in this chapter, the Jews (John 7:11; John 7:13; John 7:15), the multitudes (John 7:12), or the multitude (John 7:20; John 7:31), and them of Jerusalem (John 7:25), are here added the Pharisees and also the chief priests, now mentioned for the first time in this Gospel. In three earlier passages (chap. John 1:24; John 3:1, John 4:1) John has spoken of the Pharisees, and in the last of these only (chap. John 4:1) has there been any intimation of either secret or open hostility on the part of this sect toward our Lord. It is otherwise with the other Gospels. In the course of that Galilean ministry which is not distinctly recorded by John the Pharisees occupy a very distinct position as foes of Jesus. To the period between John’s last mention of the Pharisees and the present verse belong His controversies with them respecting fasting, His association with sinners (Matthew 9; Mark 2; Luke 5—compare Luke 7:49), the sabbath (Matthew 12; Mark 2; Luke 6), the tradition of the elders (Matthew 15; Mark 7), and the forgiveness of sins (Luke 5; Matthew 9; Mark 2—compare Luke 7:39). The Pharisees have attempted to persuade the multitude that He wrought His miracles through the prince of the devils (Matthew 9; Matthew 12; Mark 3). He has refused their request that they might see a sign from heaven (Matthew 16; Mark 8), and has warned the disciples against their teaching (Matt.; Mark 8) and their ‘righteousness’ (Matthew 5:20). In Matthew 12:14 we read that the Pharisees (Mark 3:6, the Pharisees and the Herodians) held a consultation how they might destroy Him. Up to this point, however, in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel it would seem most probable that, as a body, they had not assumed a position of distinct hostility to our Lord. It was not in Galilee, of which the earlier Gospels speak, but in Jerusalem, where were their chief members and influence, that an organized opposition could best be formed by them; and in many passages at all events we gather that those of their number who assailed Jesus were no more than emissaries sent down from the capital by the rulers. Things now take a different turn in John’s Gospel. The Pharisees come more prominently forward, act more as a party than as individuals, and begin to constitute a distinctly hostile power to Jesus. The events which had passed in Galilee, though not noted by John, may explain the change.—The chief priests are, as has been said, first mentioned here by John. In the other Gospels also they are scarcely referred to up to this period of the history, for Matthew 16:21 (Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22) is a prophecy, and the only remaining passage in the first three Gospels is Matthew 2:4, where it is said that Herod convened ‘all the high priests and scribes of the people.’ It has been supposed that this expression denotes the Sanhedrin, but the great court of the nation did not include ‘all the scribes.’ With much more certainty may the words of Mat 16:21, ‘the elders and the high priests and the scribes,’ be taken as an enumeration of the three elements of the supreme council. What is the exact meaning of chief priests or high priests, thus spoken of in the plural, it is perhaps impossible to say. The usual view is that the chiefs of the twenty-four classes of priests are intended; but there seems little or no evidence in support of this explanation. The only point on which we can speak with certainty is that the expression must include all living who had been high priests. In those unsettled times the tenure of office was occasionally very short, and always precarious. Annas the father-in-law of Caiaphas (chap. John 18:13) was deposed by the Roman Procurator about fourteen years before the time of which we now speak: within three or four years of his deposition as many as four were appointed to the high-priesthood, the last of whom, Caiaphas, retained office until A. D. 36. At this time, therefore, besides the actual high priest, three or four may have been living who had once borne this name, and their former dignity would give them weight in a council which consisted of Jews alone. Whether prominent members of families to which present or former high priests belonged (compare Acts 4:6) were also included under this name, or whether it denoted other priests who stood high in influence as members of the Sanhedrin, is very doubtful.—The multitude talked among themselves in the temple of the grounds of the faith in Jesus which was growing in their hearts. Their talk is secret (‘murmuring’), but not so secret that the Pharisees did not overhear their words. Convinced that the teaching which so powerfully impresses the people must be heard no longer, they seek therefore the aid of the chief priests, whose attendants are immediately dispatched with orders to seize Jesus. John 7:33. Jesus therefore said, Yet a little while am I with you, and I go unto him that sent me. In the action now taken by His foes Jesus sees a token of the rapidity with which His hour is approaching. These words, which (John 7:35) were spoken in the presence of ‘the Jews,’ declare His perfect knowledge of their designs. But they are also words of judgment, taking from His enemies their last hope. John 7:34. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me. The frequent occurrence of the ‘seeking’ in this chapter suggests as the first meaning of these words, Ye will seek to lay hands on me, but shall not find me. That was the only ‘seeking’ of which the Jews wished to think. Rut the eye of Jesus rested on the calamities from which at a future time they would seek to be delivered by the Christ, but would seek in vain. His enemies have refused to recognise in His words the teaching of ‘Him that sent’ Him (John 7:16): when He has returned to His Father their eyes will be opened to their madness and folly.And where I am, ye cannot come. Where I am, He says, not ‘where shall be: ‘here, as elsewhere, the simple expression of continuous existence is most befitting for Him who is one with the Father. Into that Fellowship, that Presence, no enemies of the Son shall come. John 7:35. The Jews therefore said among themselves, Whither is this man about to go, that we not find him? Our Lord’s words were mysterious, but yet were so closely linked with His earlier teaching, as related in this very chapter, that their general meaning would be clear to every patient listener. John 7:16-17 were alone sufficient to show that ‘to Him that sent me’ could only mean ‘to God.’ But this impression ‘the Jews’ must at all hazards avert: chap. John 8:22 shows how eagerly they sought to blunt the edge of such words as Jesus has now spoken. There they suggest that only by seeking death can He escape their search: here that it is on exile amongst Gentiles that He has now resolved. His teaching has seemed to them a complete reversal of Jewish modes of thought. No learning of the schools prepared Him for His self-chosen office (John 7:15): He accuses all Israel of having broken the law of Moses (John 7:19): He sets at naught the most rigid rules of Sabbath observance: all things show that He has no sympathy with, no tolerance for, the most firmly established laws and usages of the Jewish people. And now He is going, not to return. Where? Is he about to go to the Dispersion of the Greeks, and teach the Greeks? Can it be that He has cast off Jews altogether and is going to Gentiles? This is said in bitter scorn, but it may have been suggested by words of Jesus not expressly recorded. In answering His brethren just before the feast (John 7:7) He had spoken of ‘the world; ‘before the end of the same feast (John 8:12) He says, ‘I am the light of the world.’ Even if we were not to accept the Jewish tradition which records that in the offering of the seventy bullocks at the feast of Tabernacles there was distinct reference to the (‘seventy’) nations of the Gentile world—a tradition deeply interesting and probably true—we can have no difficulty in supposing that in His teaching during the festival Jesus had repeatedly used words regarding ‘the world’ which enemies might readily pervert. His interest, they say in effect, is not with Jews but with the ‘world:’ is he leaving us?—then surely He is going to the world, to the heathen whom He loves.—The great difficulty of this verse is the use of such a phrase as ‘the Dispersion of the Greeks.’ An explanation is furnished by the thought already suggested,—that the Jews, with irony and scorn, would show forth Jesus as reversing all their cherished instincts, beliefs, and usages. If a true Israelite must depart from the Holy Land, he resorts to the Dispersion of his brethren. Not so with this man: He too is departing from us, but it is a Dispersion of Gentiles, not of Israelites, that He will seek,—it is Gentiles whom He will teach. As in the case of Caiaphas (chap. John 11:50-51), so here: words spoken in hate and scorn are an unconscious prophecy. He will teach and gather together the children of God that are scattered abroad,—this is the very purpose of His coming. The book which is the companion to this Gospel, the Apocalypse, contains many examples of this new and (so to speak) converse application of familiar words. Thus in Revelation 1:7, we find mankind designated as ‘tribes of the earth.’ It is right to say that the explanation of ‘Dispersion of the Greeks’ which we have given is not that generally received. The common view is that the Jews represent Jesus as going to ‘the Dispersion amongst the Gentiles,’ and, from this as a point of departure (like the apostles of Jesus afterwards), becoming a teacher of the Gentiles. We can only briefly give our reasons for dissenting from this view. (1) The meaning can hardly be obtained without straining the original words. (2) As probably many of ‘the multitude’ themselves belonged to ‘the Dispersion,’ the added words ‘of the Greeks’ would be useless if intended as explanatory, insulting if used for depreciation. (3) The first clause becomes almost superfluous: why should they not say at once, Is He about to go amongst the Greeks? (4) The introduction of a ‘point of departure’ or connecting link is most unsuitable to the present state of feeling of our Lord’s enemies, ‘the Jews.’ John 7:36. What is this word which he spake, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, ye cannot come? This verse contains little more than a repetition of the Saviour’s former statement, but is useful in reminding us that the Jews, whose bitter words we have just been considering, were themselves perplexed by what they heard. We must not suppose that they pondered and then rejected the teaching of Jesus: their enmity rendered impossible that patient thought which would have found the key to His mysterious language; they understood enough to have been attracted, had they only been willing listeners, by the light and the life of His words. Their ignorance resulted from the absence of the will to learn and do God’s will (John 7:17). John 7:37. And in the last day, the great day, of the feast. The feast of Tabernacles properly so called continued seven days. During (a part of) each day all the men of Israel dwelt in booths made with boughs of palm, willow, pine, and other trees. Day by day burnt-offerings and other sacrifices were presented in unusual profusion. Every morning, whilst the Israelites assembled in the temple-courts, one of the priests brought water drawn in golden urn from the pool of Siloam, and amidst the sounding of trumpets and other demonstrations of joy poured the water upon the altar. This rite is not mentioned in the Old Testament; but, as a commemoration of the miraculous supply of water in the wilderness, it was altogether in harmony with the general spirit of the festival. The chanting of the great Hallel (Psalms 113-118) celebrated the past; but (as we learn from the Talmud) the Jews also connected with the ceremony the words of Isaiah (John 12:3), ‘Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation,’ and saw in it a type of the effusion of the Holy Spirit. On the evening of the first and (probably) of each following day the ‘rejoicing of the drawing of the water’ was celebrated in the court of the women, with dancing, singing, and music; and lamps raised on four immense candelabra placed in the middle of the same court illumined both the temple and the city. On the seventh day the ordinary ceremonies of the feast came to an end. There was added, however, an eighth day (Numbers 29:35), a day of holy convocation on which no work might be done. This day did not strictly belong to the feast, but was ‘a feast by itself,’ perhaps as closing (not only the feast of Tabernacles, but also) the whole series of festivals for the year: naturally, however, it became attached to the feast of Tabernacles in ordinary speech. Whether the ‘great day’ so emphatically mentioned here was this eighth day or the seventh day of the feast is a point which has been much discussed, and on which we cannot arrive at certainty. On the whole it is most probable that the eighth day is referred to, the day of holy rest in which the feasts seemed to reach their culmination, and which retained the sacred associations of the festival just past, though the marks of special rejoicing had come to an end. This last day He to whom all the festivals of Israel pointed chose for the proclamation which showed the joy and hope of the feast of Tabernacles fulfilled in Himself.Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any one thirst, let him come unto me and drink. The words ‘stood and cried’ bring into relief the solemn earnestness of this declaration, which completed and perfected the teaching of Jesus at this feast. The occasion was given (if we are right in regarding the eighth as ‘the great day’), not by the ceremony observed, but by the blank left through the cessation of the familiar custom. The water had been poured upon the altar for seven days, reminding of past miracles of God’s mercy and promises of yet richer grace: hopes had been raised, but not yet satisfied. When the ceremonies had reached their close, Jesus ‘stood and cried’ to the multitudes that what they had hitherto looked for in vain they shall receive in Him. As in the synagogue of Nazareth He read from the book of Isaiah, and declared that the Scripture was that day fulfilled in their ears, so here He takes up familiar words of the same prophet (Isaiah 4:1), calling every one that thirsteth to come unto Him. John 7:38. He that believeth in me, as the scripture said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. The words of Joh 7:37 remind us of the people who drank of the spiritual rock that followed them (1 Corinthians 10:4), the miracle commemorated in the pouring of the water from Siloam; the last words (‘shall flow rivers’) resemble more the promise of Isa 12:3, amplified in all its parts. There is nothing incongruous in this union of promises: Isaiah 44:3 includes both, ‘I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground.’ This is not the first time that we have found ‘coming to Jesus’ and ‘believing in Him’ thus brought together; see the note on chap. John 6:35. Out of the heart of him that thus cometh, thus believeth in Jesus, shall flow rivers of living water. Not only shall he receive what his thirst demands and be satisfied, but he himself shall become the source of a stream—nay rivers—of living waters. The water shall bring life to him: the water flowing out of his heart shall bring life wherever it comes. All this is the gift of Jesus, who is set forth as the One Source of the water of Life. But what is meant by ‘as the Scripture said’? Many passages of the Old Testament contain similar imagery, and some of these have been already quoted; but one only appears really to accord with the figure of this verse, viz. the vision of Ezekiel 47. The prophet saw a stream of living water issuing from the temple, and expanding into a river whose waters brought life wherever they flowed. The temple prefigured Christ (chap. John 2:21); the water of life is the gift of the Holy Ghost, pre-eminently Christ’s gift (chap. John 4:14). The Lord Himself received into the believer’s heart brings the gift of the living water; and from Him, thus abiding in the heart, flows the river of the water of life. John 7:39. And this spake he concerning the Spirit, which they that believed in him were to receive: for the spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. To this authoritative explanation of the ‘living water’ we have more than once referred (see chap. John 4:10; John 4:14). The word is a promise still, speaking of a future not a present gift (‘were to receive’). The verse before us is one which it is impossible to express in English without a paraphrase. In the first clause we find ‘the Spirit,’ but in the second the article is absent, and the words literally mean ‘for spirit was not yet,’—the word ‘spirit’ meaning, not the Holy Spirit as a Person, but a bestowal or reception of His influence and power. Only when Jesus was glorified,—that is, only when He had died, had risen, had ascended on high, had been invested with the glory which was His own at the right hand of the Father, would man receive that spiritual power which is the condition of all spiritual life. When Jesus Himself, the God-man, is perfected, then and not till then does He receive power to bestow the Holy Spirit on mankind. This mysterious subject mainly belongs, however, to later chapters of this Gospel (see especially chap. John 16:7).Here our Lord’s revelation of Himself as the fulfilment of the Old Testament culminates. The feast of Tabernacles was the last great feast of the year. It was also the feast which raised sacred rejoicing to its highest point; which shadowed forth the full bestowal of Messianic blessings (comp. Zechariah 14:16); and which spoke most of the Holy Spirit, the supreme gift of Jesus to His people. With its fulfilment all the brightest anticipations of ancient prophecy are realised. The effect of this revelation of Jesus by Himself is now traced. John 7:40. Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, Of a truth this is the prophet. On ‘the prophet,’ and the distinction between this appellation and ‘the Christ,’ see the note on chap. John 1:21. John 7:41-42. Others said, This is the Christ Some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said. That the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? See Matthew 2:6. This explanation of the prophecy of Micah (chap. John 5:2) is found in the Targum, and seems to have been commonly received by the Jews. John 7:43-44. There arose therefore a division among the multitude because of him. And some of them would have seized him; but no man laid hands on him. Compare John 7:30. Here, as there, the result of the division of opinion is a more eager attempt to apprehend Him about whom the dispute has arisen. The last words of Joh 7:30 may be again supplied in thought: ‘his hour was not yet come.’ John 7:45. The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The sending of the officers is mentioned in John 7:32. From John 7:37 we may gather that they had been lingering near Him for a day or more: His last words seem to have deprived them of all power to lay hands on Him. There is a minute difference between the senders as described in John 7:32 (‘the chief priests and the Pharisees’) and here, where the second article is dropped. The slight change serves to emphasize the union of the two elements (so to speak) into one for the purpose in hand, but is not sufficient to suggest that here reference is made to the Sanhedrin as a body. It does not appear that there is formal action of the Sanhedrin earlier than the record in chap. John 11:47. John 7:46. The officers answered, Never did a man so speak. A new testimony to Jesus, borne by men who, awed by the majesty of His words, instead of attempting a deed of violence, declare to their very masters that He is more than man. John 7:50-51. Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before, being one of them), Doth our law Judge a man, except it have first heard from himself and learned what he doeth? Twice already in this section have we read of the restraint placed on the enemies of Jesus. Those amongst the multitude who were ill affected towards Him were kept back from doing Him harm (John 7:44); the officers likewise were restrained (John 7:46); now the Sanhedrists themselves are to be foiled, and this through one of themselves. Nicodemus has so far overcome his fear that he defends Jesus against the glaring injustice of his fellow-rulers, undeterred by the expression of their scorn just uttered. He appeals to the law, all knowledge of which they have proudly arrogated to themselves, and shows that of this very law they are themselves transgressors. John 7:52. They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. No answer to the argument was possible: they can but turn on Nicodemus himself. They assume that no one but a Galilean can take the side of Jesus. The last words are difficult, because at least one of the ancient prophets (Jonah) was of Galilee. But the words do not seem to be intended to include all the past, so much as to express what Jews held to be, and to have long been, a stated rule of Divine Providence: in their scorn of Galilee, and their arrogant assumption of complete knowledge of ‘the law,’ they regard it as impossible that out of that land any prophet should arise; least of all can it be the birthplace of the Messiah. The almost unanimous voice of modem criticism pronounces the narrative before us to be no genuine part of the Gospel of John. The section is wanting in the oldest and most trustworthy MSS. of the Gospel, and in several of the most ancient versions. It is passed by without notice in the commentaries of some of the earliest and most critical fathers of the Church. It is marked by an unusually large number of various readings,—a circumstance always highly suspicious. It is full of expressions not found elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, some of the chief of which will be noticed in the comment. It interrupts the flow of the section where it occurs,—John 8:12 connecting itself directly with that part of chap. 7 which closes with John 7:52. Finally, MSS. which contain the section introduce it at various places,—some at the close of the Gospel; others after chap. John 7:36; while in a third class it has no place in John at all, but is read in the Gospel of Luke, at the close of chap. 21. These considerations are decisive; and the narrative must be set aside as no part of the work in which it occurs. How the section found its way into the place which it now occupies it is impossible to say. Various conjectures, more or less plausible, have been offered on the point, but all of them are destitute of proof. It does not follow, however, that the incident itself is not true. We know that an incident, very similar to this, probably indeed the same, was related in the early Apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews; and this circumstance lends probability to the belief that the events actually happened. But the great argument in favour of the truth of the story is afforded by the character of the narrative itself. It bears the almost unmistakeable impress of a wisdom which could not have originated with the men of our Lord’s time, and which (as is shown by the objections often made to it) the world even in our own time hardly comprehends. It may be noted in addition that the incident bears in its spirit a striking similarity to that recorded in Mark 12:13-17 (Matthew 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26). Bishop Lightfoot adduces strong evidence to show that the story was one of the illustrative anecdotes of Papias (Contemp. Review, vol. xxvi. p. 847). If so, it must have been in circulation from the very earliest times. John 8:1. But Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. No mention is made of the Mount of Olives in any other passage of the Fourth Gospel, but it is more than once spoken of in the Gospel of Luke as a place to which Jesus was wont to retire at the close of His daily labours in Jerusalem during the Passion week. He could thus pass from the hurry and confusion of a large city to the solitude of a hillside or of its retiring hollows, where the sense of peace is deepened by the thought of the busy life which is so near at hand. It is probable that our Lord intended to spend the whole night upon the Mount; and it may be that He would spend it as He did before making choice of His twelve apostles, ‘in prayer to God’ (Luke 6:12). John 8:2. And at dawn he came again into the temple courts, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down and taught them. With the return of day Jesus resumed His teaching of the people; and they, on their part, seem to have been powerfully attracted by His words. According to the custom of the time, He sat with His hearers gathered round Him. The custom may be observed in Turkish mosques at the present day. The sitting of Jesus while teaching is not mentioned elsewhere in this Gospel. (Comp. for it, Matthew 5:1; Mark 9:35) John 8:3. And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken. In adultery; and making her stand. In the midst. . . . For the ‘Pharisees,’ comp. on chap. John 1:24 : for the ‘scribes,’ on Matthew 7:29. John nowhere else mentions the scribes: they are frequently conjoined with the Pharisees in the earlier Gospels (Matthew 5:20; Mark 7:5; Luke 6:7, etc.). The scene described in the words before us must have been in a high degree impressive and exciting. The people are still gathered around Jesus and listening intently to His words, when suddenly His discourse is interrupted by the religious authorities of the land, who force their way through the crowd dragging the unhappy culprit along with them,—their faces bearing all the marks of eager passion to entrap the object of their hatred; their hands (as will appear more clearly from John 8:7) already grasping the stones by which they would at Least indicate their conviction of the woman’s guilt; their words, even before they reach the Saviour, sending a thrill of horror through the multitude,—‘she has been taken in the very act’ Without the slightest feeling of compunction. they compel the woman to stand in the midst of the throng, and then they address themselves to Jesus. John 8:4. They say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken committing adultery, in the very act. Not only was the sin grievous: the point is that there was no possibility of denying it. No process of proof was necessary: there was no need to summon witnesses. We may even well believe that the very countenance of the woman would betray her own consciousness of her shame. John 8:5. Now in the law Moses commanded to stone such: what therefore sayest thou concerning her? The words ‘concerning her,’—which do not occur in the Authorised Version, but which the best authorities lead us to accept,—throw light upon the scene. It is not a mere abstract contrast between Moses and a new Lawgiver that is before us: it is a special case. By the way in which Jesus deals with this woman shall the end of His enemies be gained. The law of Moses expressly decreed death by stoning only to a betrothed virgin who proved faithless, and to her seducer (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). It has been inferred, therefore, that this woman was only betrothed, not married. The supposition is unnecessary. It is enough to remember that adultery (in the ordinary sense of the word) was punishable with death; and that, in a case of violation of the Sabbath, the Divine command to punish the transgressor with death was interpreted to mean putting him to death by stoning (Numbers 15:35). We need thus have no hesitation in believing that the same mode of punishment would be applied to all sins similar in character to that which alone has the penalty of stoning expressly attached to it.It is hardly possible to pass by without notice the singular italicised clause of the present Authorised Version at the end of Joh 8:6, ‘as though he heard them not.’ The clause is intended for a translation of certain words of the Complutensian text which Stephens adopted in his editions of A.D. 1546 and 1549, but not in that of 1550, which became the Textus Receptus. The words are not found in any early English Version, neither in Wycliffe nor Tyndale, nor Coverdale, nor the Great Bible, nor the two Gene van Versions. They are also absent from the Rheims Version of A.D. 1582. They first occur in the Bishops’ Bible. In the Version of A.D. 1611 they are not printed in italics. Dr. Scrivener says that they were not italicised earlier than A.D. 1769. John 8:6. But this they said tempting him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. In what, it may be asked, did the ‘tempting’ lie? The common answer is that, if Jesus pronounced for the sparing of the woman, His enemies would raise an outcry against Him as contradicting Moses; that if, on the contrary, He pronounced her worthy of death, they would accuse Him to the Roman Government as usurping powers which belonged to it alone. The explanation thus given is no doubt to a large extent correct. But the supposition is also possible that these scribes and Pharisees were not thinking of a calm judicial sentence which, if it suited their purpose, they might report to the Romans. They may have thought of a sentence to be executed at the moment. There before them was the guilty one; the crowd was round about her,—was even pressing upon her in all the excitement which the circumstances could not fail to awaken. Will Jesus reply to their question, No? They will instantly rouse the multitude against Him as contradicting Moses. Will He reply. Yes? They will stone the woman on the spot. Then the Roman Government will itself interpose, and Jesus will be seized as the instigator of the deed of blood. But Jesus stooped down, and with his linger wrote on the ground. Jesus will not heed them at the first: it will lend more weight to His reply if it be not too quickly given. We are not to imagine that what He wrote was a sentence to be pronounced. He was not thus to assume the office of a judge. What He wrote was probably some text or precept of Divine truth which, had He not been interrupted, He would have proceeded to explain to the people. Such writing on the ground is still to be met with on the part of teachers in the East John 8:7. But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast the stone upon her. The scribes and Pharisees press for an answer. Then Jesus lifted Himself up (as we may well believe) with slow and solemn dignity, and spoke the words recorded of Him with a glance which must have showed His hearers that He read their hearts. They had no official right to condemn the woman; and our Lord’s words embodied the truth, which finds always, as it found now, an answer in the heart of man, that we have no personal right to judge the guilty unless we ourselves are free from blame. There seems no reason to confine the thought of ‘sin’ here to the particular sin with which the woman was chargeable; the expression is quite general. It is from the mention of ‘the stone’ that we may draw the conclusion that the woman’s accusers had stones in their hands. John 8:8. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. Jesus returned to His writing on the ground, and left His words to sink into the hearts of His hearers. John 8:9. But they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning at the elder. It was a correct comment on their state when the words ‘being convicted by their own conscience’ found their way into the text. They felt how entirely they had misapprehended the relation in which sinners ought to stand to sinners. They were brought to a conception of morality of which they had never dreamed. Then learned that they could only vindicate that law upon which they prided themselves by purity of heart. They who came to condemn Jesus went away self-condemned, because He had opened their eyes to that spirit of the law which is so much greater than the letter.And Jesus was left alone, and the woman who was in the midst. Nothing has been said of the departure of ‘the people’ (John 8:2). We may therefore suppose that they were still around Jesus and the woman; but they are silent and awe-struck. To all intents Jesus is alone with the woman. He reads her heart, as if His thoughts were concentrated upon her; and she can see none but Him. John 8:10. And Jesus lifted up himself and said unto her. Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee? The word ‘condemn,’ for which it is not possible to substitute another, conveys most imperfectly the sense of the original Greek. The meaning is rather, ‘Doth no man doom thee to the sentence of which they spoke?’ John 8:11. And she said. No man, Lord. Her answer is a simple statement of the fact. Perhaps the word ‘Lord’ may indicate the deep impression of the greatness of Jesus that had been made upon her mind. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from this time sin no more. The word ‘I’ is peculiarly emphatic. The language, it will be observed, is not a sentence of acquittal: it is rather an intimation to the woman that she has still space given her for repentance and faith. Let her use her opportunities, and profit by the tender compassion of Him who drew publicans and sinners to His side, then will still more gracious words be addressed to her. Instead of ‘Go thy way, from this time sin no more,’ she will receive the joyful assurance, ‘Daughter, thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace.’ We are told nothing of the effect produced upon the woman by the remarkable scene in which she had borne a part. But every reader must feel how worthy of Him who ‘came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them were the words of Jesus upon this occasion. The narrative has lived on through all ages of the Church as an illustration, not less striking than any other recorded in the Gospels, of that Divine wisdom with which Jesus knew how to combine what human wisdom has never been able to unite,—condemnation of sin, and free and unrestricted mercy to the sinner. The feast of Tabernacles is closed, and with it the great illumination of the temple-courts, of which the Jews were wont to boast in lofty terms. Starting from this, and from the fact that He is the true light of the world, Jesus reveals more clearly than He had yet done what He Himself is, and by contrast what His opponents are. Everything that He utters assumes its sharpest, most peremptory, most decisive tone. The rage of His adversaries is roused to its highest intensity. The darkness becomes thickest, while the light shines in the midst of it with its greatest brightness. Nothing more can be done to change the darkness into light; henceforward the children of light can only be withdrawn from it. At the close of the chapter Jesus goes out of the temple, leaving the darkness to itself but not overcome by it. The subordinate parts are—(1) John 8:12-20; (2) John 8:21-30; (3) John 8:31-59. John 8:13. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest witness concerning thyself; thy witness is not true. It seems impossible not to believe that we have here a reminiscence of Christ’s own words (chap. John 5:31), of which His enemies now take hold, that they may turn them against Himself. Since the discourse of chap. 5, the Pharisees of Jerusalem have never possessed so favourable an opportunity of thus seeking to repel the claims which Jesus asserts. As used by oar Lord (in chap. 5), the words signify that, if His testimony concerning Himself stood alone, not only would it (according to all laws of evidence) be invalid, but it would be untrue,—as the very thought of such unsupported witness would conflict with the fundamental truth of chap. John 5:19. Here the words, as applied by His foes, are intended to have the same meaning: His solitary testimony has no validity, and, by His own confession, is untrue. John 8:14. Jesus answered and said unto them, Even if I bear witness concerning myself, my witness is true: because I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye know not whence I come, or whither I go. A little later (John 8:17), Jesus gives an answer similar to the purport of His words in chap. 5. His Father beareth witness of Him, and His Father’s testimony is ever present. But here He rebukes their judgment of Him. In a sense (John 8:17), their requirement of other testimony is valid; but first He must reject their application to Him of a principle of judgment which is valid in regard to men like themselves. Amongst men of like nature—those who are but men—such judgment is true: when applied to Jesus it fails. Men who know but in part may be self-deceivers, even if they are true men; hence their word needs support. He who knows with unerring certainty that He comes from the Father and is going to the Father may bear witness of Himself, and His testimony is valid and true. He who thus comes from God cannot but speak with a self-evidencing power,—self-evidencing to all who are willing to see and hear. This willingness the Pharisees had not, and hence He adds, ‘Ye know not whence come, or whither I go.’ The change from ‘I came’ to ‘I come’ is remarkable, but is easily explained. The past fact (‘I came’) is not one which the Pharisees could know, except by inference: His present mission from the Father (‘I come’) should have been discerned by all who saw His works and heard His words; and every one who recognised that He cometh from the Father must understand His meaning when He says ‘I go’ to Him that sent me. On ‘I come’ comp. John 7:28. John 8:15. Ye judge after the flesh. They had judged Him by mere outward appearance, and according to their own merely human thoughts and wishes. Having formed for themselves without patient study of the Scriptures, and thus without the guidance of the Spirit of God, their conception of Messiah and of His kingdom, they rejected Jesus because He did not answer their expectation. But for this, the Divine witness in Him would have reached their hearts.I judge no one. They judged according to their own nature,—standing alone, without the guidance of the Father, not taking the Father along with them in judging, and thus not judging ‘righteous judgment’ (John 7:24). Jesus judgeth no man. The fifth chapter has prepared us for such words as these. Here, as there, they do not exclude all judgment, but all sole judgment (see John 8:16): it is not He that judgeth, but rather the Father who judgeth in Him. Chap. John 5:22 and this verse are not discordant: between the Father, the ultimate source of judgment, and those who are judged is the Son, to whom the Father hath given authority to do judgment, but who doeth nothing save in and with the Father. The ‘I’ is thus emphatic, equivalent to ‘I by myself’ or ‘I without the Father.’ John 8:16. But even if I judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. Because in no action is He alone, even if He judges His judgment is true; it is a real judgment, a judgment corresponding, not to outward appearance, but to the eternal reality of things, because according to the Father’s will. The assertion of this verse, that the Father is ever with Him, corresponds to the words, ‘I know whence I came,’ in John 8:14 : the link which binds together all these verses is His constant and perfect knowledge that the Father is with Him and in Him. In this lies the validity of His witness: in this is involved the condemnation of His foes. John 8:17. But in your own law also it is written that the witness of two men is true. In the very law which they magnified, on which they take their stand, as they accuse Him of breaking the law, and declare that all who follow him are ignorant of the law (chap. John 7:49, etc.), this principle is laid down (Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15). An emphasis is made to rest on ‘men’ to prepare for the next verse. The words ‘your own law’ have been understood as a proof that Jesus feels that He is not a Jew but without reason. The words flow from the fact that it is His purpose to show that the principle upon which He proceeded was founded in the law which they themselves so highly honoured, and the rules of which they were not entitled to neglect. They thus at once magnify the law and are an argumentum ad hominem. John 8:18. I am he that beareth witness concerning myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness concerning me. In all the Son’s witness concerning Himself, it is the Father that beareth witness concerning Him. This is the teaching of chap. 5, and it is easy to see that the witness may with equal truth be spoken of as that of Two, or as that borne by One (the Father). In thus speaking to His enemies of a twofold witness, He may mean either (1) that they should themselves have discerned in Him, over and above that which in a holy human prophet they would have accepted as ‘witness,’ a higher presence which could only be Divine; and that, had they done this, they could never have thought of His word as standing alone:—or (2) that in the witness which He had borne they had dreamed of unsupported words only because they could not attain to that perfect knowledge which He alone possessed. They heard and saw one witness only: to His consciousness there were two. The first of these two views is by much the more probable. Jesus appeals to two facts which they ought to have known, that He was the expression of the Father, and that what He was the Father was. These were two wholly separate and independent things, although the validity of each depended upon that consciousness of the Divine in them which they had silenced. There is thus here no petitio principii as has been thought even by distinguished commentators. John 8:19. They said therefore unto him, Where is thy Father? If He is to add His witness to Thine, let Him appear and bear His testimony. The words are those of men who will not seek to enter into the meaning of the Speaker. As they judge men ‘according to the flesh,’ they will go no farther than the literal import of the words. But after what they have heard and seen in Jesus, such action cannot consist with sincerity: it is not only to enemies but to hypocrites that He speaks. Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also. They professed not to know who is His Father. In truth they were without any real knowledge, not of the Father only, but of Jesus Himself. Had they, through receiving and believing His words, attained such knowledge of Him, they would have attained in Him the revelation of the Father also. John 8:20. These words spake he in the treasury, teaching in the temple-courts: and no man seized him, because his hour was not yet come. Again His adversaries were overawed: though He was teaching within the precincts of the temple, in the very place of their power, no one laid hands on Him. The Treasury was in the court of the women, the very place in which the rejoicings we have described (see chap. John 7:37) took place. This gives some confirmation to the view we have taken of Joh 8:12, as referring to the illumination in this court. John 8:21. He said therefore again unto them, I go, and ye shall seek me, and in your sin ye shall die: whither I go, ye cannot come. The conflict of Jesus with His opponents has now passed into a higher stage. It is no longer with the Pharisees merely (John 8:13), but with the Jews (John 8:22). The witness, too, which Jesus now bears regarding Himself has reference to the last things, both for Himself and for them. It is vain however to inquire when the discourse was thus continued: the bond is one rather of thought than of date. The main object of these words is judgment: hence Jesus does not linger on the thought of His own departure, but on that of the fate awaiting them. The time will come when they will seek Him, but in vain. He is not speaking of the seeking of faith or of repentance, but (as before in chap. John 7:34) of the awakening (too late) to need and danger,—an awakening not accompanied by the forsaking of sin, for He adds, ‘in your sin’ (i.e. your state of sin, comp. John 8:24) ‘ye shall die.’ John 8:22. The Jews therefore said, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go ye cannot come. Before (chap. John 7:35) their answer had been, Will He go to Gentiles? The change here shows how much farther the conflict has advanced. Will He go to the realms of the dead, they ask,—to that darkest and most dreadful region reserved for those who take their own life, a region where true Israelites cannot come? Their ignorance of themselves is as profound as their ignorance of Jesus. Jesus had made His meaning plain (chap. John 7:33), but they wilfully blind themselves. Hence only one answer is possible now. John 8:23-24. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins; for if ye shall not believe that I am, ye shall die in your sins. The second of these verses is important as fixing the meaning of the first. The words, ‘I said that ye shall die in your sins,’ are so connected both with what precedes (by means of ‘therefore’) and with what follows (by means of ‘for’), that the ground of this sentence of death is brought under our notice by each of these particles,—it is to be found in the unbelief of which the following clause speaks, and in the fact stated in the preceding verse. As then this ground of condemnation is distinctly moral (John 8:24), the expressions in John 8:23 must also have a moral and not a fatalistic meaning. The condemnation results from something in the men themselves, not from any original necessity; should they believe, no longer would Jesus say to them, Ye are from beneath. The origin of their spirit and action, dominated by unbelief, is to be sought, not above, but beneath,—not in heaven, but in earth: nay rather (for the thought distinctly expressed in John 8:44 is implicitly present here also), whereas He whom they are in thought consigning to the lowest depths of woe and punishment is of God, they are of the devil. It is at first sight difficult to believe that the sense does not sink but really rises in the second half of Joh 8:23, and yet the whole structure of this Gospel teaches us that it must be so. If, however, we remember the moral reference of the terms of the verse, an explanation soon suggests itself: for the latter clause expresses much more distinctly than the former the element of deliberate choice. The first might be thought to point to origin only, did not the second show that it implies an evil nature retained by evil choice. From this second clause we see clearly that Jesus speaks of a voluntary association,—of the dependence of their spirit on the evil principles belonging to ‘this world.’ Because such is their self-chosen state, Jesus has told them that their sins—the sins which manifest the nature of every one who is of this world—shall bring them ruin: for nothing but belief in Him who is from above can save them from dying in their sins. His words, it will be seen, grow more and more distinct in their awful import, and yet they are words of mercy: for the meaning is not, Except ye are now believers, the sentence is passed,—but, Except ye shall believe (most literally ‘shall have believed’): even now they may receive Him, and the sentence will have no existence for them.—But the most striking point in this verse is the mode in which our Lord expresses the object of belief,—‘Except ye shall believe that I am.’ Something apparently like this has occurred before in chap. John 4:26; but the two cases are really widely different. There the word ‘Messiah’ has just been spoken, and the answer. ‘It is I,’ is perfectly plain in its meaning. Here there is no such word in the context; and to assume an ellipsis, and then supply the very word on which all the emphasis must rest is surely a most dangerous step: to act thus is not to bring out the meaning of the passage, but to bring our own meaning into it. Besides, as we have already seen, our Lord is wont elsewhere to use the expression ‘I am’ in a very emphatic sense (see chap. John 7:34, etc.), with distinct reference to that continuous, unchanging existence which only He who is Divine can claim. The most remarkable example of these exalted words is found in the 58th verse of this chapter (comp. also John 8:28). Without forestalling this, however (but referring to the note on that verse for some points connected with the full explanation), we may safely say that it is of His Divine Being that Jesus here speaks. The thought of existence is clearly present in the verse. ‘Ye shall die,’ He says, ‘unless ye shall have been brought to see in me—not what the impious words of Joh 8:22 imply, but—One who is,—who, belonging to the realms above, possesses life—who, being of God, has life as His own and as His own gift.’ So understood, our Lord’s words speak of belief, not directly in His Messiahship, but in that other nature of His, that Divine nature, on His possession of which He makes all His other claims to rest. Observe in John 8:24 as compared with John 8:21 not only the mention of ‘sins’ instead of ‘sin’ (comp. on John 8:21), but also the change of place given to ‘ye shall die’ in John 8:21 what led to their fate, here their fate itself, being the prominent thought. John 8:25. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? Had they been patient, willing listeners, they would have seen His meaning; but now He seems to them to have left out the one essential word, in thus saying, ‘Except ye shall believe that I am.’ What is that word? ‘Who art thou?’ The tone of the preceding words makes it certain that the question is one of impatience and scorn, not of a spirit eager and ready to learn. This is a point of importance, as throwing light on our Lord’s reply. Jesus said unto them, How is it that I even speak to you at all? The true nature and meaning of this reply are points on which the greatest difference of opinion has existed and still exists. The question is one of translation, not interpretation merely; and a discussion on a matter or Greek philology would be out of place here. The first words of the sentence are ‘The beginning;’ and many have endeavoured to retain these words in translation, but in very different ways. Some have taken ‘The beginning’ as a name applied by our Lord to Himself; others understand the words adverbially, as meaning ‘in the beginning,’ ‘from the very first,’ ‘before all things.’ But none of these explanations can be obtained without doing violence to the Greek; and we are therefore bound to consider them all untenable. Even if they were possible renderings, they would present a serious difficulty to an attentive student of the words of Jesus, especially as contained in this Gospel. Our Lord is not wont directly to answer a question so presented. His whole treatment of ‘the Jews’ is based on the fact that He had given them abundant evidence regarding Himself and His work. They who will not see must rest in their blindness (chap. John 9:39). No sign from heaven shall be wrought at the bidding of those to whom no former signs have brought instruction (Matthew 16:1-2): certainly no direct answer will be vouchsafed to men who, having heard all that He has said before, have just shown themselves able awfully to pervert His simplest sayings. One line of translation only seems to be allowed by the Greek,—that which takes the words as a question (or exclamation), and gives to the first words (‘the beginning’) a meaning which in such sentences they often bear, viz. ‘at all’(as ‘Does he act at all?’ is equivalent to ‘Does he even make a beginning of action?’). This is the interpretation which tire early Greek writers Cyril of Alexandria and Chrysostom gave to the words; and we cannot but lay stress on the fact that such men, who habitually spoke Greek, seem not to have thought of any other meaning. Whether the sentence is an exclamation or a question, the general sense is the same, viz. Why am I even speaking to you at all? Much has He to say concerning them (John 8:26) and to judge; but why does He any longer speak to men who will not understand His word? The words remind us of Mat 17:17, ‘O faithless and perverse generation! How long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?’ And yet those words were said to slow-minded Galileans, not to the hostile ‘Jews.’ John 8:26. I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you. It is unavailing to speak to them, for they will not believe. Many things has He to speak concerning them, and (since every word regarding them in the condition they had chosen must be one of judgment) to judge also. Nevertheless he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these I speak unto the world. To all that He says they may turn a deaf ear; ‘Nevertheless,’ Jesus adds, ‘He that sent me is true, and the words which I have heard from Him, these and no others do I speak unto the world,—the world, to which you belong’ (John 8:23). The Jews may disbelieve; His judgment may seem severe; but the words are God’s words, and they are true.This seems the simplest view of this difficult verse; for the prominence which the second clause (‘Nevertheless . . . true’) gives to the thought of truth seems to imply that the contrast is with the preceding thought of unbelief (John 8:24-25). Three other explanations are worthy of consideration—(i) I have many things . . . but, many as they are, they are true. (2) I have many things . . . but I will not keep them back, for I faithfully declare the words which ... (3) I have many things .... but I will not say them now: the things which I have heard from Him that sent me must be first declared. The first of these seems to miss the sharp emphasis of the ‘Nevertheless;’ the second and third to miss (though in different degrees) the force of the middle clause, ‘Nevertheless He that sent me is true.’ John 8:27. They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father. This statement of the Evangelist is very remarkable; and, as it is so different from anything we might have expected, its importance as a guide and correction is the greater. In this section (beginning at John 8:21) He has not made mention of ‘the Father.’ In the section which precedes, however (John 8:12-20), the word occurs several times. First Jesus speaks of ‘the Father which sent me’(John 8:16; John 8:18): in their answer the Jews show how they had understood His words, by saying, ‘Where is thy Father?’ and in replying to their question Jesus also speaks, not of ‘the Father,’ but of ‘my Father.’ So far as these two sections are concerned, therefore, there is nothing to show that His hearers had understood Him to make distinct mention of ‘the Father,’ in the absolute sense,—a name which, probably, every Israelite would have received as belonging to God alone. (If we look back at earlier chapters, we shall find that the passages have been few in which ‘the Father’ is spoken of. The fifth chapter must be left out of consideration, for the whole discourse is dominated by the thought of personal Sonship. The same may be said of chap. John 3:35. There remain only the words addressed to the woman of Samaria, chap. John 4:21, and the discourses in Galilee related in chap. 6) Hence—though we might have over-looked the fact but for the Evangelist’s timely words—we cannot feel great surprise that these hearers had not yet perceived that Jesus was making mention of ‘the Father.’ The words, ‘I am from above,’ ‘He that sent me,’ must have suggested to those who heard that He claimed a Divine mission; but men familiar with the mission of a prophet might concede so much without understanding that the last words of Jesus (‘the things which I heard from Him I speak unto the world’) implied an infinitely higher and closer relation to Him whom they worshipped, whom Jesus revealed as ‘the Father.’ In this Name and in the words just spoken is contained the whole economy of grace. John 8:28. Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted on high the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am, and that of myself I do nothing; but even as the Father taught me, I speak these things. They know not the truth now: when through their own deed the Son of man has been raised on high, their eyes will be opened, they will see what they have done, and will then know that His words were true, that the claims which they resisted the Father Himself has ratified. The ‘lifting on high’ includes both the death and the glorification of Jesus, though the latter meaning only would be understood as yet (see the note on chap. John 3:14). Some prefer to place a stop at the word am, and to take the clauses that follow as independent. This view, however, seems much less natural than the other. The three parallel clauses—containing the thoughts of (1) pure existence (as to what is implied in this, see John 8:24), (2) continued dependence on the Father in all action (see chap. John 5:19-20), and (3), as a part of such action, speaking in constant harmony with the Father’s will and teaching (chap. John 5:30, John 8:26)—express the claims made by Jesus, the truth of which (of each and of all) will be established when He is ‘lifted up on high.’ John 8:29. And he that sent me is with me: he left me not alone, because I do always the things that are pleasing to him. The words, ‘I heard’ (John 8:26), ‘taught’ (John 8:28), point back to the past, laying stress on the Divine commission received: they must not be so understood as to exclude a present fellowship with the Father, ‘He that sent me is with me.’ When He sent the Son, He sent Him not away from Himself,—not for a moment did He leave Him alone. The abiding presence of the Father is the consequence and the sign of the Son’s habitual performance of the Father’s will. In all this Jesus is speaking as the Son of man, as the Sent of the Father. It is most interesting to compare the corresponding words of chap. 5, where the subject throughout is the Son of God. It will be seen how prominent are two thoughts in this chapter,—the association of Jesus with the Father who sent Him (John 8:16; John 8:18; John 8:23; John 8:26; John 8:28-29; John 8:38; John 8:40; John 8:42; John 8:47; John 8:54-55), and the strong moral contrast between Jesus and the Jews (John 8:15; John 8:21; John 8:23-24; John 8:37-38; John 8:40, etc.). The observance of this will make clearer the links connecting the several parts. John 8:30. As he spake these things, many believed in him. We are not told to what class these belonged. The latter part of the chapter shows how completely ‘the Jews’ had hardened themselves: probably therefore these believers mainly belonged to the general body of the hearers, and not (in any large proportion) to ‘the Jews.’ Once more then we have an illustration of that twofold effect of our Lord’s teaching which John so frequently portrays. John 8:31. Jesus said therefore to the Jews which had believed him. The word ‘therefore’ closely joins this section with the last. Are we then to regard the Jews of this verse as included in the ‘many’ of the last? Certainly not, because of the essential difference between the expressions used in the two verses,—‘believed in him’ and ‘believed him.’ The former denotes a true faith in Jesus, such an acceptance of Him as includes a surrender of the heart, the ‘self,’ to Him; the latter, an acceptance of His words as true. Those who ‘believed Him’ were in the way towards the higher faith, but yet might be very far from the attainment of that goal. The impression produced by the last words spoken by Jesus appears to have been very great, bringing many to the position of full discipleship, and even convincing some of the hostile Jews themselves that they had been opposing one whose words were true, and whose claims on their obedience were just and right. These men stand between the two companies,—the Jews with whom they had been associated, and the believers who had joined themselves to the Lord. Will they draw nearer to Him and ‘believe in him,’ or will they return to His enemies? The words which Jesus now speaks, to instruct and to encourage, prove to be the test of their faith. If ye shall abide in my word, ye are truly my disciples. They believed His word; if they abide in this word of His,—clinging to it, continuing under its influence, the word will be to them a revelation of Jesus, and will assert its power. Note the significance ever attached in this Gospel to the word of Jesus. As He, the Word, reveals the Father, and leads to the Father, so His own word reveals Himself, and draws men to Himself through (so teaches the fuller revelation) the power of the Spirit of Truth. John 8:32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. If they shall abide in the word of Jesus, it will be shown that they have begun a true discipleship, and the word in which they abide shall make known to them the truth. So far, there is nothing that these imperfect disciples will not gladly hear. But Jesus read in their hearts a false interpretation of His work and their own needs. He came as Saviour (chap. John 3:16; John 3:36, John 4:42, John 5:40), not as Teacher only: in this very chapter He has spoken of faith in Himself as delivering from death in sins (John 8:24). Here the figure is changed from that of future death to that of present and continued bondage: ‘the truth’ shall be the means of giving freedom. There is no difficulty in these words: such appropriation of the truth found in the words of Jesus is but another representation of faith in Him who is the Giver of freedom. John 8:33. They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and have never yet been slaves to any one: how sayest thou, Ye shall become free? The promise ‘shall make you free’ cannot but imply that now they have no freedom, but are slaves. This thought they indignantly repel, for they are Abraham’s seed! What is the true meaning of the next words is a question much disputed. It is hardly possible that they refer directly to national freedom, for the first words of the Decalogue speak of their deliverance from the house of bondage, and this history had often been repeated. Nor can we think that the Jews are simply appealing to the law which made it impossible for an Israelite to be kept in (continued) bondage. The former supposition involves too bold a falsehood; the latter, too prosaic and strained an interpretation in a context which contains no hint of civil rights. And yet there is truth in both. To be of Abraham’s seed and to be a slave were discordant ideas. To Abraham was given the promise that he should be ‘heir of the world’ (Romans 4:13): the Divine nobility of his descendants was only brought out more clearly by their frequent adverse fortune. Theirs was a religious pre-eminence above all nations of the world,—a freedom which no external circumstances could affect National independence was natural (though not always enjoyed), because of this Divinely-given honour: in the same gift of God lay the principle of the Israelite’s civil freedom. Least of all (they thought) could they, whose boast was that the truth was theirs, be held in a slavery from which the truth should free them. John 8:34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you. Every one that doeth sin is a slave of sin. Jesus directs them to a slavery of which they have not thought,—slavery to sin. Every one who is living a life of sin is a slave; each act of sin is no mere accident of his life, but a token of its nature, a mark of a bondage in which he is continually held. The word ‘doeth’ is not the same as that which is used in chap. John 3:20, John 5:29 in connection with evil: that had reference to the commission of particular acts, this to the general course of life, when sin is chosen,—‘Evil be thou my good.’ The thought is best illustrated by Romans 6 and (especially) Romans 7. John 8:35. And the slave abideth not in the house for ever: the son abideth for ever. The Jews believed that they were free, the sons of God; and that, as such, they were permanent possessors of His house, and thus permanent recipients of His favour and love, inheritors of eternal life. Not so. In all this they deceive themselves. They are not God’s sons, but slaves of sin. As such they have no more real hold of the house of God, with its present and eternal privileges, than a slave has of the privileges of the house in which he is a slave. A son only can claim a place in the house and the possession of what belongs to the house, as a right permanent, uninterrupted, as long as he is a son. In all this, no doubt, there lies a reference to their own his-tory. As the son of the bondwoman Hagar in the house of Abraham, so were they in the house of God: as Ishmael (though Abraham’s seed) was driven forth, having no place beside the son who was free, so must they who claimed to be Abraham’s seed be cast out, if they are slaves of sin. John 8:36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. It is manifestly a special freedom that is here thought of,—freedom gained by becoming sons, and thus gaining all that belongs to the position of a son, retaining for ever a connection with the Father’s house. One only can give this freedom, for One only can give this Sonship,—He who is the Son (see chap. John 1:12). ‘Free indeed,’ not in appearance only, as a favoured slave might seem for a time to hold the place of a son in the house: ‘free indeed,’ because receiving the freedom and sonship from One who ‘remains in the house for ever,’ and never loses the rights of the Son. John 8:33 speaks of the means (‘the truth’), this verse of the Giver of freedom (‘the Son’). The word here rendered ‘indeed’ is a very remarkable one: it is used nowhere else in the writings of John. Closely connected with the verb ‘I am’ of John 8:28, it is hardly possible to avoid the impression that it is designedly employed in order to bring out that closeness of relation between the sons of God and the Son which is so striking a part of the teaching of this chapter. John 8:37. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word maketh no way in you. Again our Lord takes up their assertion that they are Abraham’s seed. He has answered it by a parable: He speaks now in plainer words, repeating their familiar boast, that He may place in strongest contrast the spirit they had shown themselves to possess. ‘Ye seek to kill me,’ He says, uniting them with the whole body from which a little before they seemed to be severed; for too clearly did He see that the severance was but partial and altogether transient. His word had entered their hearts, and for a moment they had moved towards Him; but it made no way there, its progress was immediately stayed, and they were numbered again with ‘the Jews,’ His foes. Hence the increasing severity of what is immediately to follow. John 8:38. I speak the things which I have seen with the Father: do ye also therefore the things which ye heard from the Father. One last exhortation Jesus will offer before entirely giving up these ‘Jews who had believed Him.’ His word had entered their heart but had made no way: let them give it free course now. He, the Son, who alone can give them freedom and sonship by the truth revealed in His word (John 8:32; John 8:36), has in that word spoken to them the things which He saw with the Father (another mode of expressing the same truth as is declared in chap. John 3:13). With design He says ‘the Father,’ not ‘my Father;’ for the word has been spoken to them in order that God who is His Father may become their Father,—in other words, that the Son may give them sonship. For this very purpose the Father sent Him to declare the word: this He has done, so that what they had heard from Jesus they had heard from the Father. Let them do that which they have heard and the blessing of sonship shall be theirs. (It is interesting to compare the ‘knowing’ which gives freedom (John 8:32) with this command to ‘do’ what they had heard. In effect the same result is promised, so that the knowledge spoken of must be such as involves doing,—no barren knowledge, but one that grasps and moulds the life.) But we must not overlook the ‘therefore which binds together the two parts of the verse. In the execution of the design of God, to make men His sons and thus become sons of ‘the Father,’ two things are necessary: the Son (the ‘Word’) declares the truth of God; men receive the word of the Son, know it—with that knowledge which implies both faith and action—and become the sons of God. The Son has been faithful to His mission,—this the first clause declares: let them therefore be faithful to their part, and the blessing will be theirs.—The more common view of this verse assumes that in the second clause Jesus speaks of another father. This is very unlikely, as the pronoun your is not inserted until a later verse (John 8:41). There are also two other reasons for preferring the interpretation given above: (1) It is hard to believe that Jesus, so tender in His dealing with even the germs of true faith, has already passed into His severest condemnation of ‘the Jews who had believed Him.’ No word has been spoken by them since that recorded in John 8:33, and it had shown blindness and self-deception, but not hopeless antagonism. True, He sees that in their hearts they are relapsing into their former state; but may we not well believe that He will make one other effort to instruct and save? (2) As we have already seen (John 8:27), in our Lord’s words ‘the Father’ is a Name used with great significance and fulness of meaning, especially in this chapter. This is duly recognised in the explanation we are now seeking to defend, and in that alone.—It is remarkable that in this verse Jesus describes Himself as speaking what He has seen with the Father, while He exhorts them to do what they have heard from the Father. But the words are deliberately chosen, and they confirm the interpretation now given. As the Eternal Son, Jesus alone could have the first words spoken of Him. The second appropriately describe the state of those who had not ‘seen,’ who had only ‘heard.’ The difference, in short, flows from that difference between the Son and all other sons which abides even in the midst of similarity of position: the One has an eternal, the others have only a derived, Sonship. John 8:39. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. This answer shows how their minds are closing against the word of Jesus. Had they been willing to recognise the true meaning of ‘the Father’ in the first clause (of John 8:38), they might have seen what the same Name implied for them in the later words. But whilst He spoke of God and sought to lead them upwards, they, proud of their ancestry and content with Jewish privilege, will think of no other father than Abraham. Yet plainer words therefore must be used to make them understand the truth.Jesus saith unto them, If ye are Abraham’s children, do the works of Abraham. There is no true sonship (in the sense in which Jesus is dwelling on the idea) where there is not likeness. Descent from Abraham cannot be a source of present honour and blessing to those who do not Abraham’s works. They are Abraham’s ‘seed’ (John 8:37), not his ‘children’ (comp. John 1:12). John 8:40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath spoken to you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham. The assertions of Joh 8:37-38 are reiterated, but now with a simple directness that cannot be misunderstood (thus Jesus no longer speaks of ‘the Father’ but of God), and with a distinct expression of the contrast (‘this did not Abraham’) which in John 8:37 has been merely implied. True kindred to Abraham is therefore impossible in their case. John 8:41. Ye do the works of your father. Yet the principle of Joh 8:39 cannot but be true: certainly they are doing the works of their father. They said to him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. The words of Jesus have made two things clear:—(1) He is not referring to national origin, but to spiritual descent; and (2) the father whose sons Jesus declares them to be is not good but evil. In answer to this they indignantly assert that they are sons of God. Their spiritual is as undoubted as their natural descent. ‘Whatever may be the case with others (the word “we” is strongly emphatic), there is no stain on our origin.’ We cannot but think that some antithesis is distinctly present to the thought of the Jews as they use the words ‘we’ and ‘one’ And if we bear in mind the regular meaning which the word ‘fornication’ bears in Old Testament prophecy, when used in such a connection as this, viz. the unholy alliance with idols instead of Jehovah (Jeremiah 3:1, etc.), it will appear very probable that John 8:48 gives the clue to the meaning here. Jesus was called a Samaritan. Samaritans were taunted with their descent from men who ‘feared Jehovah and served their own gods’ (2 Kings 17:33). This thought, not yet plainly expressed, but existing in their minds, explains at once the emphatic ‘we,’ the reference to ‘fornication,’ and the stress laid on ‘one Father.’ John 8:42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for from God I came forth, and am here, for also I have not come of myself, but he sent me. Again Jesus applies the same principle to test their claim. Were they true children of God, then they would love whomsoever God loves. But this they do not, for they love not Him who came forth from God and whom God sent. The words in which Jesus speaks of His relation to God are remarkable. Alike in His Incarnation, in His whole manifestation to the world, and in His mission, He sustains the same relation to the Father: all is from and of the Father. This intimate relation implies the love on which the argument is made to rest. John 8:43. Why do ye not know my speech? Because ye cannot hear my word. There is a subtle difference between ‘word’ and ‘speech,’ the former properly referring to substance, the latter to the form. (Thus in Matthew 26:73, when the same word is used, it is said that Peter’s Galilean ‘speech’ betrayed him.) Did they hear His word, were they really sons of God, they would recognise his speech, and the indications (if we may so speak) contained in it of the speech of that heavenly realm from which He came. But they could not bear to hear His word: what He taught was hateful to them, though it was the truth which He heard from God (John 8:40). This antipathy to the substance of what He said made any recognition of the teaching as bearing on itself manifest tokens of Divine origin impossible. John 8:44. Ye are of the father who is the devil, and the desires of your father it is your will to do. It seems desirable to preserve in translation the expression ‘the father’ (for ‘your’ is not found in the Greek), because it seems to be our Lord’s design to set this in strongest contrast to the name which He has used with most significant emphasis, ‘the Father’ (see the notes on John 8:27; John 8:38). All the desires of this their father it was their will to do. Their works, deliberately chosen, answered to their parentage: hence their seeking to kill Jesus (John 8:37; John 8:40), and their inability to listen to His word (John 8:43).He was a man-killer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth. Well may they seek to kill Jesus, for their father, the devil, was a man-killer from the beginning of his dealings with mankind. His seduction of mankind was itself a murder, severing man from the life of God, and bringing in the evil that has been the cause of every crime. Thus he is the shedder ‘of all the righteous blood shed upon the earth.’ Not only was he a man-killer, but he ‘stood not in the truth.’[1] It does not seem likely that these words refer to the fall of the angels who kept not their first estate,’ for then surely the order of the clauses would have been reversed. Throughout all past human history the devil shunned ‘the truth,’ took his stand without the borders of ‘the truth,’ because this action alone is suitable to his essential (though not original) nature. [1] Not ‘standeth:’ the word is probably an imperfect (of ἔστηκεν).Because there is no truth in him. His hatred of ‘the truth’ springs from this, that he is not true; ‘truth’ (now used without the article) is not in him; and his own hatred of the truth is transmitted to his children, who cannot hear the word of Jesus (John 8:43).Whensoever one speaketh the lie, he speaketh of his own, because his father also is a liar. Whensoever a man who is a child of the devil uttereth falsehood, he is giving forth what by very nature belongs to him, what is his peculiar property by right of kindred and inheritance,—because his father also, the devil, is a liar. John 8:45. But because I say the truth, ye believe me not. They loved the lie, because their father was a liar, and his desires it was their will to do. Such was their love for falsehood (even as their father ‘stood not in the truth’), that, because Jesus said the truth, they believed Him not. The word ‘I’ is emphatic, marking again the contrast between them and Him. John 8:46. Which of you convicteth me of sin? No charge of sin could any one of them bring home to Him, no responsive consciousness of sin could any one awaken in His breast. These words are implicitly an assertion of His perfect sinlessness; and His enemies are silent.If I say truth, why do ye not believe me? Their knowledge of His sinless life took from them all pretext for their disbelief. We know that His words brought their own evidence to those who loved the truth. The true answer to this question then must be that they loved falsehood. But this answer they would never give. The tone of this verse clearly shows that what has been said of their father the devil related not to necessity of nature, but to deliberate choice (see note on John 8:23), for such an appeal was intended, and would be understood, to imply condemnation of those who thus wilfully refused to believe. The same thought is present in the following verse. John 8:47. He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear not, because ye are not of God. As in John 8:43, the word hear has the meaning listen to, so that the thought of receiving and believing is implied. He that is of God, and he alone, thus listens to the words of God: recognising their origin, willing to receive their teaching, he takes them into his heart. John 8:48. The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon? To say that Jews were children of the devil seemed an insult, not to themselves only, but to God, whose children they believed themselves to be. No one but a Samaritan, filled with jealous hatred of the people of God, or one in whom dwelt a demon, one of the spirits whose sole aim was the subversion of God’s kingdom, could utter such words as these. It is possible that the Jews may have heard something of our Lord’s short sojourn in Samaria, and of the favour which He had then shown to that despised people: such a parable as that of the Good Samaritan (which was spoken at a time not far distant from that to which this chapter relates) may have been so used by enemies as to give colour to an accusation of favouring Samaria and slighting Judea. At all events it is clear that the name ‘Samaritan’ was now frequently given to our Lord as a term of reproach.—We must not overlook the fact that those who are now addressing Jesus are ‘the Jews,’—not a part (John 8:31), but the Jews as a body. John 8:49. Jesus answered, I have not a demon; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. His answer is a simple denial of the graver accusation of the two, and also such an assertion regarding His thought and purpose as was equivalent to a denial of all such charges. He honours His Father,—even in the very words which had seemed to them an insult to God Himself. ‘It is ye,’ He adds, ‘that are dishonouring me:’ it is not I who (like Samaritans) dishonour you. John 8:50. But I seek not my glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. He will not protest against the dishonour they offer Him: His cause is in the Father’s hand. That glory which He seeks not for Himself, the Father seeks to give Him. The Father is deciding, and will decide between His enemies and Himself. John 8:51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man have kept my word, he shall never behold death. The solemn introductory words indicate that the discourse is taking a higher strain: once before they have been used in this chapter, in John 8:34 (but to a part only of ‘the Jews’), and once again we shall meet with them (John 8:58). In John 8:34 Jesus is speaking of slavery from which He frees; here of death which He abolishes (2 Timothy 1:10). In the former case the means of deliverance is continuing in the word of Jesus and knowing the truth (see John 8:32); here He gives the promise to him that has ‘kept His word,’—has received it, hidden it in his heart, and observed it in his life (see John 8:37, also chap. John 14:15, etc.). The thought here is substantially the same as in chap. John 6:50 (compare also chap. John 4:14, John 5:24, John 6:51), where we read of the living bread given that a man may eat of it and not die. That passage presents one side of the condition, the close fellowship of the believer with Jesus Himself, of which eating is the symbol; this presents another side, the believing reception of His word (which reveals Himself), and the practical and continued observance of the precepts therein contained. In chap. John 6:50, the words ‘may not die’ do not seem to have been misunderstood,—possibly because so near the promise of ‘eternal life,’ which suggested a figurative meaning, possibly because of a difference in the mood and disposition of the hearers. In neither place did Jesus promise that they who are His shall not pass through the grave, but that to them death shall not be death,—in death itself they shall live (see chap. John 11:26). John 8:52-53. The Jews said unto him, Now we know that thou hast a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man have kept my word, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died? and the prophets died: whom makest thou thyself? The word ‘now’ looks back to John 8:48. ‘Even if we were too hasty then, now we have learnt from thine own words that our charge is true.’ In attributing to His word a power to preserve His followers from that which had come upon the prophets, and even on Abraham himself, He is clearly placing Himself above Abraham and the prophets. Whom then is He making Himself?—The Jews do not quote the words of Jesus with exactness. He had said, ‘shall never behold death,’—for ever shall be spared the sight of death; they vary the metaphor a little, passing to a still more familiar phrase, ‘taste death;’ perhaps because it seemed more direct and clear, less susceptible of a figurative meaning. John 8:54-55 a. Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom ye say that he is your God, and have not got knowledge of him. First, Jesus answers the direct question, ‘Whom makest Thou Thyself?’ and the general charge of self-exaltation which those words contain. The specific reference to Abraham He speaks of afterwards (John 8:56). The tenor of His reply resembles that of Joh 8:50; but, as elsewhere, the second statement has the greater force and clearness. The reality of the glory of Jesus consists in this, that it comes from His Father, whom they called their God, but of whom they had gained no knowledge.John 8:55 b. But I know him; and if I should say. I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his word. Jesus can say, ‘I know God,’ by direct, intuitive, perfect knowledge. The word which He uses in reference to Himself (‘I know’) is different from that used in the preceding clause, this latter (‘ye have got knowledge’) referring to the result of experience, to knowledge gained by many acts of perception. Were Jesus to deny His immediate knowledge, He would be as false as they have been in professing to know God. The last words are interesting as bringing out once more the truth which we have seen presented in earlier verses: His own work in the execution of the Father’s will is the model of the work which He requires from man. His people ‘keep His word’ (John 8:51): He Himself keeps the Father’s word. So, in chap. John 20:21, He says to the apostles, ‘As my Father hath sent me, I also send you.’ John 8:56. Tour father Abraham exulted that he should see my day; and he saw it and rejoiced. This translation, though more exact than that of the Authorised Version, does not fully bring out the meaning of the original. All English renderings of the words (unless they are paraphrases) must be more or less ambiguous. ‘Rejoiced to see’ conveys the meaning of ‘rejoiced because (or when) he saw;’ ‘exulted that he should see’ means strictly, ‘exulted in the knowledge that he should see.’ Nor is the difficulty removed if we take the ordinary rendering of the Greek construction, ‘that he might;’ for exulted that he might see is ambiguous still, though not in the same way. Perhaps the Greek words (which are very peculiar) are best represented by the paraphrase, ‘Your father Abraham exulted in desire that he might see my day; and he saw (it) and rejoiced.’ The interpretation, which is as difficult as the translation, turns mainly on the meaning of the words ‘my day.’ The nearest approach to this expression in the New Testament .is found in Luke 17:22, ‘one of the days of the Son of man,’ where the meaning must be ‘one of the days connected with the manifestation of the Son of man upon the earth.’ Here the form is more definite, ‘my day,’ and it seems exceedingly difficult to give any other meaning than either the whole period of the life of Jesus on earth, or, more precisely, the epoch of the Incarnation. In this case the past tense ‘he saw it’ is conclusive for the latter, if actual sight is intended. The patriarch received the promise in which was contained the coming of the day of Christ. By faith he saw this day in the far distance, but—more than this—exulting in the prospect he longed to see the day itself: in joyful hope he waited for this. In the fulness of time the day dawned; the heavenly host sang praises to God for its advent; and (none who remember the appearance of Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration can feel any difficulty in the words of this verse) Abraham too saw it and rejoiced. By those who do not accept this explanation it is urged— (1) That Jesus would probably not thus refer the Jews to that which no Scripture records. But the truth spoken of is so general and so simple—Abraham’s knowledge of the fulfilment of God’s promises to him—that no Jew who believed in Jesus could refuse it credence. (2) That ‘sees’ and ‘rejoices’ would be more natural than ‘saw’ and ‘rejoiced.’ Not so, if the Incarnation is the event before the mind. (3) That this view is not in harmony with the reply of the Jews in the next verse. That point will be considered in the note on the verse. The only other possible interpretation is that which refers the words to two distinct periods in the earthly life of Abraham; one at which, after receiving the promises, he exulted in eager desire for a clearer sight, and another at which this clearer sight was gained. But it is very hard to think of two epochs in the patriarch’s life at which these conditions were satisfied; and it is still more difficult to believe that ‘my day’ is the expression that Jesus would have used had this been the sense designed. Verily, if Abraham thus exulted in the thought of the coming of his son and his Lord, the Jews who are despising and rejecting Him do not Abraham’s works, are no true seed of Abraham. John 8:57. The Jews therefore said unto him. Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? The Jews understand ‘my day’ to mean the time of His life; and His knowing that Abraham has witnessed this with joy must certainly imply that He has seen Abraham. How can this be, since He is not yet fifty years of age? It seems most probable that ‘fifty’ is chosen as a round number, as a number certainly beyond that of our Lord’s years of life. Some have supposed from this verse that sorrow had given to Him the appearance of premature age. John 8:58. Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. The third occurrence of the solemn formula ‘Verily, verily,’ marks the highest point reached by the words of Jesus at this time. The substance of the words is in completest harmony with the form. In the clearest possible manner Jesus declares, not only His existence before Abraham, but also the essential distinction between His being and that of any man. Man is born, man passes through successive periods of time: of Himself, in regard alike to past, present, and future, Jesus says ‘I am.’ He claims for Himself that absolute, unchanging existence which is the attribute of God alone. If any argument be needed to enforce that which the words themselves supply, it is furnished in the conduct of the Jews (John 8:59), who clearly understood them to be a distinct (and in their mind a blasphemous) claim of that which belonged to God alone. The thought is distinctly present in the Old Testament: see Psalms 102:27, but especially Psalms 90:2. The English reader naturally recurs in thought to Exodus 3:14, but there are two considerations which make it very difficult to assert positively that that verse is necessarily referred to here: (1) The doubt which rests on the translation. ‘I will be’ is at least as natural as a translation as ‘I am.’ (2) The Greek translation of the Divine Name there used differs materially from the words of this verse, and agrees rather with the original of Rev 1:4. If our version does really express the meaning of Exo 3:14, it is impossible not to associate that verse with the one before us. John 8:59. They took up stones therefore that they might cast them upon him; but Jesus hid himself, and went forth from the temple-courts. The Jews were enraged at what they considered blasphemy, and in their rage they would have stoned Him (compare chap. John 10:31). But His hour was not yet come. He hid Himself (whether miraculously or not we cannot tell) and went forth from the temple. The conflict of Jesus with the Jews begins to draw to a close. At the last verse of the preceding chapter Jesus had hidden Himself and gone out of the temple, leaving it in possession of those who had wilfully blinded themselves against His claims, who must now therefore be left to the darkness which they have chosen, and from whom such as will behold in Him the Light of Life must be withdrawn. This great truth is illustrated by the story of the man born blind, upon whom a miracle of healing is performed. The enmity of the Jews is roused; but in the process raised by them they are defeated, and the blind man, cast out by his former co-religionists, becomes a trophy of the power and grace of the persecuted Redeemer. John 9:2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? It is not said that the disciples were moved to pity, but it is not right to assume the contrary. That Jesus had looked on the blind man would be enough to raise their expectation of a cure; but expressly to relate this might well seem needless. Whatever feeling, however, the sight may have stirred in them, it recalled a problem which was very familiar to the thought of the Jews, and which repeatedly meets us in the Scriptures of the Old Testament,—the connection between personal sin and bodily suffering or defect. Here was a signal example of physical infirmity: what was its cause? The question seems to show a conviction on their part that the cause was sin; but the conviction may have been less firm than the words themselves would imply. In assuming that the blindness was the consequence of sin they were following the current theology of their time: but how was this dogma to be applied in the case before them? Who had sinned? Was it the man himself? Or had his parents committed some offence which was now visited upon their child? (comp. Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Numbers 14:33; Jeremiah 32:18). The passages to which we have referred throw light on the latter alternative; but what is the meaning of the former, as the man was born blind? It is not necessary to discuss the various explanations that have been given, some of which seem wholly improbable. Three only need be mentioned, as having apparently some sanction from what we know of Jewish thought in the apostolic age. (1) We are told by Josephus that the Pharisees held the belief that, whereas the souls of the wicked are eternally punished, the souls of the righteous pass into other bodies. Hence it has been maintained that the Pharisees held the doctrine of the transmigration of souls; and the passage before us is frequently explained accordingly. If, however, we compare all the passages in which Josephus refers to tenets of the Pharisees respecting the state of man after death, it will at least appear very uncertain that such a meaning should be attached to his words as quoted above. It is very possible that the historian is there referring entirely to a state of being beyond the limits of this world’s history; or that, in the attempt to present the belief of his countrymen in a form familiar to the Roman conquerors, he has used language which conveys an erroneous impression. At all events we cannot assume that the transmigration of souls was a tenet widely embraced by the Jewish people of that age, without far stronger evidence than we now possess. (2) The philosophic doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was certainly held by many Jews at the time of which we are speaking. As early as the book of Wisdom we find a reference to this doctrine (see chap. John 8:19-20), and passages of similar tendency may easily be quoted from Philo. Yet it seems improbable that an opinion which was essentially a speculation of philosophy, and was perhaps attractive to none but philosophic minds, should manifest itself in such a question as this, asked by plain men unacquainted with the refinements of Greek thought. (3) It seems certainly to have been an ancient Jewish opinion that sin could be committed by the unborn child; and that the narrative of Genesis 25, appearing to teach that the odious character of a supplanter belonged to Jacob even before birth, gave the authority of Scripture to such a belief. On the whole this seems to afford the best explanation of the question of the disciples: Was the sin so severely punished committed by this man himself, in the earliest period of his existence, or have the iniquities of his parents been visited upon him? (On the word Rabbi, see chap. John 1:38.) John 9:3. Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. It is obvious at once that Jesus does not deny the presence of sin in the man himself or in his parents: His words must be read in close connection with the question to which they form a reply. The meaning of the whole verse (which is unusually elliptical) may be given thus: ‘Neither did this man sin nor his parents that he should be born blind, but (he was born blind,—he is as he is) that the works of God may be manifested in him.’ Not to suggest or unravel speculative questions, but to present a sphere for the manifestation of the works of God, hath this man borne this infirmity. The last clause of the verse does not simply mean that a miracle is to be wrought on him: ‘in him’—alike in his physical (John 9:6-7) and in his spiritual healing (John 9:36-38)—the love and grace of God are to be made manifest. John 9:4. We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no one can work. The substitution of ‘we’ for ‘I’ (a change supported by the best evidence) lends peculiar force and beauty to the verse. Jesus associates His disciples with Himself: like Himself they have a calling which must not be disobeyed, to work the works of God; for them, as for Himself, the period of such action will not always last. He does not say ‘Him that sent us,’ for it is the Son who sends His disciples, even as the Father sends the Son (chap. John 20:21). ‘Day’ seems to be used here simply to denote the time during which the working assigned to Jesus and His people in this world can be performed: ‘night,’ the time when the working is impossible. In a proverbial saying of this kind the words must not be pressed too far. It is true that the Lord Jesus continues to work by His Spirit, and through His servants, though the ‘day’ of which He here speaks soon reached its close. But the work He intends is such work as is appointed for the ‘day,’ whether to Himself or to His people.—As joined with the verses which precede, this saying could not but come to the disciples as a reminder that not idle speculation but work for God was the duty they must fulfil. John 9:5. Whensoever I am in the world, I am the light of the world. The work of Jesus in the world is to be the world’s light. This thought, expressed in words in the last chapter (chap. John 8:12), and in this by deeds, binds together the different portions in this section of the Gospel. ‘I am the light,’ Jesus says, but even in this figure the ‘we’ of the last verse may be remembered, for his disciples also ‘are the light of the world’ (Matthew 5:14). The first word of the verse is worthy of all attention, pointing as it does to all periods at which ‘the light’ hath shined amid the darkness of this world (chap. John 1:5). John 9:6-7. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and with his day anointed his eyes, And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is, by interpretation, Sent). He went away therefore, and washed, and came seeing. In the case of no miracle which Jesus wrought is His procedure as remarkable as it is here. We may at once dismiss the thought that such a mode of cure was in itself necessary: whatever may have been the design of Jesus in making use of it, He needed no instrument or means of cure. There is probably truth in the suggestion that the means of healing chosen by our Lord had in most cases some reference to the mental condition of the sufferer, and that here His procedure was well fitted to awaken and make trial of faith; but it is impossible to rest satisfied with any such explanation. The language of the Evangelist compels us to look upon the whole action as symbolical. The introductory words link these verses to those in which Jesus speaks of the manifestation of Himself to the world (John 9:4-5): the interpretation of the name Siloam leads us back to the thought of Him who everywhere in this Gospel is solemnly brought before us as ‘the Sent of God.’ These indications teach us to see in the whole action of Jesus a special symbolical reference to Himself and His work. The means chosen are very remarkable. It is said indeed, and with truth, that the anointing of the eyes with spittle was a common practice, adopted for medicinal effect: but no such usage has any connection with this passage, for the eyes were anointed, not with the spittle but with the clay. In two other records of works of healing (both given by Mark, whose Gospel presents many points of contact with that of John) Jesus makes use of spittle (Mark 7:33; Mark 8:23), and we can hardly help supposing that this means was chosen as a symbol of that which was in closest connection with Himself: thus in Sir 28:12 the breath of the mouth and its moisture are brought together as alike in source, though differing in effects. Having made the clay, He anointed ‘with His clay’ the blind man’s eyes. The original words do not seem easily to bear any other meaning, and we fail to do justice to them unless we suppose that their object is to lay emphasis on the clay made by Jesus, and thus again to bring Himself, not merely the clay that He has made, but ‘His clay,’ into prominence,—the day in which something of His personality is expressed. (Some of the Fathers imagine that there is a reference to Genesis 2:7, but this seems too remote.) Again the word ‘anointed’ no doubt contains an allusion to Jesus the Christ, the anointed One. The name of the pool Siloam or (according to the Hebrew form) Siloah is the last point to be noted, and here the meaning is supplied by John himself. As originally given to the pool, it is supposed to mean ‘sent forth,’ i.e. issuing forth, said of the waters that issue from the springs that feed the pool, or of the waters which issue from the pool to the fields around. From this pool water had been drawn to pour upon the altar during the feast just past (see chap. John 7:38): it was associated with the wells of salvation of which Isaiah speaks (chap. John 12:3), and the pouring out of its water symbolized the effusion of spiritual blessing in the days of the Messiah. With most natural interest, therefore, the Evangelist observes that its very name corresponds to the Messiah; and by pointing out this fact indicates to us what was the object of Jesus in sending the man to these waters. In this even more distinctly than in the other particulars that we have noted, Jesus, whilst sending the man away from Him, is keeping Himself before him in everything connected with his cure. Thus throughout the whole narrative all attention is concentrated on Jesus Himself, who is ‘the Light of the world;’ who was ‘sent of God’ to ‘open blind eyes:’ every particular is fraught with instruction to the disciples, who are to continue His work after His departure, and who must be taught that they can bring sight to the blind only by directing them to Jesus their Lord. As has been said above, we must not reject the thought that in our Lord’s procedure lay a discipline for the man himself. The use of means may naturally have been a help to his faith; but this faith could not fail to be put to the test when the means proved to be such as might have taken away vision from one who was not blind (comp. John 9:39). Neither of this, however, nor of the discipline contained in the delay of the cure does the Evangelist speak; for he would fix our attention on Jesus alone. That the obedience of faith was rewarded we are told in the fewest words possible: the man ‘went and washed and came seeing.’ The pool of Siloam, which still retains its name (Silwân), is situated near the opening of the valley of Tyropœon. All works on the topography of Jerusalem give a description of the site. John 9:8. The neighbours therefore, and they which beheld him aforetime, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? The fact that he was a beggar has not been mentioned before. Stress is laid on it here rather than on his blindness, because it was from his frequenting the spot for the purpose of begging that he had become well known. John 9:9. Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he. The object of this verse and the last is to show how notorious the cure became, and how firmly the fact had been established. John 9:10. They said therefore unto him, How then were thine eyes opened! It does not appear that this was more than a simple inquiry. As yet no element of malice against Jesus is introduced. John 9:11. He answered, The man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to Siloam, and wash. I went away therefore and washed, and I received sight. This man, then, knew his Deliverer, though not His true nature (John 9:36). The wording of the phrase would seem to imply that he had in his thoughts the meaning of the name ‘Jesus,’ so wonderfully illustrated in his own case. John 9:12. And they said unto him, Where is he? He saith, I know not. Comp. chap. John 5:12-13. The blind man, restored to sight, is brought before the Pharisees with the view of instituting proceedings against Jesus, who, by the healing on the Sabbath, had violated the sanctity of the day of rest. But the process proves a signal failure, issuing as it does in the rescuing of the man from the Pharisaic yoke, and in a solemn rebuke administered by Jesus to those who had placed him at their bar. In this rebuke He points out the blindness and faithlessness of the guides of Israel, and explains the nature of that work which He, the Good Shepherd, had to perform in saving His own from shepherds who had betrayed their trust, and in gathering them out of every fold into His one flock. The effect of the discourse is again to bring about a division among the hearers. The subordinate parts of the section are—(1) John 9:13-34; (2) John 9:35-41; (3) John 10:1-18; (4) John 10:19-21. John 9:14. Now it was the sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. It is very interesting to compare this verse with the similar words in chap. John 5:9-10. The only offence expressly mentioned there was the carrying of the bed, though there is no doubt that the charge against Jesus related not to this only but also to the performance of the cure (chap. John 7:22). Here the two counts of the accusation are distinctly presented in their separation from each other,—(1) Jesus had made the clay; (2) He had opened the man’s eyes. Another verse of the fifth chapter is likewise necessarily recalled to mind: speaking of the charge of labouring on the sabbath, Jesus said (John 9:17), ‘My Father worketh until now: I also work.’ So here in reference to the same day He says, ‘We must work the works of Him that sent me.’ John 9:15. Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight; and he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. To his neighbours and acquaintances his answer had been fuller and more circumstantial: to the Pharisees, whom He knew to be the enemies of Jesus, he says as little as he may, and does not even mention his benefactor’s name. John 9:16. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them. The man’s answer had been short and simple, but it had substantiated the two charges (see John 9:14) that had been brought. The testimony produced the effect which usually followed whenever Jesus manifested Himself,—some were attracted, some repelled. Godet remarks here, with peculiar force and propriety, ‘The one party, taking as their starting-point the inviolability of the sabbatic law, deny to Jesus as a transgressor of this law any divine mission whatever; and from this logically follows the denial of the miracle. The others, setting out from the fact of the miracle, infer the holy character of Jesus, and implicitly deny the breaking of the sabbath. The choice of premiss depends in this case, as in all cases, upon the moral freedom; it is at this point of departure that the friends of light and the friends of darkness separate; the rest is simply a matter of logic.’ John 9:17. They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, because he opened thine eyes? And he said, He is a prophet. The fact is admitted, perhaps honestly, for it will be observed that, when we come to the next verse, we have a new set of questioners, and not simply persons who, having made a concession in the words before us, immediately withdraw it. The word ‘thou’ is emphatic: unable to decide the matter themselves, they seek to draw from the blind man some statement which may enable them more effectually to condemn Jesus. But his answer only deals an unexpected blow. John 9:18. The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. The change from ‘the Pharisees’ to ‘the Jews’ is very striking, and must have special significance. Nor is it difficult to find an explanation. The Pharisees (see the note on chap. John 7:32) were united in zeal for the law and in watchfulness over the rites and usages of Israel, but not in hostility to Jesus: we have just seen that the testimony regarding the miracle has divided them into two camps. It is of a hostile body only that the Evangelist is speaking in this verse. But there is probably another reason for the change of expression. ‘The Jews’ is not with John a designation of all the enemies of Jesus; it denotes the representatives of Jewish thought and action,—the leaders of the people, who, alas! were leaders in the persecution of our Lord. The use of the word here, then, leads us to the thought that the dispute had passed into a different stage. So serious had the case become that the rulers themselves engaged in it: more than this,—we have now done with inquiry in any true sense, and persecution has taken its place. John 9:19. and asked them saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? In the hope that they may discover some flaw in the man’s words, through which they may accuse him of complicity with Jesus, and, by thus destroying the idea of a miracle, may become free to deal with Jesus as a transgressor of the law, they question the parents of the man. John 9:20. His parents therefore answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind. To two of the questions asked by the Jews the answer of the parents is perfectly clear and decided. In seeking for that which might invalidate the ‘sign,’ the enemies of Jesus have but obtained new testimony to its reality. John 9:21. But how he now seeth, we know not; or who opened his eyes, we know not: ask himself; he is of age: he shall speak for himself. The anxious care of the parents to keep clear of all testimony to Jesus is strikingly shown by the emphasis thrown on ‘himself’ as they refer the questioners to their son. John 9:22-23. These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had already covenanted that, if any man should confess that he was Christ, he should be put away from the synagogue. Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask himself. There were (at all events at a later period) various degrees of excommunication; but in any form it was a punishment of great severity, as the terror of the parents shows. The effect of the mildest grade was to render the culprit a heathen and no longer an Israelite during thirty days, depriving him of all intercourse with his family as well as of all privileges of worship. The growing alarm and hatred of the Jews are clearly shown by this compact. We are not to think of a decree of the Sanhedrin, or of any judicial act whatever, but of a private resolution taken by the Jews amongst themselves. The slight change of translation in the words ‘put away from the synagogue’ is intended to mark the fact that the expression used here is different from that which we find in John 9:34-35. John 9:24. They called therefore a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner. In this second hearing the aim of the Jews is to overawe the man, and then force from him a confession that there had been some deception or mistake. This appears first in their words, ‘Give glory to God’ (see Joshua 7:19),—a formula used when a criminal who was thought to be concealing the truth was urged to make a full confession. Remembering that the eye of God was upon him, let him give honour to God by speaking truth. Another significant point is the emphasis laid on ‘we know;’ the authorities to whom he has been wont to yield implicit respect and deference in all religious matters, possessed of deeper insight and wider knowledge than himself, (do not think merely, but) know that Jesus is a breaker of the law, and therefore cannot have wrought a miracle. John 9:25. He therefore answered, Whether he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. His simplicity leaves them no real excuse for condemning: by his steel fast adherence to the one testimony which he alone was competent to render, he most effectually brings condemnation on his judges, who, had they been sincere, would first have sought certain knowledge of the fact (see note on John 9:16). John 9:26. They said therefore to him, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? Every attempt to overthrow the fact has failed: possibly renewed inquiry as to the mode of cure may disclose something that may be used against Jesus. But the man has now perceived their design: they are not seeking the truth, and he will be the tool of no such judges as they are proving themselves to be. John 9:27. He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his disciples? The words ‘ye did not hear’ manifestly mean that they had not received and believed what they heard. The last clause is a little ambiguous in English. The meaning is not, Would ye in that case become His disciples? but, Is it your mind,—do ye also desire, to become His disciples? ‘Ye also’ may mean ‘ye as well as others;’ but it most naturally signifies ‘as well as myself,’ the blind beggar. The obstinate enmity of the Jews impels him to avow his own discipleship. John 9:28. And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples. Whether the man distinctly intended such reference to himself or not, it is thus that they understood his words; and this moves them contemptuously to contrast ‘that man’ with their greatest prophet, Moses. John 9:29. We know that God hath spoken unto Moses; but as for this man we know not from whence he is. In holding by the law of Moses, then, they are safe and are assured that they are doing the will of God. If they do not know the origin of ‘this man,’ he can be worthy of no regard,—certainly he cannot be from God! John 9:30-33. The man answered, and said unto them, why, herein is the marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes. We know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any one opened the eyes of a man that was born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. Herein lies the very marvel,—that even ye, (1) knowing that no man ever receives power to do any miracle unless he be a worshipper of God and one that does His will; and (2) having proof that this man has done a miracle—yes, and such a miracle as has never before been wrought—will not see the conclusion that must follow, viz., that this man does the will of God,—that he is no sinner, but comes from God (see the note on John 9:16). The man has assumed the office of a teacher, and has so taught that they have no counter argument to offer; ‘the wise are taken in their own craftiness’ (Job 5:13). John 9:34. They answered and said unto him, thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they put him out. The original is very graphic: In sins wast thou born, all of thee, and thou, dost thou teach us? There is probably a distinct reference to the belief which is expressed in John 9:2 : the fact that in their passion they are thus acknowledging the reality of the miracle is no argument against such a reference: the man’s whole condition, as evinced by his spirit and his words, bears yet stronger testimony than his blindness, and shows that he was altogether born in sins. The meaning of the last clause is not quite clear. It probably refers to ejection from the place in which the inquiry was held; but the next verse seems to prove that excommunication followed this. Cast out by the rulers from their place of meeting, he was cast out from all intercourse with them, and (so far as their influence extended) from the community over which they ruled. Such was the only reasoning which could be opposed to the triumphant argument of the man born blind! John 9:35. Jesus heard that they had put him out: and when he had found him, he said, Dost thou believe in the Son of man? The man has lost this world: in that loss he shall gain the next. This seems to be the connecting link between this verse and the preceding. Jesus knows well the firmness and the wisdom which the man had shown in the presence of the Jews. But He knows also that the man had by implication avowed himself His disciple, and for this had been thrust out from the presence of the rulers. For this very reason Jesus would draw the bond of discipleship closer, and receive amongst His own him whom the Jews rejected. He seeks for the man, and, having found him, asks, Dost thou believe in the. Son of man? the word ‘thou’ is emphatic, and brings into relief the contrast with those in whose presence he has lately been, who declared Jesus a sinner, and who had agreed that whoever confessed that Jesus was Christ should be excommunicated. The name ‘Son of man’ is equivalent to ‘the Christ,’ but gives prominence to the human nature of the Deliverer. This name therefore is altogether in harmony with the man’s own words (John 9:31-33), in which he had spoken of Jesus as a worshipper of God and one who did God’s will, one to whom God would hearken: to him Jesus, though ‘from God’ (John 9:33), was still ‘a prophet’ (John 9:17) and ‘the man called Jesus’ (John 9:11). Has he then true faith in the Messiah in whose cause he has been suffering? Does he give himself to Him with that faith which involves complete union with Himself and His cause, undeterred by the fact that He appears as a man amongst men, yea and as one despised and rejected by men? The ordinary reading ‘Son of God’ is in all probability incorrect. It is easy to see how it might accidentally find its way into the text, being suggested partly by the usual practice of John (who frequently joins ‘believe in’ either with the Son of God or with a name of similar import), and partly by the act of worship related in John 9:38. John 9:36. He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? These are not words of a doubter, but of one who seeks to be led to a complete faith. In Jesus he has fullest confidence, and he waits only to hear His declaration respecting the ‘Son of man:’ as such Jesus has not yet manifested Himself to him. John 9:37. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he that speaketh with thee is he. This manifestation is now given; both in word (‘he that speaketh’ . .) and in the half-veiled, yet clear, reference to the work that had been wrought on him (‘thou hast seen Him’) in the gift of physical (and we may certainly add spiritual) eyesight. John 9:38. And he said, I believe, Lord; and he worshipped him. The simple and immediate answer shows how little remained to be done to make his faith complete. Not with bodily senses only, but in his heart, he has seen Jesus; he has heard His word: he believes and worships the Son of man, the Messiah, his Lord. In this man, therefore, Jesus has manifested Himself as ‘Light of the world’ (John 9:5). But of this manifestation there are two opposite results; the Light will attract some out of the darkness: the Light will repel others into yet deeper darkness. The newly found disciple is an example of the one work, the hardened Jews of the other. Of these contrasted results Jesus Himself here speaks. John 9:39. And Jesus said, For a judgment came I into this world, that they which see not may see, and that they which see may become blind. The rendering ‘a judgment’ may serve to remind us of the fact that our Lord (here using a word which is not found elsewhere in the Gospel) does not speak of the act of judging, but of the result. He does not say that He came in order to judge, but that the necessary effect of His coming into this world, a world alienated from God, will be a judgment. Those that see not (the ‘babes’ of Matthew 11:25) come to Him for sight: those that see (the ‘wise and prudent’), who know the law and are satisfied with that knowledge, and who having all the guidance which should have led them to Christ do not come, ‘become blind,’—lose all light through losing Him. Knowledge which has priceless value for pointing the way to Christ becomes accursed if put in His place as an object of trust. It is possible that, as the word ‘judge’ seems elsewhere in this Gospel always to have the force of a condemning judgment, this sense should be preserved here also: in the one case the judgment is passed on acknowledged blindness, for they themselves who come to the light pass a condemnation on the blindness of their past state; in the other, judgment is passed upon supposed (or rather upon misused) sight. Thus both classes have a part in the ‘judgment:’ the one by appropriating as just the judgment of Jesus on their blindness apart from Him; the other by deliberately shutting their eyes to the true light. The result of this wilful action is utter blindness,—not merely a disuse of sight, but a destruction of the power of sight. John 9:40. Those of the Pharisees which were with him heard these things. The whole cast of the language here used shows that those who speak are not representatives of the Pharisees as a body, or of the Pharisaic spirit in its worst characteristics. But lately there has been a division of feeling among the Pharisees in regard to Jesus (John 9:16). Some who were then impressed by His signs may have already become disciples; others may have remained in a state of uncertainty, impressed but not convinced,—not brought to the point of ‘leaving all’ their possessions of ‘wisdom and prudence’ and following Him. It may be that those spoken of here were of such a description. No one, probably, who duly apprehends the difference in the usage of John between ‘the Pharisees’ and ‘the Jews,’ will think that necessarily these words were uttered in derision, or that these men were ‘with Him’ as enemies and spies.—And said unto him, Are we blind also? There had been an apparent difficulty in the words of Jesus. They spoke of two classes, distinguished in their character as not seeing and seeing,—in their future lot, as receiving sight and becoming blind. The future lot is the result of the coming of Jesus into this world, It is very clear that He means that those who see not (like the despised blind man who has just been ‘put out’) will come to Him and obtain sight from Him. But what of the Pharisees whom He invites to come? Does He class them also amongst those who ‘see not’? Surely (they think) this cannot be His meaning? And yet, if not, Pharisees are excluded from all hope of blessing, for His words speak of but two classes. John 9:41. Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would not have sin: but now ye say, We see; your sin abideth. If, Jesus says, ye were really blind, unable to open your eyes to, and indeed unconscious of, the existence of the light now shining round you, you would not have sin,—the sin of rejection of the light would not lie at your door. But it is not so. They are their own judges. They themselves say, We see; and yet they come not to Him. Their sin abideth; they are guilty of that sin, and so long as they refuse to come to Him the sin must abide. So at the close of chap. 3 we read: ‘he that disobeyeth the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.’ John 10:1-2. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up from some other quarter, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. The opening words are of themselves sufficient to show that this chapter must be very closely joined to that which precedes, for nowhere in this Gospel do we find a new discourse introduced by ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you.’ The points of connection will be seen as the chapter proceeds; but we may briefly say that the thought of the Jews, who with their authoritative dictum ‘We know’ (John 9:24; John 9:29) sought to hinder men of ‘the multitude’ from coming to Christ underlies the whole parable, and forms the chief link binding the chapters together. In the last verses of chap. 9 the action of the unbelieving rulers is contemplated in its bearing upon themselves; here in its bearing upon those of whom the Jews were the recognised leaders. The figure used is taken from the very heart of the Old Testament Dispensation. Again and again do the prophets utter language of scathing indignation against unfaithful shepherds who ‘feed themselves and not their flocks;’ and more frequently still is the tender care of the good shepherd portrayed. The Messiah Himself is represented under this character in several prophetic passages: two chapters especially, Ezekiel 34 and Zechariah 11 (in each of which the contrasted types of shepherd are represented and the Messiah brought definitely into view), must be kept before us as we follow the course of this parable. It is unnecessary to dwell at any length upon the familiar facts which form the basis of the similitude employed. The ‘fold’ of the sheep was a large open space enclosed by a paling or by walls of no great height: ingress or egress was given only by a door kept by a porter, who is not to be confounded with the shepherd or shepherds for the protection of whose flocks the fold was used. All other points the narrative itself will bring out. In the first few verses the language is altogether general. A comparison is drawn between all shepherds of the flock and false and treacherous intruders into the fold. The application which Jesus makes to Himself of two of the figures in these opening verses does not yet come before the mind. The sheep are safe in the fold: there the narrative commences. We do not read how or by whom or whence they were brought into that fold for protection amidst the dangers of the night. In the morning the shepherds will come to lead forth their flocks, and having an acknowledged right of entrance will go in at the door. Should any one bent on entering the fold not come to the door, but climb over the fence and thus get in ‘some other way’ (literally, from some other quarter,—and when the parable is interpreted the significance of such a phrase will be felt), his aim is evil,—he wishes to get possession of sheep or of a flock to which he has no right,—he is therefore a thief and a robber, a man determined either by craft or by violence to win spoil for himself. ‘Entering by the door,’ then, is the first mark by which a rightful shepherd is distinguished from a man of selfish and treacherous ends. John 10:3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. This verse gives other marks which indicate a true shepherd. The keeper of the gate recognises him and gives him entrance. The sheep in the enclosure show at once that they are familiar with his voice. The sheep of his own particular flock he knows by name, and he calls them one by one. He has come in for their benefit and not his own, to lead them forth to pasturage. To none of these indications does he answer who is an intruder and no shepherd. What travellers tell us of the relation of an Eastern shepherd to his flock shows how true to nature was the language of these verses. It is by his voice that the shepherd is recognised: he calls and the sheep come round him. In every flock there are some to whom he has given particular names, and who are wont to keep near him; every one of these knows his own name and comes to the shepherd when that name is called. In this last feature the language of the parable may go beyond common experience. Such a shepherd as our Lord describes knows and calls every one of his sheep by name. It is sometimes, indeed, maintained that no distinction ought to be made between ‘the sheep’ of the first clause and ‘His own sheep’ in the clause that follows. But this is surely a mistake, resulting from the premature application of these words to Him who is ‘the Good Shepherd.’ He no doubt knows by name every sheep of every flock: as yet, however, we have before us not the Shepherd but every one who is a shepherd of the sheep. There is some difficulty in determining who is meant by the ‘porter’ of this verse. Many explanations have been given, but there are only two that seem really to agree with the conditions of the context. The keeper of the door recognises any rightful shepherd, and especially the True Shepherd (John 10:11), but closes the way to self-seekers,—and this during all that time of waiting of which we have yet to speak. He cannot, therefore, be either Moses or John the Baptist; the thought of Divine care is necessary. We must thus think either of Christ Himself or of the Father or of the Holy Spirit. To refer the term, however, to the first of these would be to confuse the parable: it must belong to one of the two latter,—the Father, or the Holy Spirit who gave and watched over the promises, who called and qualified the prophets of Israel. Perhaps John 10:15, in which Jesus speaks of the Father’s recognition of Himself, makes the first of these two the more probable. The tenor of chap. 6 also, in which there is repeated mention of the Father’s work in relation to the work of Jesus, confirms this view; and a further confirmation may be found in the parable of chap. 15, in which Jesus represents Himself as the vine and His Father as the husbandman. John 10:4. When he hath put out all his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. The first words take up the thought contained in the words that immediately precede (‘and leadeth them out’), but express it with greater force. The shepherd leads forth all his own sheep,—not one is left behind. But the change from leading out to putting out is remarkable. In the figure it may refer to the solicitude of the shepherd to remove every sheep under his care from the fold in which it is not well that any should longer remain: some may be slow in following his lead, but he sees that none shall be overlooked. The real significance of this word, however, is connected with the interpretation of the parable (see below): for we cannot doubt that our Lord designedly uses here that very word which was employed to denote expulsion from the synagogue, and which has already met us in two consecutive verses of the previous chapter (34, 35), when the treatment received from the Jews by the man born blind is described. In this verse again we find complete faithfulness of description. To this day the Eastern shepherd goes before his flock, leading, not driving the sheep, and keeping them near him through their recognition of his voice. John 10:5. But a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. The ‘stranger’ is not one to whom the porter has opened (for the voice of every one who is thus admitted is familiar to all the sheep); he must therefore have entered by some other way, and he is in the fold as ‘a thief and a robber.’ No mark of a true shepherd is found in him. He has not entered by the door, and he has not been recognised by the keeper of the door; the sheep do not know his voice; he cannot call them by their names; his object is not their good, but his own spoil and gain. Lead a flock forth he cannot; the sheep flee from him. John 10:6. This parable said Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. The word here used is not that which occurs so frequently in the other gospels in the sense of parable. It is found but four times in the New Testament—in 2 Peter 2:22, and in three verses of this Gospel (here and chap. John 16:25; John 16:29). In 2 Peter 2:22 the word has its ordinary signification ‘proverb:’ in chap. John 16:29 it is opposed to speaking in a way the most direct,—the highest and best for the attainment of the speaker’s end (comp. on John 16:25). The derivation of the word suggests that the primary meaning was a saying beside or out of the common way which had not the direct plain bearing of an ordinary saying, but either was intended to have many applications (as a proverb), or was in some degree circuitous in the method by which it effected its purpose,—enigmatical or difficult. In this latter sense John seems to use the word, which does not therefore differ essentially from the ‘parable,’ as that word is used by the other Evangelists (see Matthew 13:11-15). It seems certain that had any one of them related the comparison of this chapter he would have employed the more familiar name. The Septuagint uses the two words with little difference of sense. On the present occasion it cannot be said that the language of Jesus was in itself difficult to understand; His description was faithful in all its parts; but His words as said ‘to them’ the Pharisees could not comprehend. John 10:7. Jesus therefore said unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. The formula which introduced the parable (John 10:1) now brings in the interpretation. This interpretation is given in two parts,—or, as perhaps we ought rather to say, two distinct applications of the parable are given: the two most important points in the figure are taken in succession, and in each aspect the parable finds its fulfilment in the Lord Jesus. But as the formula which introduces this verse is not repeated in John 10:11, it is more correct to divide John 10:1-18 into two parts (John 10:1-6, John 10:7-18—the latter being subdivided at John 10:11) than into three.First, Jesus declares Himself to be ‘the door of the sheep,’—that is, not the door by which the sheep enter into the fold, but the door through which they will leave the fold at the call of the Shepherd, and (though this is not particularly specified until John 10:9) through which a shepherd enters to his sheep. The whole description of Joh 10:1-5 must be interpreted in harmony with this word of Jesus. If He is the Door, what is the fold?—who are the sheep? To answer these questions we must look forward to a later verse (John 10:16): ‘And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must lead, and they shall hear my voice, and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.’ That Jesus here speaks of the heathen world few will doubt; and if so, it is very clear that in John 10:1 the Jewish Church is intended by ‘the fold of the sheep.’ Not that all who are found within the pale of Judaism belong to ‘the sheep’ of which Jesus speaks. The sheep are those who hear a true shepherd’s voice; and we may so far forestall John 10:11 as to say that none are included under this designation who refuse to hear the voice of Jesus Himself. ‘The sheep’ are therefore those who in other passages are described as ‘of God’ (see chap. John 8:47), and ‘of the truth’ (chap. John 18:37), and the ‘fold’ is the Jewish Church in so far as that Church has sheltered these until the fulness of time has come. Then, and not till then, shall the sheep be led out of the fold into the free open pastures: then, too, the ‘other sheep’ will be brought, and there shall be, not two flocks but one, under one Shepherd. It will be seen that in no part of this parable are the sheep said to return to the fold; the shepherds only are spoken of as entering in, and that for the purpose of leading out their flocks. In saying, ‘I am the door of the sheep,’ therefore, Jesus says in effect—(1) that through Him alone has any true guardian and guide of the sheep entered into the fold; (2) that through Him alone will the sheep within the ‘fold’ be led out into the open pastures. The latter thought is easily understood; it presents the same promise of the gladness and freedom and life of Messianic times as was set forth by the symbols of the feast of Tabernacles in the seventh and eighth chapters. Then the figures were the pouring out of water and the lighting of the golden lamps: the figure now is very different, but (as we have seen) equally familiar in Old Testament prophecy. Not until Messiah shall come will the night of patient waiting cease, and the fold be seen to have been only a temporary shelter, not a lasting home. The application of the words before us to the shepherds is more difficult; for when we consider how this chapter is connected with the last, it is plain that Jesus adverts to the presence within the fold of some who are not true shepherds. They have climbed up from some other quarter, and are in the fold to gratify their own selfishness and greed, not to benefit the flock. How then can it be said of them that they did not enter through the Door,—i.e., through our Lord Himself? In answering this question it seems plain that we have here a saying akin to that of chap. John 8:56, or John 12:41, or to that of Heb 11:26, in which Moses is said to have esteemed ‘the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt.’ The leading characteristic of preceding ages had been that they were a time of preparation for the Christ, that during them the promise and hope of the Christ had stood in the place of His personal presence. The object of every ruler in the Jewish Church, and of every teacher of the Jewish people, should have been to point forward to the coming of the Messiah; and each should have used all his power and influence, not for himself, but to prepare for the event in which the Jewish Church was to culminate and (in an important sense) come to an end, giving place to the Church Universal. The rulers brought before us in the last chapter had done the reverse; in no true sense had they prepared for the Christ: and, when the Christ appeared, so far from receiving Him, they had combined together to put away from the Church in which they bore rule every one who acknowledged that Jesus was He. Hence, accordingly, the strong language of Joh 10:1. These teachers had ‘climbed up from another quarter,’ instead of entering by the Door. They had been marked by a spirit of self-exaltation, of earthly Satanic pride; they had appeared as the enemies of God, had refused to submit themselves to His plans, had sought not His glory but their own; their aims had been thoroughly selfish, devilish; they were of their father the devil (John 8:44). Thus, also, we see that the term ‘a thief and a robber,’ applied to such teachers in John 10:1, is not too strong, for they had perverted the whole object of the theocracy; they had made that an end which was only designed to be a means, and had done this as men who had blinded themselves to the true light, and were using the flock of God as instruments for their own aggrandisement. They were in the fold, but they had not entered through the door.Such then being the meaning of the ‘Door,’ the ‘fold,’ the ‘sheep,’ the true and false shepherds, the rest of the description is easily understood. The true sheep know the voice of every rightful shepherd (John 10:3-4); in all past ages there has been this mutual recognition between teachers sent by God and those who have desired to be taught of God. But the Ml accomplishment of the work described in these verses awaits the coming of Him who is the true Shepherd, through whom the sheep are to be led forth from the fold. To Him alone apply the words in their completeness, but in measure they most truly belong to every shepherd whose mission comes through Him. John 10:8. All that came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. In the similitude of the door, Jesus had declared that it was through Him alone that the flocks could come out of the Jewish fold into the pastures into which they had longed to enter; and this was a truth not depending only upon His proclamation of it, but lying in the very essence of the Old Testament dispensation. The prophecies had fixed the thoughts of all true Israelites on ‘Him that cometh,’ and had shown them that until His coming their hopes could not be fulfilled. But some had forgotten this, and had falsely claimed the place that belonged to Jesus, each deceiver pretending that he himself was the medium through which God’s people were to be led to the satisfaction of their hopes. But those who trusted in God and waited patiently for Him were kept by Him from these deceivers: ‘the sheep did not hear them.’Such is the general sense of this verse; it is less easy to fill up the outline it presents. We may well wonder that any should have thought that the words ‘all that came before me’ might include the prophets of the former dispensation; for the context most clearly proves that Jesus is speaking of those who ‘came before Him,’ professing to be ‘the door of the sheep.’ The word ‘came,’ indeed, can hardly be interpreted without the thought of that designation so peculiarly belonging to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, ‘He that cometh.’ No one else has a right thus to say ‘I come,’ ‘I have come,’ ‘I came.’ The idea of taking the work of Jesus in hand lies in ‘came.’ When, accordingly, setting aside the thought of all true prophets, we ask who they are to whom this description applies, we naturally think, in the first instance, of false Messiahs, of whom many appeared in Jewish history. It may be said that we have no record of a claim to Messiahship earlier than the time when these words were spoken. This answer contains too positive an assertion. There is reason for believing that Judas of Galilee (mentioned in Acts 5:37) was regarded by some as the Christ; and Gamaliel’s words respecting Theudas (Acts 5:36) may very possibly cover a similar assumption. The Gospels reveal a state of Messianic hope out of which such deception might easily arise. That popular insurrections were continually occurring is a notorious fact; and if Josephus, our chief authority for the history of this period, fails to give us a careful account of the religious hopes that were fostered by the leaders of revolt, his character and aims as a historian are a sufficient explanation of his silence. But whether the thought of false Messiahs is admissible or not, the meaning of the words must extend much farther, and must embrace all who had sought to turn the people from waiting for the promise which God had given, or had substituted other principles of national life for the hope of the Messiah. Such had long been the practical effect of the rule and teaching of Pharisees and Sadducees. These men had sat in the seat of Moses to make void the law and to extinguish the promise by their vain traditions, and for their selfish ends; and they are certainly, perhaps mainly, thought of here. John 10:9. I am the door: by me if any one have entered in, he shall be saved, and shall enter in, and shall go out and find pasture. From the thought of the ‘thieves and robbers,’ Jesus turns to mat of ‘a shepherd of the sheep.’ And as entering by the door has been mentioned (John 10:1) as the first mark of a true shepherd, He emphatically repeats His former saying, ‘I am the door.’ In John 10:7, however, as John 10:8 shows, it is of the release of the flock from the fold that we must chiefly think (and therefore the words ‘of the sheep’ were naturally added). The repetition here introduces the other application of the thought. Whoever has entered through this Door (Christ) shall be saved, and shall enter in (to the fold), and shall go out and find pasture (for the flock over which he is placed in charge). The repetition of ‘enter,’ it will be seen, involves no tautology: first the shepherd passes through the door, then goes into the heart of the enclosure to call to him his sheep. He goes in for the purpose of coming out to find pasturage for the flock that follows him from the fold. The chief difficulty lies in the interpretation of the words ‘he shall be saved.’ The sudden introduction of this thought in the very midst of figurative language most consistently preserved (the door, enter in, go out and find pasture) at first appears strange. But the very place which the words hold supplies a key to their interpretation. We cannot content ourselves with saying that the whole parable is instinct with the thought of salvation in its general sense, and that what is present in every part may surely be expressed in one. It is true that in our Lord’s parables we sometimes find a rapid transition from the sign to the thing signified; but such an intermixture of fact and figure as (on that supposition) is found here, we meet with nowhere else. Whatever difficulty may arise, the words must connect themselves with the imagery of the parable. The chapters of Ezekiel and Zechariah, referred to in the note on John 10:1, show at once how this is possible. We have before seen (see chap. John 3:3, John 7:39, John 8:33, etc.) how suddenly our Lord sometimes removes His hearers into a familiar region of Old Testament history or prophecy. To the teachers of the law, who were the hearers of most of the discourses related by John, the letter of the Old Testament was well known; and, moreover, it is very probable that in the discourses as delivered other words may have been added, not necessary to the completeness of the thought, but helpful to the understanding of the hearers. One of the connecting links between this chapter and the last is the evil wrought by unworthy and false shepherds; in this word suddenly introduced in the portraiture of a true shepherd we have vividly brought before us all that the prophets had said of the fate of the unworthy. Those shepherds who had no pity on the flock, but said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, for I am rich,’ the soul of the prophet ‘loathed,’ and he gave them to destruction (Zechariah 11:5; Zechariah 11:8; Zechariah 11:17). From all such penalty of unfaithfulness shall the true shepherd be ‘saved.’ That He whose love to His flock assigns this punishment to the unworthy will reward the faithful, may not be expressed in the figure, but in the interpretation it holds the chief place: to such a shepherd of souls will Jesus give salvation.—It should perhaps be said that (probably in consequence of the difficulty which the words ‘he shall be saved’ seem to present) this verse is usually understood as relating to the sheep and not to the shepherds. It seems impossible, however, to compare the language here used with that of Joh 10:1-2 without coming to the conclusion that all the three are identical in subject. John 10:10. The thief cometh not but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy. This verse forms a link of connection between John 10:9 and John 10:11, presenting first the contrast between a true shepherd and ‘the thief,’ and then preparing the way for the highest contrast of all, that between the thief and the Good Shepherd. The rightful Shepherd has entered (John 10:9) that He may lead out His flock to the pastures; the thief cometh only to steal and kill, feeding himself and not the flock, even seeking its destruction. I came that they may have life, and that they may have abundance. To this point the figure contained in ‘I am the door’ has been more or less clearly preserved, for the shepherd has, and the thief has not, entered the fold by the door. The language now before us does not really depart from this conception (for in opposition to those who ‘came before’ Him professing to be ‘the door of the sheep,’ Jesus here says ‘I came’), although it agrees still better with the thought of Joh 10:11. In fact the words ‘I came’ stand in double contrast,—with the words of Joh 10:8, and with the first words of this verse ‘the thief cometh.’ By whatever figure Jesus is represented, the object of His appearing is the same, that His sheep may live. The life and abundance are the reality of which the pasturage (John 10:9) has been the symbol. As in chap. 7 the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom are represented by abundant streams of living water, so here the regions into which Jesus is leading His flock are regions of life and of abundance. To His people He gives eternal life; there shall be no want to them for maintaining their life in all its freedom and joy; their ‘cup runneth over.’ John 10:11. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. The aspect of the preamble here changes: in the following verses, until the 16th, there is no mention of the fold or of the door, but of the shepherd only and his relation to the flock. The word rendered ‘good’ occurs but seldom in this Gospel: it differs from the word ordinarily so translated (which however John uses still less frequently) in that it is never used to express the idea of kindness, but always signifies what is (outwardly or inwardly) beautiful, noble, excellent of its kind. Both words may be used to denote moral excellence, and with but slight difference of meaning. Here then the epithet has no reference to kindness but to excellence as a Shepherd. Is there a shepherd whose work is not only faithful but all fair, without spot or defect, such a Shepherd of the flock is the Lord Jesus. The highest point which the Shepherd’s faithfulness can reach is His laying down His life for the sheep: when the wolf assaults the flock, the Good Shepherd repels him, although He die in the attempt. Strictly taken these words are general, and may be said of every noble shepherd; but, connected with the first clause, they in effect declare what is done by Jesus Himself. Our Lord’s hearers at the time would understand no more than this, that at the peril of His life He would defend His flock; but it is impossible to read chap. John 11:51 without seeing in the words a reference to the truth declared in chap. John 3:14-15, John 12:32,—the atoning death of the Redeemer which brings life to the world. John 10:12-13. He that is an hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, beholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and fleeth (and the wolf catcheth them and scattereth), because he is an hireling and careth not for the sheep. A true shepherd will purchase the life of his sheep by the sacrifice of his own life. The man who has taken the work of a shepherd for hire, who is only a hireling and careth not for the sheep, abandons them as soon as danger approaches, and gains his own life at the cost of the life of his sheep. Since the sheep are not to him as ‘his own’ the very name of shepherd is denied him. It may seem that the climax which usually shows itself in the narratives and discourses of this Gospel is here wanting, ‘thief’ and ‘robber’ being far stronger terms of reprobation than ‘hireling.’ But it is not really so: the thief at all events has betrayed no trust, and is less guilty than the hireling who in the hour of need forsakes the duty he had pledged himself to fulfil. Whom then does the hireling represent? If ‘the thief’ who comes under the guise of shepherd stands for all who force themselves into the place of rulers and guides, for the sake of private gain, ‘the hireling’ seems to represent those who held such place by lawful right, but when faithfulness was needed most deserted duty through fear. Godet points to chap. John 12:42 as exemplifying the description here given. The lawful rulers dare not avow their own convictions and thus guard the people who trust in them; the Pharisaic spirit is too strong for them; they save themselves by silence and give up those for whom they should care to the persecution of the enemy. Some of these will yield to the foe and deny that Jesus is the Christ; many will be scattered. It is possible therefore that ‘the wolf’ may here represent this spirit of Judaism, but we should rather say that it is the enemy (Luke 10:19) of God and man who is represented under the symbol of the natural foe of the sheep and of the Shepherd. Whatever agency may be used, the ultimate source of the murderous design is the spirit of evil, the Devil, he who was ‘a murderer from the beginning.’ John 10:14-15. I am the good shepherd, and I know mine own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. As the figure of Joh 10:7 was repeated in John 10:9, that it might receive a new and blessed application, so here we have a repetition of the figure presented in the 11th verse. The repetition removes from view the unworthy: we are brought once more into the presence of Jesus and His own. First and last in these two verses stand the two clauses of the former verse, altered only in so far that what there was said of the Good Shepherd is here said of Jesus Himself (‘I lay down’). Between these two clauses are placed two other sayings, the first suggested at once by the figure used, the second rising higher than any earlier words of the parable. Since Jesus is the good Shepherd, His sheep hear His voice and He calleth His own sheep by name (John 10:3): hence He says that He knows (recognises) His own sheep and His own know (recognise) Him. But once more (see chap. John 8:38) He places in parallelism His own relation to the Father and the relation of His own to Him. He looks on the sheep and sees at once that they are His: they see Him and hear His voice and know that He is their Shepherd. So the Father looks on Him and sees in Him the Good Shepherd whom He sent: He looks on the Father, and constantly recognises His presence as the Father with Him. There is wonderful beauty and elevation in the comparison; no saying of our Lord goes beyond this in unfolding the intimacy of communion between Himself and His people which it reveals and promises. They are His, as He is the Father’s. It seems very probable that in these words there lies a reference to John 10:2, where we read that he who stands at the gate admits the true shepherd within the fold, recognising him, distinguishing him at once from those who falsely claim the name, just as the shepherd distinguishes his own sheep from those that are not of his flock.—These two verses are remarkable for simplicity of structure. As in the simplest examples of Hebrew poetry, thought is attached to thought, one member is placed in parallelism with another. Yet, as in the Hebrew poetry of which this reminds us, a dependence of thought upon thought may be inferred, though it is not expressed. Thus we have seen that, if Jesus is the Good Shepherd, it must be true that He recognises His own sheep. So also (and it is to point out this that we call attention to the structure of the verse) the Father’s recognition of Him closely connects itself with His laying down His life, as the Shepherd for the sheep. In this the Father sees the highest proof of His devotion to the work He has accepted: in the spirit of constant readiness for this crowning act of love He recognises the Father’s constant presence and love (John 10:17). And, as the words of the verse bear witness to the Father’s care for man (not less truly and powerfully because this meaning does not lie on the surface of the words), it is easy to see once more with what fitness we here read ‘the Father,’ and not simply ‘my Father’ (see chap. John 8:27; John 8:38). John 10:16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must lead, and they shall hear my voice. Not in the Jewish Church only was there a work of preparation for His coming: the light had been shining in the darkness (chap. John 1:5),—the light which enlighteneth every man (John 1:9). Many in the Gentile world were waiting only to hear His voice: they will recognise their Shepherd, and He will know His own sheep. He regards them as His own even now (‘other sheep I have’); they are not shunning the light and seeking darkness; He receives them now as His Father’s gift to Him. It is not easy to answer a question which the words immediately suggest: Does our Lord speak of these ‘other sheep’ of the Gentile world as abiding in a fold? It might be so. We cannot see that there would be difficulty in regarding that dispensation of which we know so little, the dealings of the One Father with the heathen world (to which had been given no such revelation as the Jews possessed, but in which He had never left Himself without witness), as symbolized by a ‘fold.’ But there does seem to be an intentional avoidance of any word that would necessarily suggest this image here. No mention is made of ‘entering in’ to the place where these sheep abide, or of the door through which they pass. The word ‘lead’ is used again, but, whereas in John 10:3 we read that the Shepherd leadeth out His own sheep from the Jewish fold, here He says only ‘them also I must lead.’ We conclude therefore that it was not without design that Jesus said—not ‘I have sheep of another fold,’ but—‘I have other sheep, not of this fold.’ The language of chap. John 11:52 suggests rather that these ‘other sheep ‘have been comparatively shelterless, not drawn together by any shepherd’s care, but ‘scattered abroad.’ Their past has been altogether different from that of the devout Israelite; but the future of Jew and Gentile shall be the same. As in the case of Israel, so here the whole work of bringing liberty and life is accomplished by Jesus Himself: it is a work that He must do (comp. chap. John 4:34, John 9:4, etc.), for it is His Father’s will. He seeks the scattered sheep; they come together to Him; He places Himself at the head of this other flock; His voice keeps them near to Him. Passing for a moment from the figure, we recognise once more how Jesus includes all the work of faith and discipleship in ‘hearing Him’ (see chap. John 8:31; John 8:40; John 8:47): all that had been wanting to these heirs of a lower dispensation is supplied when they hear His voice. And they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Then shall be brought to pass the saving that is written, One flock, One Shepherd (Ezekiel 34:23; Ezekiel 37:22-24). As written by the prophet indeed the words have express reference to the reuniting of scattered and divided Israel; but, as in countless other instances, the history of Israel is a parable of the history of the world. The apostolic comment on the verse is found in Ephesians, chap. 2. It is very unfortunate that in the Authorised Version the rendering ‘one fold’ should have found a place, instead of ‘one flock.’ The whole thought of the parable is thrown into confusion by this error, which is the less excusable inasmuch as the word which actually does mean ‘fold’ (a word altogether dissimilar) occurs in the first part of the verse. Our first and greatest translator, William Tyndale, rightly understood the words: the influence of the Vulgate and of Erasmus was in this case prejudicial, and led Coverdale (who in his own Bible of 1535 had followed Tyndale) to introduce the wrong translation into the Great Bible of 1539. We may well wonder that the Vulgate should contain so strange a mistake; the older Latin version was here correct, but was changed by Jerome. John 10:17. Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. In John 10:15 we have read of the Father’s recognition of the Good Shepherd, who gives the highest proof of His devotion to the shepherd’s work and possession of the shepherd’s character in laying down His life for the sheep. These verses take up and expand that thought, speaking not of recognition only but of love. But it is with John 10:16 that John 10:17 is immediately connected. ‘I must’ had expressed complete union with His Father’s will: the prophecy that follows brought into view the full and certain accomplishment of the Father’s purpose. On this account, because of this union of will and this devotion to His purpose, ‘the Father’ (note once more how perfect is the fitness of this name here) loveth Him,—namely, because He layeth down His life that He may take it again. The two parts of this statement must be closely joined together. The perfect conformity to the Father’s will is shown not in laying down the life only, but also in taking it again. The duty of the Shepherd, as set forth in John 10:15-16, can only in this way be accomplished. He gives His life to purchase life for His sheep, but besides this He must continue to lead the flock of which He is the Only Shepherd. In the execution of His work, therefore, He could not give Himself to death without the purpose of taking His life again: He died that His own may ever live in His life.—But, if the Father’s love can rest on the Son who is obedient even unto death, and unto life through death, it is essential that the obedience be entirely free. Hence the words of the next verse. John 10:18. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. He lays down His life of Himself. He has the right to do this, and the right to take the life again. This commandment I received of my Father. By His Father’s express commission He has this right of free decision. For the first time Jesus here speaks of the ‘commandment’ which He has received, and the use of this term is in full harmony with the position He has assumed throughout the parable, the Shepherd of God’s flock, the Servant of Jehovah. On the word ‘love’ (John 10:17) see note on chap. John 5:20 : the word found in that verse is not used here, for the reason there explained. A question is often asked in relation to the words of these verses: if the teaching of Scripture is that the Father raised the Son from the dead, how can Jesus speak as He here does about His resumption of life? But, if the words ‘this commandment’ be interpreted as above, to refer ,to the Father’s will that the death and resurrection should rest on the free choice of Jesus, the answer is plain: Jesus took His life again in voluntarily accepting the exercise of His Father’s power. If we understand the ‘commandment’ to relate—not to the possession of right or power, but—to the actual death and resurrection, the answer is different, but not less easy: Jesus in rising from the dead freely obeys the Father’s will,—the Father’s will is still the ultimate source of the action of the Son. John 10:19. There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. The effect related in chap. John 7:43, John 9:16, is again produced. This time however (as in chap. John 8:31) ‘the Jews’ themselves are divided. The preceding parable therefore must have been spoken in the hearing of many who were hostile to Jesus, as well as of Pharisees (chap. John 9:40) who may have been half convinced. John 10:20-21. And many of them said, He hath a demon, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the sayings of one that is possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind? In the other instances quoted above the division of feeling had been between ‘some’ and ‘others:’ here, where ‘the Jews’ are in question, many are driven by the words of Jesus to more bitter hostility, repeating and extending the charge of which we read in chap. John 7:20, John 8:48. But there are others whom the miracle related in chap. 9 had impressed, though at the time they did not stand up against the action of their party (chap. John 9:34). The effect produced on them by the miracle which Jesus wrought is now deepened by His teaching: as in the case of Nicodemus the ‘sign’ prepared the way for the instruction of the ‘words.’ In the question asked we have the same association of teaching and miracle. A man possessed by a spirit of evil could not say such things as these: a demon (though he might be supposed able to cast out another demon) could not restore to the blind their sight. It is interesting to observe in these last words the tendency of the Evangelist to close a section with words that recall its opening, thus binding all the parts of a narrative into one whole. The contest with the Jews is continued. The section strikingly illustrates the plan of the gospel (1) by taking up again that claim of Jesus to be the Son of God which had, more than anything else, provoked the opposition of His enemies; (2) by bringing into notice His return to Bethany beyond Jordan, where He had been first made manifest by the Baptist to Israel, and where confession is now made by ‘many’ that everything spoken of Him by the Baptist at His entrance upon His public ministry had proved true. We have here, therefore, the culminating- point of the conflict, and the pause before the highest manifestation by Jesus of Himself as the Resurrection and the Life. The subordinate parts are—(1) John 10:22-39; (2) John 10:40-42. John 10:23. And Jesus walked in the temple-courts, in Solomon’s porch. The ‘porch’ which bore Solomon’s name was a covered colonnade on the eastern side of the outer court of the temple. According to Josephus this ‘porch’ was the work of Solomon: at all events we may well believe that the massive foundations were laid by him, though the cloisters which he built were in ruins when Herod began his restoration of the temple. John 10:24. The Jews therefore surrounded mm, and said unto him, How long dost thou excite our soul? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. The recurrence of the oft - repeated term ‘the Jews’ is a sufficient indication of the tone and design of the question asked. Taking advantage, perhaps, of the fact that Jesus was in the cloisters of the temple-courts, and not now in the midst of a listening ‘multitude,’ His enemies encompass Him, determined to gain from Him such an avowal of His Messiahship as shall enable them to carry out their designs against His life.—The expression which in the Authorised Version is rendered ‘make us to doubt’ has received various explanations. That adopted by us is perhaps, upon the whole, the most probable. Another, however, may be suggested by what is at least a curious coincidence, that the verb used by the Jews is the same as that used by our Lord for ‘taketh’ in the first clause of Joh 10:18, and that the noun now rendered ‘soul’ is more probably ‘life,’ and is indeed so translated in John 10:17. Following these hints we venture to ask whether the words may not mean, ‘How long dost thou take away our life?’ They will then be one of those unconscious prophecies, of those unconscious testimonies to the going on of something deeper than they were themselves aware of, which John delights to find on the lips of the opponents of Jesus. They were stirring up their enmity against Him to a pitch which was to lead them to take away His life; and by their words they confess that He is taking away theirs. It is not meant, in what has now been said, to assert that the Jews actually intended to express this, but only that John sees it in the language which they use. They meant only, How long dost thou excite us or keep us in suspense? Put an end to this by speaking plainly,—or (more literally) by speaking out, telling all Thou hast to tell. John 10:25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness concerning me. A demand so made was never granted by Jesus. They had already received sufficient evidence, and to this He refers them. He again speaks of both word and deed. What He had said (see chap. John 5:19, John 8:36; John 8:56; John 8:58) had shown clearly who He is; what He had done had borne witness concerning Him (see chap. John 5:36). But both word and works had failed to lead them to belief in Him. John 10:26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. In chap. John 8:47 He had said that they heard not His words because they were not of God: the same thought is expressed here, but with a change of figure. There is no reference to an essential or necessary state, to any ‘decree’ through the operation of which they were incapable of faith. They have not the character, the disposition, of His sheep; through this moral defect (for which they are themselves responsible, see chap. John 3:19, etc.) they will not believe. This is brought out more fully in the next verse. John 10:27-28. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of my hand. In these verses is given a description of the true sheep. The description is rhythmical, and rises to a climax. The first couplet expresses some property of the sheep, the second a corresponding attitude or action of the Shepherd; and each successive couplet takes us into a higher sphere of thought and blessing.1. My sheep hear my voice,And I know them;2. And they follow me,And I give unto them eternal life,3. And they shall never perish.And no one shall pluck them out of my hand.The couplets, as will be seen, express successively the mutual recognition of sheep and Shepherd (for this is the meaning conveyed by the word here rendered ‘know,’—see the note on John 10:14-15); the present gift of eternal life to those who follow Jesus (see chap. John 8:12, etc.); the lasting safety of those who thus follow Him and abide with Him. The description presents a complete contrast to the action of ‘the Jews’ who were not of His sheep (John 10:26); who, though He had so often manifested Himself to them by word and work, yet had never recognised His voice, but came to Him saying, ‘If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.’ From this contrast arises the order of the clauses in these verses, an order different from that in John 10:14. John 10:29-30. My Father, which hath given them me, is greater than all; and no one is able to pluck out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. The apparent object of these words is to establish more completely the safety of His sheep. But in answering this purpose they also answer a still higher end; they are a revelation of Jesus Himself. In effect they give a reply to the question of the Jews, but such a reply as only the heart prepared to listen to the truth will receive. Jesus has spoken of ‘My sheep;’ they are His by reason of His Father’s gift. The Father who has given will maintain the gift: and He is greater than all who could seek to snatch away the sheep,—none can snatch aught out of the hand of the Father. The progress of the thought is perfectly simple, but the transition from ‘my Father’ to ‘the Father’ is full of meaning. The letter name is fitly used, since here the axiom of Divine Almightiness is expressed; the same name, moreover, is most appropriate in a passage which traces the development of God’s purpose to make men His sons through His Son. Jesus has used the same words of Himself and of the Father; ‘no one shall pluck them out of my hand,’—‘no one can pluck out of the Father’s hand.’ He might have left His hearers to draw the certain inference, but He will so far grant their request as to ‘tell’ this ‘plainly:’ ‘I and the Father are one.’ There is perhaps nothing in this saying that goes beyond the revelation of chap. 5; but its terseness and its simple force give it a new significance. Unity of action, purpose, power, may be what the context chiefly requires us to recognise as expressed in these words; but the impression which was made upon the Jews (John 10:31), the fuller statement of Joh 10:38, the analogy of chap. 5 and of expressions (still more closely parallel) in chap. 17 forbid us to depart from the most ancient Christian exposition which sees in this saying of Jesus no less than a claim of unity of essence with the Father. John 10:31. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Their view of the blasphemy of His words is given more fully in John 10:33. The word ‘again’ carries us back to chap. John 8:59, where a similar attempt is recorded, but in less definite language. There we see the Jews taking up, hastily snatching up, stones that lay near, to ‘cast on Him:’ here their resolve to inflict the penalty for blasphemy appears more distinctly in their attempt to ‘stone Him.’ The two words rendered ‘take up’ are also different, and it is possible that the Evangelist here presents the Jews as bearing up the stones on high, in the very act of preparing to bury Him beneath them. The climax ought not to pass unobserved.—They are arrested by His words. John 10:32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of these works do ye stone me? On the word ‘good’ see the note on John 10:11 : every work He has shown them has borne the perfect stamp of a work noble and perfect in its kind, for He has shown it ‘from the Father,’ who sent Him and ever works with and in Him. He knew that they were enraged at His word, and yet He speaks here of His works: the works and the words are essentially one,—alike manifestations of Himself John 10:33. The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. These words show conclusively how the saying of Joh 10:30 was understood by those who heard it: they perceive now who is meant by ‘the Father’ (comp. John 8:27), and see that to claim oneness with Him is to claim Deity. All recollection of ‘good works’ and indeed all evidence whatever they cast away, treating such a claim as incapable of support by any evidence. John 10:34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? The quotation is from Psalms 82 (the word ‘law’ being used, as in chap. John 15:25 and some other places, for the Old Testament scriptures generally), ‘I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.’ The psalm is a reproof of unrighteous judges. Its opening words bring before us God judging ‘among the gods,’—that is; among the judges, for the sacred name is in other passages (Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8, and probably Exodus 22:28) given to those who were to the people the representatives of God, and gave judgment in His name. In following verses of the psalm as far as John 10:7, it is supposed by some that God Himself is the Speaker (comp. Psalms 1.). If so, the words ‘Ye are gods’ are here quoted as if spoken by God; and in the next verse ‘he called’ must be similarly explained. It seems more likely, however, that the rebuke of the judges’ injustice is administered by the psalmist in his own person; and in John 10:35 the meaning will either be that the law ‘called,’ or the speaker implied in the emphatic ‘I,’ viz. the psalmist writing under inspiration from God and expressing His mind. In any case the pronoun ‘I’ is strongly marked,—I myself, who utter the rebuke and had foretold the punishment, had borne witness to the dignity of the position of the judge. John 10:35-36. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father consecrated, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am Son of God? If (1) the speaker in the psalm called men ‘gods’ because the word of God (the expression of God’s will, which, as judges, they were bound to carry out) was given to them; and if (2) this passage of scripture cannot be broken, cannot be set aside, but must be taken as inspired by God, how can they accuse Jesus of blasphemy? To the judges the ‘word of God came:’ Jesus was sent into the world by the Father to declare His will, as Himself ‘The Word.’ The judges were commissioned by God for the work to which they proved unfaithful: He, consecrated by the Father to His work, had but fulfilled His trust when He declared Himself Son of God. If then the judge, as a partial and imperfect expression of God (if we may so speak) to the people received the name of ‘god,’ with infinitely higher right may Jesus call Himself Son of God. His claim of the name was in itself no foundation for their charge: their own law should have taught them this. John 10:37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. In the last verse ‘the Father’ was the Name of which Jesus spoke, thus bringing together in thought God who spoke in the psalm and His Father who sent Him into the world. Here, after the mention of ‘the Son of God,’ He says ‘the works of my Father.’ If He does no such works they have no right to believe His word and acknowledge His claims. It is otherwise it He does them. John 10:38. But if I do, even if ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and recognise, that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. If He does the works of His Father, then, even although they might be unwilling to accept His witness respecting Himself, the works bear a testimony they are bound to receive. Receiving this testimony and thus learning that the works of Jesus are the Father’s works, men will know that He and the Father are one, the Father abiding in Him, and He in the Father. But this is not a truth learnt once for all. The words of Jesus are: that ye may ‘know’ (being brought to conviction by the testimony of the works) and (from that point onwards continually) ‘recognise’ . . . Their eyes once opened, they will ever see in the works tokens of the Father’s presence. John 10:39. They sought again to seize him: and he went forth out of their hand. ‘Again’ seems to point back to chap. 7, where the same word ‘seize’ is found three times (John 7:30; John 7:32; John 7:44). We cannot suppose that the Jews had laid aside their design of stoning Him in consequence of the words just spoken, for these words would either lead to faith or repel to greater enmity. For some reason not mentioned they now seek not to stone Him on the spot, but to seize Him and carry Him away. As in chap. John 8:59, ‘He went forth’ out of their hand, thus illustrating again His own words in John 10:18. John 10:40. And he went away again beyond Jordan unto the place where John was at first baptizing; and there he abode. The place in which John at first baptized was that mentioned in chap. John 1:28 (not in chap. John 3:22), viz. Bethany beyond Jordan. But why does the Evangelist here make special mention of this fact? It would seem that we have another illustration of his tendency at the close of a period of the history to go back to the beginning of that period. He gathers together the whole ministry of Jesus up to this time under one point of view. With the next chapter we really enter on the final scene: in the raising of Lazarus the work of Jesus reaches its culminating-point; by that miracle His rejection and condemnation by the Jews is made certain. And as in a mountain ascent the traveller may pause before attempting the highest peak, and survey the long path by which he has ascended, so the Evangelist here pauses before relating the last struggle, and (by mentioning the association of the place and not the name of the place itself) leads his readers to survey with him all the period of the ministry of Him to whom John bore witness. Whatever Jesus had since done or said ratified the witness borne by the Baptist. Possibly it was because of John’s testimony that Jesus sought this spot: near it may have lived many whose hearts had been prepared for His teaching. What He did during His stay in Bethany beyond Jordan, or how long was His stay, we do not know. We may certainly suppose that He taught; and the next verse suggests that ‘signs’ were wrought. John 10:41-42. And many came unto him; and they said, John did no sign: but all things whatsoever John spake of this man were true. And many believed in him there. How great the contrast between the scene presented here and those of the preceding chapters! He came to the Jews, but, in spite of works and word, they rejected Him: now, in His retirement, many come unto Him, and many believe in Him. For Jesus this period of rest is a period not of peace only, but also of joy in successful toil. Another contrast implied is between Jesus and the Baptist ‘who did no sign’ but bare witness only. He being dead yet speaketh, in that his testimony is leading men to Jesus in the very place of his own ministry: and there also witness is borne to him, in the emphatic acknowledgment that all his words concerning Jesus had proved true. Nay, even beyond the experience of these believers we may see that this saying expresses truth, for in His most memorable discourses Jesus fulfils the word of the Baptist recorded in chap. 1 of this Gospel, ‘He that cometh after me has become before me because He was before me’ (John 1:15; John 1:27; John 1:30). The manifestation of Jesus by Himself is about to terminate so far at least as the world is concerned, and it does so in His revealing Himself as the Resurrection and the Life, the Conqueror of death in the very height of its power. The raising of Lazarus illustrates this. The account as a whole divides itself into two subordinate parts—(1) John 11:1-16; (2) John 11:17-44. John 11:2. (Now it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) These words seem intended to bring into view the closeness of the relation between Jesus and Mary. There are particulars in which this narrative closely resembles that of chap. John 2:1-11 : as there we have the closest tie of kindred, so here we read of the most intimate friendship. But the one tie as well as the other must yield to the voice of God. The anointing was when John wrote well and widely known (see Matthew 26:13): it is here specially mentioned in anticipation of chap. 12. John 11:3. The sisters therefore sent unto him saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. Their confidence in the love and in the power of Jesus is shown by the absence of any request: the message is a tender and delicate expression of their need. With the description of Lazarus compare chap. John 20:2 (where the same verb for ‘love’ is used), ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’ John 11:4. But when Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby. The reply of Jesus is not represented as addressed to the messengers sent, or to the apostles, though probably spoken in the hearing of both. The point of importance is the foreknowledge of Jesus, to whom were even now present both the miracle and the result. The first result is expressed in the closing words, ‘that the Son of God may be glorified thereby;’ the ultimate aim in the former clause, ‘for the glory of God.’ The true design of the sickness is not to bring death to Lazarus, but to glorify the Son of God, and by this means to bring glory to the Father. Compare chap. John 17:1. John 11:5. Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. This simple record of His love for this family (note how significant is the separate mention of each one of the three) connects itself both with John 11:4 and also with the statement of Joh 11:5-6, these verses really constituting one sentence. The object of the Evangelist is to set before us the mind of Jesus: in John 11:4 we see the first principle of all, supreme regard to the glory of God; here His love for those on whom the affliction must fall, and whom (John 11:6) He cannot help save at the hour appointed by His Father. But when that hour has come, His obedience to His Father’s will and His love for His sorrowing friends unite in leading Him to Bethany (John 11:7).—The word ‘loved’ used in this verse is different from that which we find in John 11:3. The sisters use that which belongs to tender human friendship (see note on chap. John 5:20); the Evangelist the more lofty word, which so often expresses the relation of Jesus to His disciples. He loved them with a love with which the thought of His Father’s love to Himself is mingled. John 11:6. When he had heard therefore that he was sick, at that time indeed he abode in the place where he was two days. ‘Therefore’ is explained by the two verses which precede (see the last note). He cannot accept the moment suggested by man (comp. chap. John 2:4); He cannot follow at once the prompting of His affection for disciples. He will go to assuage their grief, but only at the moment appointed by the Father’s will. John 11:7. Then after that he saith to the disciples, Let us go into Judea again? Jesus does not say ‘to Bethany,’ but to ‘Judea;’ for He knows that this visit to Bethany will bring Him again into the midst of His enemies, ‘the Jews,’ and will lead to a development of their hatred and malice which will find satisfaction only in His death. In the full consciousness of what awaits Him He prepares to depart for Bethany. John 11:8. The disciples say unto him, Rabbi, but now the Jews were seeking to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? The words ‘but now’ (only just now) seem to show that the sojourn in Perea (chap. John 10:40) was short. The disciples see clearly that to go to Bethany is as perilous as to return to Jerusalem, where He has but now escaped from the rage of ‘the Jews’ (chap. John 10:31). John 11:9-10. Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours of the day? If a man walk in the day he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night he stumbleth, because the light is not in him. This is the parable of chap. John 9:4 in an expanded form. By the light which God makes to shine in the world, He marks out twelve hours as the appointed time for ‘walking,’ for active work; by the absence of this light, the night is marked out as the time when there can be no such work. So is the life of every man ordered by God. There is the appointed time for work, indicated by the Providence of God: in following the intimations of His will the man will ‘not stumble,’ will take no false step. He will not shorten the proper time for ‘walking;’ for throughout the appointed twelve hours the finger of God will show the appointed work. It is only when man misses the Divine guidance, doing what no providential teaching has marked out, that he stumbleth: then he may well stumble, for the light (which during the day shines round him and entering the eye becomes within him light for guidance) is no longer in him. As applied to Himself the words of Jesus mean: ‘Following the will of God which leads Me into Judea again, I am walking in the light, I cannot “stumble” whatever may befell Me there.’ John 11:11. These things said he: and after that he saith unto them. Our friend Lazarus hath fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. No second message has been sent to Him; by His own Divine knowledge He speaks of the death of His friend. John 11:12. The disciples therefore said unto him, Lord, if he hath fallen asleep, he shall be saved. We can hardly escape the thought that they have in their mind some tidings brought at the same time with the message of Joh 11:3, descriptive of the nature of the illness. Was it some raging fever that threatened the life of Lazarus, then, if calm slumber has come upon him, he is safe! Surely therefore it is no longer necessary for their Lord to expose Himself to peril by returning to Judea. John 11:13. Howbeit Jesus had spoken of his death: but they thought that he spake of taking of rest in sleep. The figure can hardly have been here used by Jesus for the first time. The misconception of His meaning would seem to have arisen from His words in John 11:4, and from His delay in setting out for Bethany. John 11:14-15. Then therefore Jesus said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes, to the intent ye may believe, that I was not there; nevertheless let us go unto him. The words ‘for your sakes’ are explained by the clause which follows, ‘that ye may believe.’ Already they believed in Him; but ‘every new flight of faith is in its degree a new beginning of faith, comp. chap. John 2:11’ (Meyer). Had he come to Bethany while Lazarus lay sick, He would have healed his sickness; but great as might have been the miracle if He had done so, or if, arriving when Lazarus had just breathed his last, He had called back the departing spirit, in neither case would the disciples have seen the crowning ‘manifestation’ of their Lord, or have believed in Him as ‘the Resurrection and the Life.’ The disciples are now awakened to the fact that they are moving into the presence of death. John 11:16. Thomas therefore (which is called Didymus) said unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him. That is, with Jesus (not with Lazarus). It is plain that Jesus cannot be turned aside by their counsels or prayers; He is certainly about to return to Judea, at the peril of His life. As they cannot save Him they may at least share His fate. This is the exhortation of Thomas to his fellow-disciples; and it would seem that they shared his feelings, for the word ‘fellow-disciples’ (not found elsewhere in the New Testament), as compared with ‘the other disciples’ of John 20:25, binds all the disciples into one. The language is undoubtedly that of fervent love to Jesus, but it is also the language of despair and vanished hope. This is the end of all,—death; not the Messianic kingdom, not life. Whether we are right in thinking that this feeling was shared by the other disciples, or not, it is very natural that Thomas should be the one to give expression to it. From chap. John 14:5, John 20:24-25, we clearly perceive that sight is what he wants: when he sees not he gives himself up to despondency. It is remarkable that at every mention of this apostle John adds the Greek interpretation (Didymus, that is Twin) of the Aramaic name. It has been supposed that Didymus is the name with which Gentile Christians became most familiar; but if so it is singular that no other name than Thomas is found in the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts. By others it is urged that the word ‘Twin’ is used with symbolic meaning, pointing to the twofold nature of this apostle, in whom unbelief and faith, hope and tendency to despair, were strangely blended. With this statement the first paragraph of this narrative ends. The last words, ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him,’ fitly close a section which, as Luthardt remarks, is dominated by the thought of death. John 11:17. When therefore Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the tomb four days already. The situation of the Perean Bethany (chap. John 10:40) is so uncertain that we are unable to give a certain explanation of these four days. The distance from Jerusalem to the nearest point of the country beyond Jordan is not great (not much more than twenty miles), and could be traversed in a day. If then this was the situation of Bethany beyond Jordan, Jesus would reach the village of Martha and Mary on the second day from the commencement of His journey, and the fourth day from the reception of the news that Lazarus was sick (John 11:6). In this case the death of Lazarus must speedily have followed the departure of the messenger, and according to Eastern custom the body must on the same day have been laid in the tomb. Even if Bethany in Perea be placed at a somewhat greater distance from Jerusalem, this explanation removes all difficulties. Still it must be confessed that it is very natural to regard John 11:11 as spoken at the moment of death, though there is nothing in the words ‘hath fallen asleep’ to compel us to take this view. In that case the journey (if commenced immediately) must have occupied more than two whole days; yet even in this there is nothing difficult or improbable. Jesus reaches the village where the sisters lived on the fourth day of their mourning, when the lapse of time had brought home to them the hopelessness of their case. John 11:18. Now Bethany is nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off. This verse is of importance, not merely as preparing for John 11:19, but also as showing that Jesus in visiting Bethany was coming into the immediate presence of His enemies. They had pronounced Him a blasphemer, and they were determined to bring Him to the blasphemer’s death (John 10:31; John 10:39). John 11:19. And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. There is no ground whatever for understanding ‘the Jews’ in any other sense than that which the expression regularly bears in this Gospel. Amongst those who came to pay to the bereaved sisters the visits of condolence during the seven days of mourning, were many of the leaders of the people, many who were also leaders in hostility to Jesus. It is evident that the family of Bethany was one of distinction, and even their friendship to Jesus could not be a bar to their receiving from the Jews these offices of respect and sympathy. But this is not the only contrast which the mention of the Jews calls forth. As leaders of the people, ruling in ‘the city of their solemnities,’ they were the representatives of their Church and religion; and the ‘comfort’ they can offer in the presence of death is no inapt symbol of all that Judaism could do for the mourner. Thus on the one side we have human sorrow and the vanity of human comfort in the presence of death; on the other side we have Him who is the Life. John 11:20. Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him; but Mary sat still in the house. Every reader must be struck with the remarkable coincidence between this narrative and that of Luk 10:38-39, in the portraiture of the two sisters. Martha, even in the midst of her sorrow occupied with attention to family concerns, sees the messenger who announces the approach of Jesus and goes forth to meet Him, outside the village (John 11:30). Mary, absorbed in her grief, hears nothing of the message: it is not until Martha returns to her that she learns that Jesus is near. John 11:21. Martha therefore said unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. Her first words express no reproach, but only the bitter thought of help come too late. In His presence her brother could not have died (comp. John 11:15). Of the possibility that Jesus might have spoken the word of help, even though their message might reach Him too late to bring Him to their dying brother, she says nothing, though the Jews, unchecked by the reverence of love, freely ask the question among themselves (John 11:37). John 11:22. And even now I know that whatsoever things thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee. The words of this verse are very remarkable. The presence of the great Friend and Helper seems to give a sudden quickening to Martha’s faith. She had probably heard of the words of Jesus when the tidings of the sickness of Lazarus reached Him (John 11:4); and these words (which no doubt sorrow of heart and painful waiting had almost banished from her thought) surely gave ground for hope ‘even now.’ And yet, though truly expressive of the firmest confidence in Jesus, her words are vague; and the later narrative seems to prove that no definite expectation was present to her mind. The language is rather that of one who so believes in Jesus as to be assured that, where He is, help and blessing cannot be absent. John 11:23. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. The words are designedly ambiguous,—spoken to try her faith. Like our Lord’s parables, they contain that of which faith may take hold and be raised into a higher region, but which unbelief or dulness of heart will miss. Will the hope that Martha’s words have vaguely expressed now become clear and definite? At all events the answer of Jesus will make her conscious to herself of what her faith really was. John 11:24. Martha said unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus has told her only what she knew, for every true Israelite believed that in the last day the just would rise. How vague the thought embodied in these words can hardly be understood by us, in whom the same words awaken memories of a Resurrection in the past which brings to us true knowledge of the resurrection at the last day. And if even with us, in the first hours of our sorrow, the clear doctrine avails so little, bow small must have been the comfort which the believing Israelite could attain in the presence of the dead! Martha’s words have now lost the hope which the sight of Jesus had awakened: the present sorrow seems to admit of no relief. This moment of greatest need Jesus chooses for the greatest revelation of Himself. When all else has been seen to fail He will comfort. John 11:25-26. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he have died, yet shall he live; And every one that liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? The emphasis falls on the first two words, ‘I,’ ‘am.’ Martha’s first expression of faith and hope had shown how imperfectly she knew Jesus Himself: to Himself alone His words now point. Her later words dwell on the resurrection in the remoter future: Jesus says, ‘I AM the resurrection and the life.’ Alike in the future and in the present, life is unchangeably in Him (chap. John 1:4),—and that the life which triumphs over death (‘resurrection’), the life by which death is excluded and annulled. In other passages we read of Jesus as the Life, here only as the Resurrection: the latter thought is in truth contained in the former, and needs not distinct expression save in the presence of the apparent victory of death. It is possible that the meaning of our Lord’s words is that He is the resurrection and the life which follows the resurrection,—in Him His people rise again, and, having risen, live for ever; but it is far more probable that this is only one part of the meaning. Because He is the Life, in the highest and absolute sense of this word, therefore He is the resurrection. He that believes in Him becomes one with Him: every one, therefore, that believes in Him possesses this victorious life. If he has died, yet life is his: if he still lives among men, this earthly life is but an emblem and a part of that all-embracing life which shall endure for ever in union with the Lord of life. In all this the law which limits man’s life on earth is not forgotten, but a revelation is given to man which changes the meaning of death. As Godet beautifully says: ‘Every believer is in reality and for ever sheltered from death. To die in full light, in the serene brightness of the life which is in Jesus, and to continue to live in Him, is no longer that which human language designates by the name of death. It is as if Jesus said: In me he who is dead is sure of life, and he who lives is sure never to die.’ The original, indeed, is much more expressive than we can well bring out in English, ‘Shall never unto eternity die.’ To the question, ‘Believest thou this?’ Martha answers (and the form of her answer is characteristic):— John 11:27. She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, he that cometh into the world. The substitution of ‘I have believed’ for ‘I believe’ is striking. It seems to imply that she goes back on her previous belief,—securely founded, never shaken,—in which she knows that all He requires must be contained. His last words have been in some measure new and unfamiliar, and in her present state of mind she is incapable of comparing the old and the new. But that which she has believed and still believes contains the fullest recognition of her Lord. She has received Him as the fulfilment of Messianic hope, the revelation of the Divine to man, the long-expected Redeemer of the world. John 11:28. And when she had so said, she went away, and called Mary her sister, saying secretly, The Teacher is come, and calleth thee. We cannot doubt that Mary until now had been in ignorance of the coming of Jesus, or that it was at His bidding that Martha told her sister secretly of His call for her. That which He was about to do He would have faith, not unbelief, to see; therefore Mary must be called ‘secretly.’ John 11:29. And she, when she heard it, arose quickly, and went unto him. Mark the characteristic touch in the words ‘arose quickly’ (comp. John 11:20). ‘Went unto,’ i.e., started on her way, for it is in John 11:32 that the actual coming is spoken of. John 11:30. Now Jesus was not yet come into the village, but was still in that place where Martha met him. Avoiding the presence of ‘the Jews,’ so painful and incongruous at such a time. This verse is purely parenthetical. John 11:31. The Jews, therefore, which were with her in the house, and were comforting her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up quickly and went out, followed her, supposing that she went unto the tomb to lament there. The movements of her sister had suggested no such thought; but as soon as Mary rose and went out, only one explanation seemed possible. She sought to go alone, but, according to the custom of the East, the friends who were with her attend her to the tomb to join in her lamentation over the dead. That they will meet Jesus has apparently not entered into their thought. John 11:32. Mary, therefore, when she came where Jesus was, seeing him fell at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. Her first words are nearly the same as her sister’s: there is only in the Greek a slight difference in the place of ‘my’ which gives a touching emphasis to the expression of personal loss. Often may the sisters have repeated such words during their hours of anguish, when their brother was sinking before their eyes. Mary’s absorbing grief makes other words impossible: she falls at the feet of Jesus weeping. John 11:33. When Jesus therefore saw her lamenting, and the Jews lamenting which came with her, he was moved with indignation in his spirit, and troubled himself. There is little doubt that the first word describing the emotion of Jesus denotes rather anger than sorrow. Such is its regular meaning; and, though New Testament usage partly gives a different turn to the word, yet in every passage it implies a severity of tone and feeling that is very different from grief. In Mark 14:5 it expresses indignation at what appeared reckless waste, and in Matthew 9:30 and Mark 1:43 it denotes stern dealing, a severity that marked the giving of the charge; while in the Septuagint the noun derived from the verb is used to translate the Hebrew noun signifying indignation or anger. The only other passage in the New Testament in which we find the word is John 11:38 of this chapter. That we are to understand it as implying anger seems thus to be clear, and we are strengthened in this conclusion by the fact that the early Greek fathers take it in this sense. It is more difficult to answer the question, At what was Jesus angry? It has been replied—(1) at Himself, because He was moved to a sympathy and compassion which it was needful to restrain. In this case the words ‘His spirit’ are supposed to be directly governed by the verb—‘was indignant at His spirit.’ But such a use of ‘spirit’ is surely impossible, while the explanation as a whole does violence to those conceptions of the humanity of our Lord which this very Gospel teaches us to form;—(2) at the unbelief and hypocritical weeping of ‘the Jews.’ But many of them were to believe (John 11:45); and there is nothing to indicate that their weeping was not genuine. Besides this, the emotion of Jesus is traced to the lamenting of Mary not less than to that of the Jews; and the whole narrative gains immeasurably in force if we suppose the latter to have been as sincere as the former;—(3) at the misery brought into the world by sin. This explanation appears upon the whole to be the most probable. As to the words ‘in His spirit,’ without entering into any discussion of a difficult subject, we may say that, as ‘the spirit’ denotes the highest (and so to speak) innermost part of man’s nature, the language shows that our Lord’s nature was stirred to its very depth. This reference to the spirit assists us in understanding the words that follow ‘and troubled Himself:’ the indignation and horror of the spirit threw the whole ‘self’ into disturbance. The meaning of chap. John 13:21, where a similar expression occurs, is substantially the same: there we read that, at the thought of the presence of sin, of such evil as was about to show itself in His betrayal by Judas, Jesus was ‘troubled’ (that is, agitated, disturbed) ‘in His spirit.’ John 11:34-35. And he said, where have ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept. The question is addressed to the sisters, and ‘the Jews’ give place to them in thought, for it is in sympathy with the bitter anguish of those whom He loves (well though He knows that He is about to assuage their grief) that the tears of Jesus are shed. The word differs from that used in John 11:31; John 11:33, where the meaning is not calm weeping, but lamentation and wailing. John 11:36-37. The Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved him! But some of them said, Gould not this man, which opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also should not die? Again there is a division amongst the Jews. Many recognise the naturalness of His tears, as a proof of His love for the departed. But some (in no spirit of simple wonder and perplexity, but in unfriendliness) ask why He had not prevented the calamity over which He is mourning. They may mean, As He gave sight to the blind man, could He not, if He had really wished, have stayed the power of the fatal disease? But it is also possible that they merely assume the former miracle for the purpose of invalidating it: If He really did give sight, why could He not heal the sickness? To heal diseases was to them a less wonderful act than to give sight to one born blind. We are compelled to assume an unfriendly spirit of the second question, partly because of John’s use of the term ‘the Jews,’ partly from the analogy of many other passages in which He records the opposing comments of different sections of the party: the sequel also (John 11:45-46) seems naturally to suggest such a division. The recurrence (in John 11:38) of the word discussed above (John 11:33) is thus very easily explained. John 11:38. Jesus therefore again moved with indignation in himself cometh to the tomb. How it was a cave, and a stone lay against it. The indignation was again excited either by the malicious comment just made by some of the Jews, or by the renewed recollection of the power of evil in the world. Like Jewish tombs in general, this was a natural cave or, more probably, a vault artificially excavated in the limestone rock. The entrance was closed by a stone, which lay against it (or possibly upon it). This verse again furnishes an indication that the family was not poor. John 11:39. Jesus saith, Take ye away the stone. The sister of him that was dead, Martha, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been four days here. No expectation of some great blessing which God will give in answer to the prayer of Jesus (John 11:22) is now in Martha’s mind. She cannot understand the removal of the stone. To her, as the (elder) sister, the right of expostulation belonged; and it is in the simplest and most direct terms that she urges that the dead may not be exposed to the living. Nothing could more vividly illustrate the power which at this moment death wielded alike over the body of the departed and his sister’s spirit. It is probably to bring out this power in the most forcible manner possible that not only is Martha described as ‘the sister of him that was dead,’ but that the description precedes her name. How differently does the Evangelist himself feel! It is instructive to observe that in the words ‘him that was dead’ he changes the term for death, using not that of Joh 11:26, but another which expresses simply coming to the end of life. John 11:40. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou believedst, thou shouldest see the glory of God? Martha would have prevented the removal of the stone; but this wish was but a symbol of a real hindrance in the Saviour’s way,—her decline in faith. She has for the time come completely under the influence of ‘the things seen:’ the reality of her loss is too much for her, and she cannot join the words of Jesus in John 11:25-26 with His present actions. In saying ‘believe’ he recalls those words of His to her thought; and not those words only, but also His first saying (John 11:4), that the sickness was ‘not unto death, but for the glory of God.’ John 11:41-42. They took away the stone therefore. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me. And I myself knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the multitude which standeth around I said it, that they may believe that thou didst send me. The words are not a prayer, but a thanksgiving for prayer answered. What He is about to do is given by the Father in answer to His prayer. But had Jesus said no more than this, though the miracle would have ministered to ‘the glory of God’ (John 11:4), yet even this purpose would have been attained in an inferior degree: the Father receives true glory when Jesus is acknowledged, not merely as a Prophet, whose prayer is heard, but as the Son of God. To His thanksgiving Jesus adds words which implicitly declare the whole relation of the Father to the Son. The hearing of prayer for which He has given thanks is no isolated act, but is one manifestation of an unceasing communion. Whilst uttering the words of prayer or of thanksgiving, He knew that the Father heard Him always: the words were spoken for the sake of the multitude, that they might believe the truth of His mission. Had they witnessed the miracle unaccompanied by this appeal to His Father, they might well have glorified God who had given such power unto men, and acknowledged that as a wonder-working Prophet Jesus was sent and empowered by God. But if the power of God is manifested now, when this solemn claim is made of constant communion with God, with God as ‘Father,’ the seal of the Father is set upon Him as the Son and the Sent of God. The word ‘multitude’ is remarkable. It cannot signify number only and refer to ‘the Jews’ before spoken of. John always employs this word in another sense, and indeed in marked distinction from the ruling class, ‘the Jews.’ It is clear then that many were now present,—persons who had accompanied Jesus from Perea and friends and neighbours of the family of Bethany. John 11:43-44. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth; and he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with gravebands: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them. Loose him, and let him go. The words ‘bound hand and foot’ perhaps convey a wrong impression: as the more literal meaning is ‘his hands and his feet bound with gravebands,’ it is very possible that the limbs were separately bound, so that, life having returned, free movement was permitted to them. The miracle wrought, the Evangelist adds nothing concerning Lazarus or his sisters. It is Jesus Himself who is the centre of the scene, who has shown Himself the Resurrection and the Life. Even the impression which this most wonderful of miracles produces is recorded only in its relation to Jesus and to belief in Him. The most striking of all the miracles of Jesus has been performed, and His manifestation of Himself to the world has ended. The effect is proportionate. On the one hand, faith is awakened in the hearts of ‘many’ of His most determined enemies ‘the Jews.’ On the other hand, final measures are taken to seize and kill Him. Jesus retires to a city near the wilderness along with His disciples. It is the pause before the last journey to Jerusalem, to which He is to go as the Paschal Lamb selected for the true Paschal sacrifice and feast. The subordinate parts are—(1) John 11:45-46; (2) John 11:47-53; (3) John 11:54-57. John 11:46. But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. It is impossible, we think, that what is here related can have been done with friendly motives, or from a mere sense of duty to men whose office made them spiritual guides of the people. The analogy of many passages in which John similarly records diverging opinions makes it plain that the giving of this information to the Pharisees was an act of hostility to Jesus. If so, the word ‘them’ at the beginning of the verse must refer to ‘the Jews’ in general, not to those who are described in the preceding verse. Some of ‘the Jews’ may have been found amongst the multitude which, as we know, stood round (John 11:42), having no connection with the mourning of the sisters, and therefore not included in the description of Joh 11:45. At this period of our Lord’s history the Pharisees have as a body declared against Him; to this large and powerful sect, therefore, the news of the event is brought. John 11:47. The chief priests and the Pharisees therefore gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs. Here, probably for the first time in this Gospel, we read of a meeting of the Sanhedrin,—not a formal meeting, but one hastily summoned in the sudden emergency that had arisen. (See the note on chap. John 7:32.) The question ‘What do we?’ is not so much deliberative (What are we to do?) as reproachful of themselves, What are we doing? This man (a designation of dislike or contempt) is working many miracles and we do nothing,—take no steps to prevent the evil that must follow! The Evangelist is careful to preserve their testimony against themselves; in the moment of their rage they acknowledge the ‘many signs’ of Jesus, and confess themselves without excuse. John 11:48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe in him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation. The fear was natural. It is true that they were already subject to the Roman power. But, with their usual policy towards tributary states, the Romans had left them their worship, temple, and religious administration, untouched. If Jesus (whom they will not recognise in His religious claims) shall be owned as Messiah, and popular tumult shall ensue, all these privileges will be taken away from them. Their fear therefore is real; their guilt lay not in a hypocritical pretence of alarm, but in their wilful blindness to the truth. There can be no doubt whatever that their words are quoted by the Evangelist as an unconscious prophecy (comp. chap. John 7:35, John 12:19, John 19:19, and below, John 11:50), or rather as a prophecy to be fulfilled in that irony of events which shall bring on them in their unbelief the very calamities they feared, while faith would have secured for them the contrasted blessings. Because the Jewish people did not believe in Jesus but rejected Him, the Romans did take away both their ‘place and nation:’ had they believed they would have been established for ever in the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah. John 11:49-50. But a certain one of them, named Caiaphas, being high priest of that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is profitable for you that one man should die for the people, and the whole nation perish not. Caiaphas was a Sadducee, a powerful and crafty man. He was high priest for about eighteen years (A.D. 18-36), but is here spoken of by the Evangelist (as in chap. John 18:13) as being ‘high priest of that year.’ This remarkable expression has no reference to the high priest’s precarious tenure of office in those times (as many as 25 high priests are enumerated in the century preceding the destruction of Jerusalem); nor is there the smallest pretence for attributing to the Evangelist a historical mistake (such as a belief that the office was annual!). The simple meaning is that Caiaphas was high priest in that memorable year, in which the true sacrifice for the sins of the people was offered, by that death of which the high priest unconsciously prophesied, and in causing which moreover he was in great measure the instrument. The first words spoken by Caiaphas are in their brusque haughtiness characteristic of the sect to which he belonged. His whole address to the Pharisees is marked by heartless selfishness.‘If we let him alone we shall be brought to ruin,’ the Pharisees had said: ‘Save yourselves and let Him perish,’ is the uncompromising answer of this high priest. He seems to use two very different words in the same sense: ‘people’ was the name of Israel in its theocratic aspect, ‘nation’ (the word the Pharisees had used) was a term common to Israel with all other peoples of the world. ‘People’ is a name which the Sanhedrists would use in reference to their own rule; ‘nation’ is that which the Romans would attack and destroy. The further significance of his language will afterwards appear (see note on the next verse). Unscrupulous and utterly unjust as this counsel was, it was politic and crafty. It will commend them to the Romans if they can show themselves willing to destroy any one of whom it may be even pretended that he seeks to disturb their rule. John 11:51-52. But this spake he not of himself: but being high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad. The words are a prophecy: heartless and unscrupulous in meaning and intention, they are so controlled as to express profound and blessed truth. In the earlier days of the nation a prophetic spirit was ever believed to rest upon the high priest (comp. Exodus 28:30, Numbers 27:21, Hosea 3:4). When the office became degraded, and the high priest the servant of ambition and covetousness, prophetic guidance was no longer sought from him; but, as in the Old Testament we read of false prophets who in spite of themselves were compelled to be the medium of proclaiming God’s will, so is it here. We see now the significance of the words ‘people’ and ‘nation.’ He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,—i.e., for the Jews, henceforth but one of the nations of the world, ranked with the Gentiles whom they scorned. The object of this death should also be, ‘that He might gather into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.’ This latter prophecy is found by the Evangelist in the word ‘people’ of John 11:50, ‘that one man should die for the people.’ No longer does this name belong to Jews alone. The sacrifice is offered in behalf of all the children of God, all to whom the Father offers sonship, gathered henceforth into one under the new name of ‘the people’ of God. Compare the striking parallels in chap. John 7:35, John 10:16, John 17:20. John 11:53. From that day forth, therefore, they took counsel that they might put him to death. Not that they might pass sentence of death upon him; that is done: but that they might execute the sentence. Their previous efforts of rage against Jesus had been connected with moments of special excitement; henceforward they are deliberate, determined, constant. The cup of iniquity of ‘the Jews’ is full. John 11:54. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went away thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there abode with the disciples. The time of ‘free speech’ (see note on chap. John 7:4) was at an end: from this time Jesus avoided communication with ‘the Jews,’ no longer vouchsafing to them the word which they heard only to reject. The place to which He withdrew afforded a deeper solitude than that sought by Him a little while before (chap. John 10:40). The crisis in His life is graver; the retirement which he seeks is more profound. There is no mention now (as in chap. John 10:41) of many who resorted unto Him: the town to which He retired is described as ‘near to the wilderness.’ Ephraim, possibly the same as Ophrah (1 Samuel 13:17), is commonly identified with el-Taiyibeh, a village 16 miles from Jerusalem and 4 or 5 east of Bethel, situated on a hill which commands the valley of the Jordan. The wilderness will be ‘the wild uncultivated hill country north-east of Jerusalem, lying between the central towns and the Jordan valley’ (Dict. of Bible, i. 569. See also Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 214, 419). John 11:55. And the passover of the Jews was nigh at hand. On these words see the notes on chap. John 2:13, John 6:4. No one who has followed the narrative of this Gospel with care up to the present point can doubt that the expression is used with deep, indeed with terrible significance.And many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the passover, to purify themselves. It does not appear that there was any special injunction with regard to purification before the Passover; for such passages as Numbers 9:6-11, 2 Chronicles 30:17-20, would rather indicate that from the peculiar importance of this feast it was to be observed even where the purification required before all great events could not be obtained. There can be no doubt, however, that it fell under the general law of purification, and that defiled persons did not feel themselves qualified to partake of the Passover (comp. chap. John 18:28). These strangers from the country, therefore, assembled in Jerusalem several days before the festival, that in the holy city they might seek the preparation that was requisite. John 11:56. They sought therefore for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple-courts, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast? The language is that of earnest and interested inquiry. Those who are talking together are friendly to Jesus, and hopeful and expectant that He will appear at the festival. The groups assemble in the temple-courts, where many of them may have come to bring offerings for purification (John 11:55), and where Jesus had been wont to teach. The word ‘therefore’ at the beginning of this verse seems to point to the privacy into which Jesus had retired (John 11:54). These pilgrims came to Jerusalem, hoping to meet with Jesus, but they saw Him not: they sought Him therefore, etc. (comp. chap. John 7:11). John 11:57. Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given commandments, that if any man knew where he were, he should shew it that they might seize him. As the last verse has described the eager interest of the friends of Jesus, this verse presents a picture of His enemies. In pursuance of the resolve related above (John 11:53) commandments had been issued—the plural seems to point to orders sent to all parts of the land—that all the faithful should aid the rulers in apprehending Jesus. These latter verses show us the friends and the foes of Jesus alike occupying the field in preparation for the end. Jesus has been doomed to death (John 11:53; John 11:57), and the hour is at hand when He shall be seized, and the sentence executed. But the malice of man cannot interfere with the purposes of God. In the midst of dangers, under sentence of death, the redeemer pursues His path of glory. Three pictures illustrating this are presented in the section of the twelfth chapter now before us. The subordinate parts of this section are—(1) John 12:1-11, the anointing in Bethany; (2) John 12:12-19, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem; (3) John 12:20-36, the homage of the Greeks to Jesus. John 12:2. There therefore they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. Two points only are mentioned by John, that a feast was given in honour of Jesus, and that every member of the family so signally blessed was present. By whom, when, and where, the feast was given, are questions to which he returns no answer. Different conclusions may be drawn from the words of this verse; but they seem most naturally to imply that the entertainment was not given in the house or by the family of Lazarus. It is true that ‘Martha served,’ yet we may well suppose that, wherever the feast took place, this was an office she would claim; and the insertion of the clause relating to Lazarus is hardly to be accounted for if Jesus were a guest in his house. As to the question of time, John 12:12 seems to show that the evening of the feast must have been that following the sabbath rather than the evening with which the sabbath commenced. Between this verse therefore and John 12:1 we must interpose the rest of the sabbath. We are now at liberty to turn to the account of the Synoptists. Luke relates nothing (in connection with this period) that is similar to the narrative before us; but the other two Evangelists describe a supper and an anointing which manifestly are identical with what John records here. Some slight differences in detail will be called up as the narrative proceeds: the only serious question is one relating to time. In Matthew 26:2 we are brought to a date two days before the Passover, whereas the feast in question is related in later verses (John 12:6-13). (Compare also the parallel section in Mark 14) But there is nothing whatever in Matthew’s account to fix the time of the feast; and both the structure of his gospel and the apparent links of connection in this particular narrative are consistent with the view ordinarily taken, that at John 12:6 he goes back to relate an earlier event, which furnished occasion to Judas for furthering the design of the rulers, as recorded in the first verses of the chapter. If then there is no doubt of the identity of the events mentioned by the Synoptists and by John, we learn that the feast was given in the house of Simon the leper, a person of whom we know nothing more. John 12:3. Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of spikenard, very precious. By ointment we are to understand rather a liquid perfume than what we commonly know as ointment. The precise description of ointment or perfume that is here indicated is a question that has been much controverted. The words, which literally mean ointment of nard ‘pistic,’ are the same as those employed by Mark (chap. Mark 14:3): in each place our English Version has ‘spikenard,’ a word suggested by the rendering of the Vulgate in Mark (nardus spicatus), and used by our translators in three passages of the Old Testament (Son 1:12-14). In the passages last named the word that stands in the Hebrew text is nerd, evidently identical with the nardos used here by John: the word is said to be really of Persian origin, denoting a perfume brought from India by Persian traders. It will be seen that our translation has practically passed over the epithet ‘pistic,’ as to the meaning of which there exists the greatest uncertainty. By some it is explained as potable (the fine nard-oil being sometimes drunk); others refer the word to a root meaning to press or pound (the oil being obtained by pressure); whilst others maintain that the word is not descriptive of any species of nard, but denotes its genuineness. The most probable opinion is that pistic is a geographical term which was at the time familiarly associated with the name of the perfume as an article of commerce, though now the exact significance is lost. From the parallel narratives (Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3) we learn that, as a fluid, it was kept in a flask (for this is the truer rendering of the Greek word translated alabaster box) hermetically sealed; and the contents would be extracted by breaking off the neck. As the ointment was a fluid, and the neck of the flask was broken off, we seem entitled to infer that the whole was used. The quantity which Mary had bought was very large, for the ‘pound’ here spoken of was equivalent to about 12 ounces avoirdupois. Its preciousness is best illustrated by a later verse (John 12:5), where we find 300 denarii (in Mark 14:5, more than 300 denarii) mentioned as its probable value. If we take the denarius at 8 1/2d., the value ordinarily assigned, this sum amounts to £10, 12s. 6d. The truer principle of calculation, however, is that the sum be estimated according to the power of purchase which it represents; and it would be easy to show that 300 denarii would ordinarily purchase a larger quantity of wheat (for example) than could now be obtained for £20 of our money.And anointed the feet of Jesus, and she wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. With this precious perfume, then, Mary anointed the feet of her Lord. The other Evangelists speak of ‘the head’ not ‘the feet,’ and of the ointment as poured down over the head. There is of course no discrepancy between the accounts. Both feet and head were anointed: John speaks of the former because the words which he is about to add refer to the feet alone; and though the other narratives mention no more than the anointing of the head, yet the words of Jesus related by both Evangelists speak of the ointment as poured upon His ‘body,’ and as designed to prepare Him for His burial. Perhaps, in a writer like John, who seizes so powerfully the symbolism (the real symbolism, not a possible subjective application) of the various events in his Master’s life, we ought also to connect this anointing of the feet of Jesus (twice mentioned, here and in chap. John 11:2) with His washing of the disciples’ feet to be related in the chapter which follows. Over against cleansing of their feet soiled by the day’s travel is set the honour due to the very feet of Him to whom contact with earthly life brought not even a transient stain. Be this as it may, Mary’s action as here described, her use of the most precious ointment, whose odour filled the whole house (a fact which is far more than a mere historical reminiscence), and the devotion of that which is a woman’s chief ornament to the purpose of wiping the feet which she had anointed, picture to us most impressively her gratitude and humble reverence. John 12:4. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, he that was about to betray him, saith. After the picture of the highest loving homage to Him whom the Jewish rulers had adjudged to death, the Evangelist gives the contrasted view of an apostle, who, apostle as he was, would shortly be seeking to betray his Lord, and who showed the present workings of his heart by grudging the lavish expression of Mary’s faith and love. John 12:5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor? Care for the poor is the mask which the murmuring protest of Judas wears. Thus sin, that it may the better extinguish the virtue by which at the moment it is offended, is wont to pay reverence to some other virtue,—some virtue which may be thought of without trouble, because it is not really present and in question. But the Evangelist in recording the words strips off the mask. John 12:6. But this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and, having the bag, bare away what was put therein. Matthew mentions the murmuring on the part of some of the disciples: evidently, therefore, the plausible remonstrance of Judas led more honest and guileless minds than his to share in the wonder which his words expressed. John speaks of Judas only, as he alone reveals the real motive of the complaint. But though Matthew says nothing at this point of Judas or his covetousness, it is very significant that, immediately after relating the answer of Jesus, he tells us that Judas went to the rulers and said, ‘What will ye give me?’ The somewhat remarkable word rendered ‘bag’ is found twice only in the New Testament, here and in Matthew 13:29 : in the Septuagint it occurs in 2 Chronicles 24 only (2 Chronicles 24:8; 2 Chronicles 24:10-11). The last quoted passages will show the meaning of the word more clearly: it was not a bag, but rather a small box or chest. As in the only passages of the Old Testament in which the word occurs it denotes a receptacle for offerings made to the temple, it is perhaps more than a coincidence that it is here chosen by John when he would speak of the small store of money possessed by Jesus (the True temple) and His disciples,—money derived from the voluntary offerings of the few who had recognised His glory and consecrated their substance to the supply of His wants. Another word in this verse requires remark, that which in the Authorised Version appears as ‘bare,’ but which we have rendered ‘bare away.’ The former is the more common meaning of the word both in classical Greek and in the New Testament; but the latter (which often occurs in later Greek) is certainly intended by John in a later verse of the Gospel (chap. John 20:15, ‘if thou have borne him away’). It seems all but impossible that the word can have the neutral meaning here: partly because, after the mention of the .dishonesty of Judas, the statement that he carried that which was cast into the common chest would be a strange anti-climax; and partly because it would be difficult to see why John should write such a sentence as this, ‘and, having the bag, carried what was put therein.’ John 12:7. Jesus therefore said, Let her alone, that for the day of the preparation for my burial she may keep it. The meaning of the word which in the Authorised Version is rendered ‘burial’ is made clear by chap. John 19:40 (where substantially the same word is used); ‘they took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to prepare for burial.’ The true reading of the Greek text, that which our rendering represents, undoubtedly presents a difficulty, as we, knowing that our Lord is speaking of the day then present, cannot understand how Jesus can say ‘that . . . she may keep it.’ The simplest solution of the difficulty, were it admissible, is afforded by the rendering, ‘Suffer that she may have kept it;’ but it is very doubtful whether the Greek words can admit of this translation. Another suggestion is that, as the quantity of nard was so great, our Lord in saying ‘that she may keep it refers to the portion still remaining in the flask. The objection to this is found in what has been said of the mode of opening the flask and in the ‘pouring’ described by the other Evangelists: it is not easy to see that any portion worth speaking of could still remain. Hence we must probably seek for an explanation of a different kind. We must not forget that these words were enigmatical, and intentionally so. Our Lord was not distinctly affirming that this day was, so to speak, the day on which He was prepared for entombment: it was His wont to use language which but partially revealed the approaching event, which seemed to unenlightened hearers to contain only some dark hint of trouble impending, but which stood forth in luminous significance when the implied prophecy was ready to be fulfilled. Hence here, in speaking of the (unconscious or half-unconscious) purpose of Mary, He uses words which leave the time of the conception and fulfilment of the purpose altogether doubtful. His answer amounts to this: Meddle not with the intention that she has had to keep this for the day on which I must be prepared for the tomb. It is possible that the sentence is left incomplete, and that there is a break between the two parts:—‘Let her alone;’—‘that she may keep it unto the day,’ etc. Such an elliptic use of a clause of purpose is not uncommon in this Gospel. If we may assume that we have an example of this usage here, the meaning will be, It is, or, It was, or, She hath bought this ointment, that she might keep it, etc. The meaning is almost the same as that previously given.The word which our Lord uses in this verse shows in what light this section is to be viewed. It is not so much the living Saviour that we have before us as the Saviour on whom sentence of death has been passed. At the feet of Him whom ‘the Jews’ are seeking to kill, and whom false friends are betraying, faith pours her richest treasures. Mary thought only of showing her reverence and love: Jesus sees in it a prophetic recognition of the impending event which crowned His humiliation and became His exaltation. The Evangelist relates an unconscious prophecy on the part of a disciple, as he has related a prophecy by an enemy who ‘spake not of himself’ (chap. John 11:51). John 12:8. For the poor always ye have with you, but me ye have not always. The duty of giving to the poor is fully recognised: it must never be forgotten. But there are moments when what may seem lavish waste upon objects visible only to the eye of faith are to be commended for the faith that is present in them. How often has the history of the world borne testimony to the truth thus declared by Jesus! The very charity that cares for the poor whom we see has been kept alive by faith in, and devotion to, the crucified Redeemer whom we cannot see. John 12:9. The common people of the Jews therefore learned that he was there: and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. Faith and unbelief have revealed themselves in the case of the friends and the enemies of Jesus, and especially in the deed of Mary and the words of Judas. But the sifting process which accompanies every manifestation of Jesus extends to a wider circle. Once more (comp. chap. John 11:45-46), and much more clearly than before, the Evangelist records the division amongst ‘the Jews’ themselves; for we have no right whatever to take this term in any other than that sense which is so firmly established in this Gospel. That very circle of Jewish influence and power in which till lately the spirit of narrow bigotry and fanaticism had found its expression in determined hostility to Jesus is divided into two classes, ‘the common people of the Jews,’ and the rulers in this ruling faction, ‘the high priests.’ John 12:10-11. But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed in Jesus. When the rulers found that even their own adherents were deserting them (comp. chap. John 11:48), their rage knew no bounds. Lazarus had not incurred their displeasure, but everything that ministered to the success of the cause of Jesus must be swept out of the way. It is easy to see that the conflict of Jesus with the Jews is continually growing in intensity, and has well-nigh reached its climax. The effect produced by the recent miracle has been great beyond all previous example. Yet we cannot but feel that to the Evangelist himself the miracle would be most precious as a ‘sign;’ and that what he intends us to feel most deeply is the contrast between the rulers bent on His death and the calm majesty of Him who is ‘the Resurrection and the Life,’ in whose presence are Lazarus, the trophy and emblem of His power over life physical, and believers come from the very ranks of His adversaries to receive life spiritual through believing in Him. John 12:12. The next day, that is, the day following the feast in Bethany (see on John 12:2), and therefore our Sunday; the day, it may be observed, fixed in the tradition of the Church for the triumphal entry, tradition thus confirming the exegesis of the text, and finding in the latter support for its own correctness. This first day of the Jewish week was the 10th Nisan, the clay on which the typical Paschal lamb was selected and set apart for sacrifice (Exodus 12:3).The common people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. ‘The common people’ here spoken of are not ‘the Jews’ (John 12:9), but the multitude that had assembled at Jerusalem at the time in order to celebrate the Passover. It would seem that this crowd was afterwards joined by those belonging to Jerusalem itself who had gone out previously to Bethany to see Jesus (John 12:17). Of the impression produced upon the latter we have already heard. The feelings animating the former appear both in their actions and in their words. John 12:13. Took the branches of the palm trees. The word rendered ‘branches’ occurs only here in the New Testament. It is the top of a palm tree where the fruit is produced. We are to understand by the word, therefore, not branches only, but fruit-bearing branches, those from which in due season the fruit would hang. Hence it is not palms of victory that we have before us, but the palm branches of the feast of Tabernacles, the most characteristic feature of that greatest festival of the year, when the last fruits, ‘the wine and the oil’ as well as ‘the corn,’ were ripe, and when the Messiah was expected to come to His temple. Hence also the articles before ‘branches’ and ‘palm trees,’ not to mark palm trees growing by the wayside, but the well-known palm branches so closely connected with the feast. With the idea of this feast the Jews had been accustomed to associate the highest blessings of Messianic times, and at the moment, therefore, when they hail Jesus as the long expected Messiah and King, the thoughts of it naturally fill their minds.And went forth to meet him, and they cried out, Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, and, The King of Israel. The words, thus uttered with loud shouts of joy, correspond to the action of which we have spoken. Those in the first clause of the quotation are taken from Psalms 118:26, and are words which were undoubtedly used at the feast of Tabernacles. Whether we consider them in connection with their place in the psalm or with the typical meaning of the feast, they were peculiarly appropriate to the present moment. The psalm was acknowledged to be Messianic, and both psalm and feast celebrate the triumphant coming of Messiah to His house and people, when the gates of righteousness are opened and Israel goes in and praises the Lord (Psalms 118:19). The Lord, too, appears in the psalm in precisely the same character as that in which we have Him here before us, that of one who has suffered and overcome (John 12:22). The appellation given to Jesus in the second clause, and probably to be regarded as a second cry, points onward to the prophecy of Zechariah (chap. John 9:9) quoted in John 12:15. Hosanna is a rendering into Greek letters of the Hebrew words, ‘Save, we pray’ (Psalms 118:25). John 12:14-15. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon: as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion, behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt. Jesus ‘found’ the ass, having taken means to find it (comp. Matthew 21:2; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:30; comp. also chap. John 1:43). It is a ‘young’ ass, expression being thus given to the fact that it had not been previously used for any burden (Mark 11:2). The whole passage brings out a view of Jesus in this entry into Jerusalem that we may readily forget. We see at once the glory of the Saviour. He who thus approaches Jerusalem is a King, the King of Israel (John 12:14), the King of Zion (John 12:15): the pi ogress is royal: the entry is triumphant. But the main thought of the Evangelist is that humiliation, suffering, and death characterize this King: He is a sacrifice: and in being a sacrifice His true glory lies. The change from ‘Rejoice greatly’ to ‘Fear not’ (no doubt made by the Evangelist himself, see chap. John 2:17) is remarkable. It may spring from his profound sense of the majesty of Jesus (Revelation 1:17): there is fear to be dispelled before the joy of His presence can be felt. The context in Zechariah, however, suggests another sense. The King comes to defend His people; He comes ‘having salvation:’ let Zion fear no more. So understood, John’s words contain the meaning of the whole passage quoted. The prayer ‘Hosanna’ is answered. John 12:16. These things understood not his disciples at the first. What was it that the disciples did not understand at the time? The true application of the prophecy of Zechariah now pointed out? Certainly not. It was the events themselves now occurring that were dark to them. They were not seen in their true light as a magnifying, as a prefigurative glorifying, of a suffering Messiah,—were not seen to contain within them the great mystery of exaltation through and in the midst of suffering. For similar want of appreciation by the disciples of what was passing before them, comp. chap. John 2:22, and note there. But when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they did these things unto him. The ignorance of the disciples was corrected by experience. What they did not understand now, they understood when the resurrection and ascension had taken place. The light of that glorification shed light alike upon the sufferings and the partial glorifications of Jesus that had gone before. John 12:17-18. The multitude therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead, bare witness. For this cause also the multitude went to meet him, because they heard that he had done this sign. These verses are not a returning to the story after a digression in John 12:16, nor a continuation of the narrative, as if the picture had not yet been complete. They are a recapitulation of two leading facts already mentioned, the first of which seems to be closely connected with the second—(1) that many of ‘the Jews,’ led to believe in Jesus by the miracle which they had seen (John 11:45), became now, like the disciples, themselves His witnesses; (2) that ‘the multitude,’ although they had not seen the miracle, yet hearing of it, had also been led to faith and homage (John 12:12-15). At the same time, however, there is an important and instructive difference between the two acts thus referred to. The first proceeds from those who had been ‘with Him when He raised Lazarus from the dead;’ the second from those who had not themselves been witnesses of the miracle, but had ‘heard that He had done this sign.’ The difference corresponds precisely to that alluded to in chap. John 20:29; and it thus forms an interesting illustration of the manner in which, throughout all this Gospel, the Evangelist seizes upon those aspects of events that bring out the great principles of which his mind is full. The correspondence appears still further in this, that the homage of those who 'did not see' is that of the second picture which, as always, is climactic to the first (comp. John 20:29); for the impression produced upon the mind of John by the second act of homage is not due to the simple circumstance that this multitude ‘went to meet’ Jesus. It is due to the titles which they had ascribed to Him at John 12:13, the one expressing His peculiar Messianic distinction, the other rising to the highest point of Old Testament prophecy (comp. on John 1:49). It has only further to be noticed that the effects allude! to are connected with the miracle as a 'sign.' As such, embodying life in the midst of death, life triumphant over death, it draws out faith to a spectacle so glorious, to a Worker accomplishing so mighty a work. John 12:19. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Behold how that ye prevail nothing. Lo, the world is gone away after him. The exaggeration of their words illustrates the alarm and hopelessness of the Pharisees. The impression made is too great to permit them to look at the facts only as they are. The danger of the situation is enhanced by their fears, and they speak more strongly than even the occasion, striking as it was, demanded. It is at the same time highly probable that the Evangelist sees in their language one of those unconscious prophecies so frequently noticed in his Gospel. The second act of the twelfth chapter is over, and the humbled Redeemer is still the conqueror. The third act presents the same lesson in a still more striking light. John 12:20. And there were some Greeks from among them that came up to worship at the feast. A third illustration of the homage paid to Jesus. The account is given by John alone, and the time is left by him indeterminate. From John 12:36 we may perhaps infer that it was considerably later in the week than the event last recorded; but the want of any definite statement on the point, and the fact that the issue of the request is not recorded, show that the Evangelist occupies himself only with the idea of the scene. The persons spoken of are Greeks (not Greek-speaking Jews), therefore Gentile by birth, probably proselytes, certainly (as appears by ‘from among’ not ‘among’) sharers in the faith and purposes of the other pilgrims at the feast. They are part of those referred to in chap. John 7:35 and John 10:16. Still more, they are the earnest and first-fruits of that ‘world’ which the Pharisees have just spoken of as ‘going after’ Jesus. John 12:21. These came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. To suppose that their object is to ask Jesus to institute a mission to the Gentiles, or to come to them Himself, is to misapprehend the nature of the situation. It is their own personal faith that John desires to bring out. John 12:22. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew cometh, and Philip, and they tell Jesus. Why these Greeks should particularly address themselves to Philip; why Philip should be here described as ‘from Bethsaida of Galilee;’ why Philip should tell Andrew; and why Andrew, as appears from the peculiar mode in which the communication is mentioned, should have been the spokesman of the pair, are questions to which it is not easy to give a satisfactory reply. It may be that Philip was the first disciple whom they met; that the mention of his place of residence is simply for more complete identification of the man; that the bond of companionship between him and Andrew may have been close (a circumstance that may also throw light on their proximity to each other at John 6:7-8); and that Andrew, always one of the first four apostles mentioned in the apostolic lists, may have stood in nearer relation to Jesus than Philip, or perhaps have been the more ready speaker of the two. The more, however, the Gospel of John is studied, the less shall we be disposed to be content with these explanations, or to think that there was nothing further in the mind of a writer so much accustomed to see even in apparently accidental and trifling circumstances deeper meanings than those which at first strike the eye. Such a meaning he may have seen in the facts which he now, after so long an interval, recalls. It is at least worthy of notice that in chap. 6 at the feeding of the 5000, which has undoubtedly a symbolical as well as a literal meaning, not only are Philip and Andrew the only two disciples named, but they there play exactly the same part as in the present instance; for Philip is first appealed to but is perplexed, while Andrew draws from Jesus the solution of the difficulty. Thus also in the incident before us, John may have beheld an analogy to the same scene, an illustration of the fact that both Jews and Gentiles shall be conducted by the same path to the ‘bread of life.’ These hungering Greeks are like the hungering Jews when the loaves were multiplied, and those whose difficulties in the way of satisfying the latter were removed by the word of Jesus, are also those whose difficulties in the way of satisfying the former are removed by the same word. John 12:23. And Jesus answereth them, saying; The hour is come, that the son of man should be glorified. The glorification here spoken of must be that of chap. John 13:31-32, and John 17:1; John 17:5, the latter of which also follows a moment designated exactly as the present one,—‘The hour is come.’ But the ‘glorification’ of these passages consists in the full manifestation of Jesus when, all His labours and sufferings over, He shall be elevated, with the Father, to the possession and exercise of that power to carry out His work upon its widest scale which was now limited by the conditions of His earthly lot. Hence the bringing in of the Gentiles, though it does not constitute that glory, is immediately connected with it. John 12:24. Verily, verily, I say unto you. There is a general principle lying at the root of the glorification of the ‘Son of man,’ This is now to be explained and illustrated.Except the corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth itself alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. Absolute death, destruction of the principle of life, is not implied. The seed does not actually die: its old covering dies that the germ of life within may spring up in higher forms of beauty, and with many grains instead of one. Such is the law of nature, and to this great law Jesus as ‘Son of man’ must conform: He does not simply lay down a rule for others; as representative of our humanity the rule must first find its application in Himself. John 12:25. He that loveth his soul loseth it; and he that hateth his soul in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. The law of the physical world just spoken of illustrates the law of the moral and spiritual world. ‘Soul’ is here the personality, the self, in man: yet not the self in the sense of selfishness, for selfishness must be destroyed not ‘kept.’ It is rather that which constitutes the man himself with his likings and dislikings, his loves and hatreds, his affections and desires. It is a law of the moral world then that he who so loves his soul loses it. By simply living for himself and without thought of others, he ‘loses’ that very thing which he desires to preserve and make happy. On the other hand, he that in this world ‘hateth his soul,’ his soul not brought into subjection to that law of love which is the law of God, and, so hating, denies and crucifies it in order that love may gain the mastery in him,—that man shall ‘keep’ it, shall keep it too unto the higher life which is not merely future, but which is even now filled with the Divine and deathless (comp. Luke 14:26). John 12:26. If any one serve me, let him follow me. The words apply the law just spoken of as the law of nature and of man, and therefore also as the law of Jesus, to every individual. The ‘following’ is neither general nor outward, but specific and inward,—a following in that path of suffering and sacrifice even to the cross, the thought of which was at the moment peculiarly present to the mind of Jesus (comp. John 13:36), and it supposes the possession of His spirit (comp. 12). A special emphasis lies upon the first ‘Me,’ as if our Lord would say, ‘If it be Me that any man would serve’And where I am, there shall also my servant be, in that glory to which I am immediately to be exalted (John 17:24).If any one serve me, him will the Father honour. ‘Any one,’ Jesus says, for the thought of the universality of His salvation now fills His breast; and ‘the Father,’ even He who will be to all His sons what he is to the Son. We ought not to pass these last two clauses without observing how, amidst all that equality of sonship which-runs through this part of the Gospel, the wide distinction between the Son and the sons is still preserved. In that future home of which Jesus speaks He is, it corresponds to His nature to be there; they shall only be brought to share it: He, too, is the Master, they ‘serve.’ John 12:27. Now is my soul troubled. There is no want of connection between these words and the immediately preceding verses. The connection, on the contrary, is of the closest kind. Because this is the moment of highest exaltation in the contemplation of the universal triumph symbolized in the coming of the Greeks, it is also that when all the intensity of suffering by which the triumph is procured is most present to the mind of Jesus. The verb ‘troubled’ is the same as in John 11:33, ‘He troubled Himself,’And what shall I say? Not, What feelings shall I cherish at this hour, What mood of mind becomes the circumstances in which I am placed? but, How shall I find utterance for the emotions that now fill my heart?Father, save me out of this hour. To understand these words interrogatively, ‘Shall I say, Father, save me from this hour?’ as is done by many commentators, is to introduce a hesitation into the mind of Jesus which we may well believe never had place in it, and is almost, if we may venture to say so, to give the utterance a sentimental turn at variance with the solemn scene; on the other hand, viewed as a direct prayer to His Heavenly Father, they are the exemplification in His own case of the law of Joh 12:25. It is usually thought that Jesus prays that He may be spared the bitterness of this hour. Matthew 26:39 shows that Jesus had the feeling—one perfectly free from sin—that would lead Him to escape suffering and death; but the higher law immediately comes in. He has the Father’s will to do. To it He must yield His life, His self. Therefore He adds, But for this cause (that the Father’s name may be glorified, John 12:28) came I unto this hour. This prayer, however, is not ‘save me from,’ but ‘save me out of this hour,’—not for freedom from suffering, but (comp. Hebrews 5:7; Acts 2:31) for deliverance out of it. Such a prayer is as consistent with His knowledge of ‘the glory that should follow’ as is Matthew 26:39 with Matthew 16:21. But the very prayer for deliverance is checked. ‘For this cause’ (that He may be delivered out of the hour) ‘came I unto this hour:’ the object of the hour of suffering is to bring triumph. We must not miss the emphasis on the word ‘Father;’ it is not simply God’s but the Father’s glory that he desires. John 12:28. Father, glorify thy name. ‘Let Thy glory shine forth in Thy name, in Thy character, as Father and in all that is involved in establishing Thy fatherly relation to men.’There came therefore a voice out of heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The answer is a voice from heaven which is supposed (John 12:29) by some to be thunder, by others to be that of an angel. Both these suppositions disclose the character of the voice. It was loud and terrible, a voice of awe and majesty. Such is always the meaning of thunder both in the Old Testament and the New (Exodus 19:16; Job 26:14; Psalms 104:7; Revelation 4:5; Revelation 8:5; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:2; Revelation 19:6). Such also is the voice of an angel (Matthew 24:31; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 5:2). The mixed ‘thunderings and voices,’ too, of the Apocalypse are an instructive comment on this voice, while the connection that it has with judgment is clearly indicated by our Lord Himself in John 12:30-31. If this was the manner of the voice, its contents must correspond, and it seems therefore altogether inappropriate to refer the first part of the words to the ministry of Jesus in Israel now drawing to its close, the second part to the approaching proclamation of salvation to the Gentiles. In reality these two things are one, and both of them are already ideally complete. The words rather express the unchangeableness of the purpose of Him ‘which is and which was and is to come,’ and intimate that the great work whereby God’s name was to be especially glorified would certainly, as resolved on in eternity, be accomplished. John 12:29. The multitude therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it had thundered: others said, An angel hath spoken to him. That a real voice had been heard is obvious from the fact that the words are actually given by the Evangelist in John 12:28, and that some at least of the multitude imagined that an angel had spoken. It had not, however, been understood by all: and John’s object in stating this appears to be his desire to bring still more clearly out the mysterious nature of the voice,—one the apprehension of which belonged to the higher regions of the spiritual life, and which was necessarily dark to those who had not entered into the Father’s plans. Jesus understood it. The Evangelist did so too. But ‘the multitude’ felt only that God was there. John 12:30. Jesus answered and said, Not for my sake hath this voice come, but for your sakes. He needed not the voice, for he knew that He was one with the Father, and that He was carrying out the Father’s will. But they might not comprehend His sufferings, the agony of soul they now beheld, the death immediately impending; and, therefore, to show them that in all this there was no defeat on His part, but only the carrying out of the eternal purpose of the Father, the words were spoken. Then Jesus rises to the thought of that victory which, at this the very moment of His deepest humiliation and suffering, He beheld accomplished. John 12:31. Now is there judgment of this world. The ‘now’ is the ‘now’ of John 12:27, the ‘hour’ of John 12:23; and the primary thought to be taken into it is that of the suffering and death in the midst of which Jesus stood, and which in the purpose of God, and to the eye of faith, were so different from what they were to the eye of sense.Now shall the Prince of this world be cast out. Again we have the ‘now’ that we have already had. The moment is the same; the cause producing the effect the same. ‘This world’ culminates in its prince. The title meets us again in John 16:11, and, although with omission of the ‘this,’ in chap. John 14:30. By it can only be understood Satan, whom, indeed, the Jews knew as the ‘prince of the world’ excluding Israel. Here there is no such exclusion; the ‘world’ is again used in the widest sense of the term. In its prince are concentrated the powers that come between man and God. But he ‘shall be cast out,’ that is, out of the world which he has ruled, so that ideally he shall have no more power in it. The expression ‘cast out’ is very remarkable when compared with its use in other parts of this Gospel (John 6:37, John 9:34-35). It is excommunication from a holy community, or scene, or synagogue, or world, which is, and is to be, God’s alone. The negative side of the victory of Jesus has been declared; we have now the positive. John 12:32-33. And I, if I be lifted on high out of the earth, will draw all men unto myself. But this he said, signifying by what manner of death he should die. ‘Myself’ is used in emphatic contrast with, and opposition to, the ‘prince of this world.’ To Himself Jesus will ‘draw’ men; and any difficulty connected with this is not to be met by weakening the force of the word ‘draw,’ but by taking into account the limitations implied in the context, and in the nature of the case. The lesson alike of the whole Gospel and of experience is that some will not be drawn. They resist and quench the light. They love and choose the darkness. In the same way the force of ‘all men’ must not be weakened, although we ought to keep in view the two thoughts which the context shows us to be prominent—(1) that not ‘the prince of this world,’ but Jesus Himself shall have the empire of the world; (2) that not Jews alone but Gentiles, some of whom had already been seeking Him, shall be drawn. ‘All men,’ however, is universal in its meaning. Jesus would not merely draw some, He would draw all; and if some are not saved, it is because they deliberately refuse to submit themselves to His influence.The condition and means of this drawing are the ‘lifting on high of Jesus out of the earth.’ What is this ‘lifting on high’? The word has already met us in John 3:14 and John 8:28; and in the first of these passages in particular we have seen that it must be referred to the crucifixion. The whole context of this verse demands, primarily at least, a similar reference. The thought of the death of Jesus is prominent throughout. Even when He receives the homage of Mary, of the multitude, of the Greeks, He has upon Him the stamp of death. It is thus too that in John 12:33 the Evangelist explains the expression; and his explanation is confirmed by the remarkable use of the preposition ‘out of’ instead of ‘from.’ That preposition is much more applicable to the crucifixion than the ascension, and its use seems to imply that simple separation from the earth satisfies the conditions that are in the mind of Jesus. At the same time the thought of glorification must surely be included in the ‘lifting on high.’ In the teaching of this Gospel, indeed, the facts of crucifixion and glorification go together, and cannot be separated from each other. The dying Redeemer is glorified through death: the glorified Redeemer died that He might be glorified. The crucifixion is the complete breaking of the bond to earth: it is the introduction of the full reign of spiritual and heavenly power. John 12:34. The multitude therefore answered him, We have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted on high? The ‘multitude,’ who are Jews not Greeks, have rightly understood the words of Jesus in John 12:32 to mean a lifting on high by death. But they have learned from the Scriptures (here, as in chap. John 10:34, called ‘the law’)—probably from such passages as Sam. John 7:13-15; Psalms 72, 89, 110; Isaiah 6, 7; Daniel 7:14—that ‘the Christ abideth for ever,’ that, according to their interpretation, He should have a glorious and eternal reign on earth. There is thus an irreconcilable contradiction between the fate expected by Jesus and the claims which they might perhaps have otherwise allowed.Who is this Son of man? The words are not an honest inquiry who this Son of man can be, and how he can be the Christ. They are really a rejection of the claims of Jesus. ‘Who is this? We have nothing and shall have nothing to do with Him.’ The interpretation thus given is greatly confirmed by the fact that the words are immediately followed not by explanation, but by solemn warning on the part of Jesus (John 12:35-36), and by the Evangelist’s own reflections on the hardness and perversity of man (John 12:37-41); while, at the same time, it is in a high degree suitable to the place occupied by them in the Gospel. ‘Son of man’ had been the favourite designation by Jesus of Himself. How appropriate is it that, when finally rejected, He should be rejected in that character! Have we not here also another illustration of the Evangelist’s love of commemorating instances when, against themselves and as if under the guidance of an irresistible power, men were compelled to ascribe to Jesus in contempt epithets which, rightly understood, were His highest glory? John 12:35. Jesus therefore said unto them, Yet a little while is the light among you. Not so much words of pity and tenderness in order to clear away the doubts of a sincere desire to learn, as words of solemn warning that they had a day of grace granted them, but that it was now drawing to a close, and that, if they did not pass beyond all doubts to faith, they would be overtaken by darkness.Walk as ye have the light, that darkness overtake you not. That is, ‘Walk in accordance with the fact that the light now shines around you.’And he that walketh in the darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. If they do not thus walk, thus come to the light (chap. John 3:21), the darkness will overtake them; and instead of going to the glory to which Jesus ‘goeth,’ they will go blindly to destruction. John 12:36. As ye have the light, believe in the light. Nay, not only let them come to the light, but let them take a higher step and ‘believe in’ the light, that is, commit in trust their whole being to the light.That ye may become sons of light,—light your father, the element of your being, and no darkness at all in you. Such are the last words of Jesus which the Evangelist, in describing His active ministry, has thought fit to record. How strikingly do they remind us of the opening of the Gospel, and, after the manner of our Evangelist, bind apparently far distant parts of His work into one! In the Prologue we read of the Word that ‘it shineth in the darkness, and the darkness overcame it not (John 12:5). Now that Word has become incarnate, has lived, has suffered, has been condemned to die, and for what? that we believing in Him, embracing Him in a true communion, taking His life, His light, into ourselves, may also become sons of light, shining in the darkness, and the darkness overcoming us not.These things spake Jesus, and having gone away he was hidden from them. In chap. John 8:59 we were told that ‘Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.’ Here, as became the moment that closed His public ministry, the departure is more complete,—marked by a finality which had no existence then. It is supposed by many commentators that He went to Bethany, and it may have been so. But the fact to be mainly observed is the fresh illustrations supplied by John’s silence of the manner in which, to his mind, the ideal surpasses the historic interest. The departure itself and the consequent close of Israel’s probation is the main point. All else passes out of view before sad reflection upon the unbelief which Israel has exhibited. The public ministry of Jesus has been brought to a close, and the moment has been marked by words the melancholy pathos of which can hardly be mistaken, ‘Having gone away, He was hidden from then’ (John 12:36). These words, applied in the first instance to the outward circumstances of the Saviour, receive now at the hands of the Evangelist all the depth of their meaning, when he gives us his last reflections on the hardness and unbelief displayed by Israel in rejecting the glorious self-manifestation of its Lord (John 12:37-43). After this we have in the second part of the section, closing the fourth and leading division of the Gospel, a short summary of that teaching of Jesus to which Israel had refused to listen (John 12:44-50). John 12:38. That the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he said, Lord, who believed our report? and to whom was the arm of the lord revealed. I The quotation is from Isaiah 53:1; and one or two expressions in it require notice before we endeavour to ascertain its exact force and meaning, either as originally spoken by the prophet or as now applied by the Evangelist. By ‘report’ we are to understand the burden of the prophet’s message, the word as heard rather than as spoken (comp. 2 Samuel 4:4 in the Hebrew; Romans 10:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13); and by ‘arm of the Lord,’ the manifestation of His power alike in the deliverance of His people and in the destruction of His enemies (Deuteronomy 5:15; Isaiah 63:5). The words ‘that it might be fulfilled,’ so frequently used by Matthew as he points but the harmony of each successive event with the Divine plan and counsel, here meet us for the first time in this Gospel. More is meant than what we commonly understand by the fulfilment of a prediction. That which in its principle and its partial realisation connected itself with the events of which the inspired prophet directly spoke is here declared to be ‘filled up,’ to have received its complete accomplishment. By whom then, and in what circumstances, were the words of Isaiah originally spoken? We answer, By repentant Israel; by Israel after it has come to faith, and when it looks back sorrowfully upon the fact that the message of Jehovah’s love, and the manifestations of His power, had been disregarded by the great body of the nation. In a similar spirit the Evangelist now looks back, seeing in the unbelief which rejected the Messiah Himself the ‘fulfilment’ of that unbelief which had long before rejected the Messianic message of the prophet. Israel was ever the same: ‘As their fathers did, so did they’ (Acts 7:51); they ‘filled up’ the measure of their fathers (Matthew 23:32). This is the explanation of what caused John so much astonishment and sorrow. But it is not all. John 12:39-40. For this cause they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be turned, and I should heal them. ‘For this cause’ does not refer so much to the words themselves of the preceding verse, as to that Divine plan which John sees that they express, and whose further progress, involving a judicial hardening of those who, as we have seen, had first hardened themselves, is expressed in the words that follow. The quotation is from Isaiah 6:9-10, and the changes, especially in that from the commanding to the narrative form, are only such as the prophet himself would have made had he taken up the position of our Evangelist and, at the close of his prophetic ministry, related what he had been made the instrument of effecting. Israel was so wilfully rejecting God in the prophet’s days, that the moment for God’s judicial treatment of His people had come. By him, therefore, God sent them a new message, that by their rejection of it the blinding of their eyes and the hardening of their hearts might be complete; that they might finally and conclusively reject the tidings through which, otherwise, Isaiah would have ‘healed’ them. Was not this exactly what had happened now? He in whom all the prophets of Israel were ‘fulfilled’ had come; and John sees Him uttering His mournful complaint over that wilful obstinacy of Israel which had provoked the judicial dealings of God, in the same language as that in which His servant of old, had he been speaking in the narrative form, would have spoken. Thus the words of the Lord to Isaiah (in chap. John 6:9-10), now quoted, describe the radical and unchanging condition of carnal Israel; and, as applied here, they mean that God had made the self-manifestation of Jesus the instrument of blinding and hardening those who had chosen unbelief. Thus also, it will be observed, God is the subject of ‘hath blinded’ and of ‘hardened:’ and ‘I should heal them’ must be understood of Jesus Himself. Hence, accordingly, the remarkable words of the next verse. John 12:41. These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake concerning him. When we remember that the chapter of Isaiah from which the quotation of Joh 12:39-40 is taken is that in which the prophet sees the glory of the Lord, it may appear at first sight as if it were only the glorious vision there beheld by him that is here referred to. Yet it is impossible not to feel that this 41st verse, connected as it is in the closest manner with the words immediately preceding it, must really refer to that work of Christ to which the Evangelist had applied the prophet’s words; and that ‘His glory’ must point to the glory of the self-manifestation of Jesus by means of the ‘signs’ of John 12:37 (comp. chap. John 2:11). It is clear, therefore, that John intentionally unites that Jesus who is the ‘I’ in ‘I shall heal them’ with ‘the Lord’ spoken of in Isaiah 6:1, etc.—unites, in short, the Incarnate Word as Messiah and Prophet and the Divine Word in His glory, ‘sitting on a throne high and lifted up, and His train filling the temple.’ But that is precisely the lesson of his whole Gospel; and it is this truth, so deeply imbedded in it, that gives unity and force to the passage we have been considering.One point must still be briefly noticed in connection with these verses. If the Jews were thus doomed to unbelief, where was their guilt? The answer is, that they are supposed to have wilfully rejected the revelation and grace of God before that point of their history is reached which is now in the eye both of prophet and Evangelist. Their whole previous training ought to have prepared them for receiving the claims of Jesus. They abused that training; they ceased to be ‘of the truth;’ they blinded themselves; and judicial blindness followed. It is only necessary to add that what we have spoken of as a ‘previous’ training may belong to the order of thought rather than to that of time. Almost at the very instant when the Almighty appeals to me by the presentation of Jesus, He may be appealing to me by His providence, His grace, the general working of His Spirit, so as to make me ready to receive Jesus; these dealings I may so use that the bent of my character may at once appear, and if I am judicially doomed to darkness, the very sentence that dooms me is the consequence of my own folly and sin. John 12:42. Nevertheless, even from among the rulers many believed in him. The language which John has used is general: as a nation Israel has rejected Jesus. But His mission has not been without effect on many individuals (comp. chaps. John 1:11-12, John 3:32-33): even from among the members of the Sanhedrin (see chap. John 7:48) many believed in Him. Persons believed, belonging to a body in which the bitterest foes of Jesus bore rule; and greatness of unbelief is thus in some degree counterbalanced by greatness of faith.But because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. We can hardly suppose that these words are added in order to show that the faith spoken of on the part of many of the rulers formed no real exception to the general statement of Israel’s unbelief. They simply tell us that, although that faith was genuine, it needed strength and growth. It was not powerful enough to surmount the obstacles placed in its way by the resolution of chap. John 9:22; and it had not reached the point at which alone it could be said that, in ‘leading out’ its possessors after the true Shepherd, its complete victory was gained (chap. 3, 4). On the prominence now given to the Pharisees among the enemies of Jesus, see note on chap. John 7:32. John 12:43. Because they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. It may seem at first sight as if these words were inconsistent with those of chap. John 5:44, and the apparent inconsistency is not to be removed either by giving to the word translated ‘glory’ its etymological signification ‘opinion,’ or by supposing that the faith of these rulers was not true. The solution of the difficulty is to be found in observing (1) that the ‘glory’ here referred to is that of Joh 12:23; John 12:41, a glory involving the unity of Jesus and His people. Let the latter identify themselves with the former, take up His cross, have part in His sufferings and death, ‘confess’ Him, and they shall also be partakers of His ‘glory.’ This is not exactly the same glory as that of chap. John 5:44.—(2) That the form of expression is not the same, here ‘of God,’ ‘of men’—there ‘from God,’ the preposition used in the latter case leading more directly to the thought of glory offered by God, and deliberately rejected. The reflections of the Evangelist are at an end, and once more Jesus is introduced to us. John 12:44. But Jesus cried and said. In what sense are we to understand the cry and utterance about to be mentioned? Was it public or private? Or is it strictly speaking no utterance of Jesus at all, but only a summary by the Evangelist himself of the main points of that teaching of Jesus which he had recorded in the previous part of his Gospel? That it was not public is clear from the fact that the ministry had closed at John 12:36; and it is impossible to meet this difficulty by the supposition that the cry is merely a continuation of the first words of that verse. That it was not private is equally clear, partly from the use of ‘cried’ (comp. John 7:28; John 7:37), partly because the nature and tone of the words themselves are such as to suggest that Jesus is speaking to ‘the Jews,’ not to His disciples. The only supposition therefore is, that the passage contains an epitome or summary of the words of Jesus to the Jews. The words ‘cried and said’ are therefore equivalent to, This was the teaching of Jesus when He spake openly to the world. The Evangelist, however, does not give the summary in his own words, but (we can hardly doubt) makes use of actual sayings uttered by his Master at various times,—sayings which for the most part combine and give forcible expression to truths which we have found stated in the discourses of this Gospel. There is in this section but little that is new; on the other hand, there is very little actual repetition of verses from earlier chapters. If our view of the passage is correct, the words were spoken by Jesus; the selection is made by John.He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me. This is the first and almost the only place in this Gospel (see chap. 1) in which the words ‘believe in,’ so constantly associated with our Lord (see chap. John 2:11), are used in reference to the Father. Once indeed, in chap. John 5:24, the Authorised Version reads ‘believeth on Him that sent me,’ but, as we have seen, this is a mistranslation. No words could more strikingly express what Jesus had accomplished for those who received Him: He had led them to the Father, and through Jesus they are now believers in God (1 Peter 1:21), ‘throwing themselves with absolute trust’ on God revealed in Christ. Hence the appropriateness of the words in this place, where the full effect of the mission of Jesus upon the many (John 12:40) and upon the few is traced. The form of expression here recalls chap. John 7:16 : as there Jesus declares that the words which He speaks are words received from God, so here that the faith He has awakened and rendered possible is faith in God. In each relation He is Mediator between God and men. John 12:45. And he that beholdeth me, beholdeth him that sent me. In chap. John 6:40 (see note) we have the same combination as in these verses: ‘He that beholdeth the Son and believeth in Him.’ A little later the same thought finds fuller expression in words addressed to disciples (chap. John 14:9). Compare chap. John 1:18, John 15:24. John 12:46. As light I have come into the world, that every one that believeth in me may not abide in the darkness. Here we have the substance of the Saviour’s last words to the multitude (John 12:35-36) and the earlier sayings of chap. John 8:12. John 9:5; but nowhere has it been as clearly taught that all are ‘in the darkness’ until by faith in Jesus they receive light. Comp. chap. John 3:19 (Acts 26:18; Colossians 1:13), and especially John 12:4-5, in the Prologue. It is easy to trace a certain connection of thought in these verses, though from the nature of the case the connection is not always very close. The first two (John 12:4; John 12:45) are occupied with the relation between the disciples of Jesus and the Father who sent Him; the next three (John 12:46-48), with the relation of Jesus to the world; the last two, with His relation to the Father. From beholding (John 12:45) to light is a natural transition; from this point each verse directly leads the way to that which follows it. The thought is at first expressed in the language of figure (John 12:46), then with studious plainness and simplicity. John 12:47. And if any one shall have heard my sayings and have guarded them not. It is necessary here to introduce an unusual word in the translation. To ‘keep’ the sayings or words of Jesus is a phrase which often meets us in this Gospel (chap. John 8:51, etc.): ‘guard’ is an uncommon word with the Evangelist, found only here and in John 12:25, and (in conjunction with ‘keep’) in chap. John 17:12. That the sayings may be kept and not lost from memory and life, they must be guarded with all care, and watchfully observed. Comp. Matthew 7:26; Luke 6:49. I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. Comp. chap. John 3:17; John 8:15. John 12:48. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day. From the ‘forgetful hearer’ whose carelessness or indifference has let slip the words he should have ‘guarded,’ Jesus passes to the man who sets at nought both His word and Himself. Even to him that word shall come, but as a judge. As Moses was the accuser of the people (John 5:45) because his word, though honoured in profession, was disregarded in its spirit and design, so the very word of Jesus which they have rejected shall declare their doom. The word bore with it evidence that it was God’s word: they heard not because they were not of God (chap. John 8:14; John 8:47). John 12:49. Because I spake not of myself; but the Father which sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. With the first words compare chap. John 3:34, John 5:19, John 7:16-17, John 8:28, John 14:24. Of receiving a ‘commandment’ from the Father Jesus has spoken once only (chap. John 10:18), but in later chapters we have the same thought (John 14:31, John 15:10), which indeed is implied wherever He has spoken of Himself as sent by the Father into the world. This commandment is the expression of the Divine plan for the salvation of the world (chap. John 3:14-16). The combination of ‘say’ and ‘speak’ in the last clause is remarkable: see the note on chap. John 8:43. John 12:50. And I know that his commandment is eternal life: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak. The substance of the Divine commandment is contained in the word of Jesus, and His word gives life eternal, His word is life (chap. John 5:24, John 6:63; John 6:68). We enter here upon the fifth of those sections into which we have seen that the Gospel is divided; and the section extends to the close of chap. 17. The scene and the circumstances of the actors in it are altogether different from what we have witnessed in chaps, 5 to 12. There is a transition from the ‘world’ and the ‘Jews,’ its leading representatives, to the circle of the most intimate friends of Jesus, from struggle to quietness and peace, from denunciation of sin to an outpouring of the most tender affection in act, discourse, and prayer. The consequence is that nowhere in the Gospel have we so full a revelation of the Father’s put pose and work, of the Son’s relation to it, of the great New Covenant gift of the Spirit, and of the duties, privileges, and hopes of that Church of Christ which, after He went away, was to take His place, as we find in these chapters. The first scene in the section is the Foot-washing. The subordinate parts are—(1) John 13:1-11; (2) John 13:12-20. John 13:2. And a supper being begun, the devil having already put it into his heart that Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, should betray him. It is important to notice the exact parallelism of this verse to the preceding, both in the note of time, and in the circumstances of the scene. (1) The chronological notice, ‘a supper being begun.’ It was during the course of the supper, not after it was ended, that the events to be spoken of took place. That this ‘supper’ was not the ‘feast’ properly so called appears from the name ‘a supper,’ not ‘the feast,’ from John 13:29, where the ‘feast’ is not yet or only just begun, and from the absence of the article, which could hardly have been wanting had the word ‘supper’ taken up again the ‘feast’ of John 13:1. It was the preliminary meal at the close of which the ‘feast’ was celebrated.(2) The circumstances of the other side of the scene, three in number. First, the devil, who had ‘already’ plotted the destruction of Jesus, and had fixed on Judas as the instrument. Second, Judas Iscariot, the victim of the devil’s wiles. Third, the feelings of the devil’s heart,—treachery, hatred, at the point of intensity when what had been long determined on shall be fulfilled. The three particulars are in the sharpest contrast with those in John 13:1,—the devil with Jesus, Judas with ‘His own,’ treachery with love. Darkness is over against light, earth over against heaven, the lie over against the truth; and between these Jesus takes His way. What has been said ought to remove the objection felt by many to the translation which we have given of this verse. None will deny that it is the correct translation of the best established Greek text, but it is thought to be impossible to speak of the heart of Satan. The expression, it will be seen, springs from the Evangelist’s mode of thought, as he seeks a contrast to the heart of Jesus (comp. the marginal rendering of Job 1:8; Job 2:3 : ‘Hast thou set thy heart on?’). John 13:3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God. We have now that state of mind in Jesus which leads to the act about to be described. ‘Knowing’ takes up again the same word in John 13:1, and has the same meaning, ‘because he knows.’ The knowledge is summed up in three particulars—(1) That ‘the Father had given all things into His hands;’ the tense expressing no presentiment of coming power, but an act already past (2) That ‘He came forth from God;’ the words expressing not His Divine original, which would have required another form of expression, but that He had left the presence of God as the ‘Sent’ of God. (3) That ‘He goeth unto God,’ as one who has executed His commission. The three clauses thus refer not to power or glory belonging Jesus as the Son of God: they connect themselves with His work of redeeming love. John 13:4. He riseth from the supper, and layeth down his garments, and having taken a towel girded himself. How wonderful the act when compared with the circumstances (mentioned in the previous verse) by which it is introduced! In the fullest consciousness of the glory of that work of redeeming love which He had undertaken, He who was in the ‘form of God’ assumed the ‘form,’ and did the work, of ‘a servant,’ a slave,—nay, felt that to do this was glory. What He does, too, is rendered all the more striking by the fact that the remarkable scene described in Luke 22:24,—the strife among the disciples which should be the greatest,—may have just occurred. In contrast with that eager desire among His servants for superior station in the world, the Master ‘riseth,’ ‘layeth down’ His outer garments, and ‘girdeth’ Himself, becomes as ‘he that serveth (Luke 22:27). John 13:5. Then he poureth water into the bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. It is impossible not to mark the minuteness with which each separate part of the wonderful work of condescension he would describe is here recorded by the Evangelist. According to the usages of the East, rendered necessary at once by the dusty nature of the roads and the imperfect covering afforded by sandals, it was customary for the master of a house, when receiving guests, to provide them with water to wash their feet (Genesis 18:4; Genesis 19:2; Judges 19:21; Luke 7:44). The act of washing would generally be performed by servants. Here Jesus, the Master of the feast, becomes Himself the servant. 89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000016f0000011e0802000000ca200327000000017352474200aece1ce900000009 70485973000012740000127401de661f7800009b5349444154785eeddd799c46515dd771cb32c130cd25345744cb8dc43015 0541258da444c140424044c42d44143104413214c244c59d145116cda5c825105152cbcc708916dc40312d155bc0cad2def8 b1d3f59999679ee53e33cfccdcfbc7bceedce7dc73cff99ddfef7b7edb39e78ffcdeeffddeeb2dd7428185020b05f6a6c01f ddbb86a58285020b05160abc8e020b9a2c7cb05060a1c03c1458d0641e3a2eb52c145828b0a0c9c2030b05160acc4381054d e6a1e352cb428185027f6489e92c4cb050e01828f0bbbffbbb9af1477eff3a86f6ecd0864537d98168cb2b0b05e6a7c0fffe dfff3b40b9bad7a29b5cddb15b5a7e1d2890710047fecdbff9373ff9933f79eb5bdffa433ff4433d4c43b95a7aca8226d781 23973e5c5d0a008edff88ddf78f8c31ffee33ffee37ae1df3ff7e7fedca31ffde8dbdffef67ffc8ffff1d77ffdd7bf425d5b 2c9d2b34584b53af2705fef93fffe73ff6633f463df99ddff91d68f2effffdbf7fd0831ef4ea57bffa8ffed12b269e57acb9 d7939b965edd600afc9ffff37f9ef5ac67b168a8241ffee11f9e690359beeffbbeefcab9511634b9c18cbc74fd0828c096f9 899ff80920f2c8473ef2233ee2230682fc97fff25fae969983960b9a1c01432d4db8c11478f9cb5fcebaa1a1bce55bbee59b bee99b0eeb4688c775b508b3a0c9d51aafa5b5d78d02bff55bbff5c7fed81fa39bdcf6b6b7bdc31dee90a50353c47716bfc9 751beca53f0b050e440146cd6ffff66ffff22fff32e7ebfbbeeffb16d079977779976efed7fffa5f8bdfe440945faa5d2870 dd28c090f9f55ffff5273ff9c9f4917bddeb5eb0e37ffecfff0959ea279de56a259b5ca6df04ed90f2052f78016c66345e37 4e59fab350e06c0a6078fcffdad7bef6733ee7737ef3377f136abcd33bbdd31bbcc11bdcf296b77cb3377b33fff2bff2a708 1b5352ae908672697e1334fae88ffee84ff9944f79e2139f78e5ecc34552160aec49013ac8c77eecc7bef4a52f55cf631ef3 18e161204210784fb271fec49ff8137feb6ffdad9ffbb99fbb42bed8cb4413546b8dd3a29becc99acbeb578b0218fe5bbee5 5b681f30e50bbff00bc1ca9850ef78c73b4a8185264084b12347966fc5bf576275eea565d6831209c5a0f76ddff66ddfeeed deeeca9988578b7d97d61e1505f847ee7ef7bbb3f19ffad4a7deed6e7763e38ce6fd8b7ff12fee7ffffb270e4007b2fc95bf f2579ef4a427b17d8e3ffde4d27413a4f9d37ffa4fbfdffbbd1f34b94296e15131e5d2982b4a8117bef085af7ce52b6f739b db8ce4d7533b4246a824ffe81ffd23be95e19d3de62e5f269ab00c45dae978c70fbac73c844bdbae1c0502115108ea398b86 0e4255af177ff12ffec582c45dd0848050e12929c7dfcd4b4393e327cdd2c2850207a200655ca29a757d1ff9911ff94ffec9 3f7133858f5ffdd55f9d6aeb6ffcc66ffc3eeff33e57c2177b697e93038dd352ed4281e3a70065840b1694c0084a0a0dfd2e 77b94bde937ff7effe1d23885d9399035644763eedd33eedf83ba5850b9a5c89615a1a79ad28906923acf3355ff33556f7b1 653c19db2315c1f12fade4f33ffff3fff25ffecb57c2cc59d0e45af1e8d299ab420178516204d78975c3af79cd6b800b65c4 43da0a5545476e75ab5b3df399cf9487026bae4ac473f19b5c150e5cda797d281040f8fb266ff2267fea4ffd29f0f1b4a73d ed652f7bd95ffdab7f3528a19b7cc1177cc13bbff33b073157a5e70b9a5c95915ada797d2840372963f339cf79ceab5ef52a e927eff00eef0041dc8c2cb55ff9955f51e0aae4ad35360b9a5c1f1e5d7a725528d0023f66ce139ef004f0c133c2a2d1f8ff fc9fff7368421ff9faafff7ab19eabb592784193abc2814b3baf03050ad3008b7ffdafffb57458c68e44f0473ce2119ef8e9 1ef7b847968e3290e5810f7ca0bcb50c9f2b9159bfa0c975e0d1a50f5785020c1cd1df2ffff22fff844ff884fff6dffe1bb7 888cd83ffb67ff2c5505a0dcf9ce772ed304cab87ef6677ff69ef7bca775f65745435922c457850f97765e070a08d97ceff7 7eef677ee66716d329126c8989dd92d83ba0c4eeb0c3ed9a4a62b382effcceef843bc71f275ed0e43af0e8d287ab420168f2 b7fff6dffe8eeff80e0dfe911ff9915ffbb55f7bc6339ef1fce73f1f828012664e5b9fb4b63eacf1f7533ff553eddd71fc0b 501634b92a7cb8b4f33a50e0177ff1171de5073560c4877cc88770bedef5ae77f5d74a9c5ffaa55ffa0fffe13fb083deeddd de4dd8f85ffecb7fc9204a4ff9937ff24f7ecff77c8f6da88f9c040b9a1cf9002dcdbb2614282afcaddffaad1249da08d6a1 5cf947d832524b5c823816e9bce8452f2ab3be9ec31df78c23ae9623a7c58226473e404bf3ae09053ac78f99f38ffff13f7e e8431fca72f9aeeffaae1ffaa11ffae11ffee1fffa5fff6b6b855b9be36feb7746cf219165c75ff6655f76e4b458d0e4c807 6869de35a180b80ca4f80b7fe12fb871e4b0a373f28f80927ff80fffe12b5ef18a9ffff99f07287084a5f3466ff44694972f faa22fb2087064a038f6dc7dc7651c2751163439ce71595a75dd280044e498dcef7ef7b37d895d08a6811b6acbd8e58735e4 4a3d61daf09e0c42001def1ef3266c4bbec975e3daa53fc74901f0014460010febb485856f06b8b8c9de916ce278f36949c8 929fe5383ba855c7dbb2a325d9d2b08502bb51003ad038defffddf7f655b758924adee0b53fc0a32e4b63182a61ffaeffffd bf1ff97ae2054d76638ce5ad85029b52a024349ac54ffff44f438dbff6d7fedafacc11b96af94a4e66d31f797efd82269bf2 c4526ea1c00e1420fff41189f3368be63ae17c953cb27e5b75411f66ceb77ffbb7af785b4bb13f664059d064070e595e5928 b0050560872c12e8c04e719c851dd5d6046514760886e57fe2c72bc0f16fffedbffd999ff9992d3e7ce1451734b970922f1f bc4914287f442a7ddb35dee73ef7b1ffeb1a4f2a3479f4a31f0d35deeaadde2a3a4d15996ffcc66f3c66e22d6872cca3b3b4 ed3a508033f579cf7b1e50f8f37ffecf4f4fb738b56fd249fee6dffc9b9497b7799bb79178a2cc506460d03ffda7ff948672 b44459d0e468876669d8d5a6004d84c784a7834261b312a0f0f8c73ffedc2e5164525e3ee9933e490edbcade6b2af9caaffc 4af9294585fceafe780eb75bd0e4dcf15d0a2c14d88502241f2858c847fec580ffd25ffa4b126137aca82d637fe2277ee264 e6ab0d0d6cf258548819a57e477c6d58eda18b2d6872680a2ff5df500a5019fee37ffc8f16e6e8bf8cb53658db3029debb16 163b0cf3e4beb06a78cc631e43eba1957cc3377c8343799efce427fbf7188eef5a32eb6f28af2fdd3e34051823f7bdef7df9 53dd30761c090a1a58319b008a88b2e6596d2c9bfea4214325b9dded6e67837b0b799454e74ffdd44f51672e7d3ba5054d0e cd544bfd378802a5b1b6ee8681d3aa5fcb855d193e53afea1aba94a5a2bc7d61d93be3acbff64ff2a29f525b983c3e0a773e faa33f7a41931bc46a4b57af3d053aa25c376dc828fe42e66f7ffbdbdb5dcd93377cc337dcadfb50e34bbee44bbeeaabbeca eb61c74a8019bebcfddbbfbdec3896d16e9f98ebadd77734e15c752df52c14b8b114c81ea12cfcc00ffcc0c77ddcc749a2f7 84e7d5fe6970843375e7d57aeab43b81aadef55ddff59ffdb37fb6a2ddb4138ae347155326cd651363ea1023b578610f41d5 a5ce1b4701526d93571bb87efaa77fba208bd3b6f85f1d332ccadba2be9d29028680d11def78c7206305299c797eb7bbddcd d77d8bb1334ee4d9f973fbbcb8f84df6a1def2ee42813fa00031765ac57ffa4fff89e4dbf0f5a94f7d2ab16795f8771f2899 d2d789c5e2c15334716fbf5880f5811ff881f950dee22dde42deed9bbff99b5fcac02cbac9a590fd867e14c7f3504ae872b5 b3a18b45b07215efcccbe812b6e8df23a49a56fd8ffff13ff4e59bbee99b008a164210cb85db957e5e8b23576e44908df285 5ff885a0c4593c6ff6666fc60bdb6605daf0a0073de8a52f7d29a269db05878d17dde40859f4da362950f8b11ffb310bdb6c 44563f3905563aac8c49f8b77eebb7121e80e2ac19ce88798573162a6baa6de841c9377ff337974e9231025384841ffbd8c7 def6b6b715c19de55b00c216904c1b5b9ff804627ecee77c8e347c965410065f6c07d9d66d0f7ef083c10ad0994b33daa40b 0b9a6c42a5a5ccbe1418ca85d8c4577cc557ec509d8dddfffedffffbeff88eef48804948276c5ee255fe9866b032023e0a17 c1068e3ffaa33f4a5348b19272c293c218e9d40bc5b47fabe04bd1e2349dbff377feceb77ccbb7b82f7efcb8c73d0e9a0c22 801b24728071f163476d7ce9977e693acbce3ee0ad28bcc474b622d75278470a10094e447bb5b76dc70e5a86d32108d2bffa 57ffcada397e818b9c724fed73bd60d14875e773b5ae4f30f8fbbffffb5ff9ca5726f92ee022afcc4f765d83268e1cf6301c dc8a02708a42f7311ff3310ecd0895741fb2dceb5ef79ad2c1731bbbd189ec9002591cd073eb5bdf9a72a4ccc5a0c9a29bec 281ecb6b5b5100730b3dd8e6a349fbd4774da7646ca454e4642142bc8f26ffe73ef7b9e6fca6d9bffed7fffac77ffcc74bb2 30c9275a5b356696c21dca479ead9ab1e12bf7a76aa5aeca4f1d3b30a6a7b465743ac2ad6e75abbbdce52e6ffbb66fcb530b 16cfca67d3a9f2567ee1177e8113e4c52f7ef10b5ff8420fa35e0a8ebf42c24e1d7daff77aaf0ffee00f7eebb77eeb48e1af dddb2829bffeebbfeebbd2f0ef7ffffb5f8c2ab7a0c92cacb554720e054cce421ee6d8b3247f38591d1c93df81a87cd0077d 9085f9aa26459c9d5ffbb55ffbd55ffdd549a602bc9216da2abc95e130d7500576effddeefad5f2c8ec4d59397bffce55257 d350fccb69c246033a0c10ea554e0dd8aa3cadc14fe0404f575aa518f8e0522d6f45f9368e5d2916f27a985d0376417648f4 b297bd8c91d54a1fe973eff77eef3757c7d7d4b3a0c9051079f9c4ebd1bacdc61102bb77e06e936d0fad5ee3533475670504 2e8a8d59bd39d97cfbec673f5bc63a39f9eddffe6d4aca677cc66798969bf9b7321ff61c15edd7983bdde94ef402296aa149 712871e2a73ded69dff66ddfc6d229cb9e60bff6b5afa592682175832e53306b74dff354b6bc42fed57137e920be9552569b dd449651491df72f74cbf5eb5e762c926a18fa688c4d240f6def2c7e933d996a797d230adce216b7a07430e931b433779310 c236a4c831543643f52ff11b6e91ce8e197ec49c0edc1352b95ef29297d0746c1d4432990c762a9bcadb466ddabb903688d1 b27140613a576d90fc4aabb269a3f3b42cb421d8540cf72232b671649870a0385498fef2c55ffcc55ea4a1581c181ea1890e bee77bbee7877dd887c97fa3f530e8e8299e0fb81930d4e70686ba0164cf7ad6b3e847d604aa96d7464e9dcdee918803fbd0 f6cea29beccd534b051b50a004f0f40bcc4d0f17e674682664112d9e2e3fc92d4269b7f318d9cb1130f48ebc15cad00b2c0a 91c6defc7cf7bbdfdd49bdcca2a1ef1c5a4fd112820a35b4f0610f7b18eb66dac824df5f815bae536b76a82415a8fdfe66cd b9b7f980ada7874ae245b8e35d242a5dad984e808538724cc4c54e7630334acd50831e04aadc8813f37fd3599ef9cc67ce15 ab3e6bc01734d94014962287a4001583a4898cc84031db138092d9e44a701f3ee0010fa0d7945dbea2a82b43352033b61109 8f2cfc279fa1cfa15db36dad263c9ccf9507475abd16ae7c37f78ac270e1977ff9971d3cfcaa57bd8ac2e2dfccbda1521560 9e5a7fd94d2aa4fe7088dce10e77602d2a0f657c77789ace1a1c588c20c09a635861860f0de59023f97a0b9a1c94bc4be5e7 53801425fc6eac70918245b16f1a4fd83ef6633ff6210f7948b6ccb4ba04959c88ef98cc9bf6692812b73219cefff61e25d2 177870c6ea5e7a8aa82dafea4a23738b860b1a5cb299fb1ff9911f012ba957e9232cc1cca56ae0fe78e7777e67a84ab34837 49af41a8073ef081623deb9baf1e46132811171314b3f39bb8d81e3d3effd5054dcea7d152e2822920f66122b5b198887242 2b79fc6ffc8dbff1c99ffcc9c3db3a55016010af27ef6ceec98ffaa88ffaaccffa2cafa4f31fb4f11c379db61522f0225ba1 c3ad33ef0a9d935d8062a2d1f0427c7ae5d754b3f190bb8455489df144b89a49b5cf82e6f5c45cbcb00765b6a5f25d28205e f31eeff11eb23c0556d911a2cbaf79cd6b7ef2277f920f82d5c3b9a8d2a9d5a3fc077cc007706dbee8452f22d8249ce9c4e4 b9e52d6f79e8280687b170d538305898895798fdc5abcaefb372e4f02eb438e31d5fa4dab432685c40841a42dfe199ea2164 f1ef58ad03e6f85c4e0d36cfd2b6054d6621e352c99c14c8f071b1fcf90b2cd2e1b53509bbb83389079ba2bd0ed350f2aaf0 65d20832798487beeffbbe8fc3925951cc75cef6fde1baccf634a99e69898b5901d1f82c9cb04545bacd6d6e93932587b18b bda3f03442bca679deca18ac8c8ef3b930af4a69f16f297cee7d4b560b57ab6cb791c83fd553defdf7afc3d9800b9a1c8ecd 969ae7a180199ef12248413721819cb57c0d5086ea31850912fb3eeff33ee44af6bde7c4ec077ff007ef7ad7bb52670e67ef 688fec755fe45bd55b6de0280582bc27ec2fb002feac092cfeed575a03976a9ed7e17fdd904c1cd5b41e0620c7b348706fe5 7e0e32a4a831bbe085f6d0984e067d583d77bef39d47ec69c3ef6e5e6cf19b6c4eaba5e4e550a089d77c4e623feff33e4fc0 3577a6bdda691fe4b9c0e748c7b014483ab97f5d4dd7cec4725f7acbec7dd000c0213d8439e61ef609570b188b34b1ce4000 7529fd0882687620c2e1aa4996d58cf6b0410093100c134931e813e2789d6e6277582503026a8ebef88a6c604b72f85072d0 fe837ff00fd877c0454b64bbf095acc47d3865694cde3d9001b8a0c9ecdcb55478100a10922223c219e65e0842e4c8f0539e f294691a453bb33204e4e0674a88895877475033430ed2b8d77b3db933024fe5b9bb600ae093b0a7c172c9608440157029ef 46c3fccd5d3a42c2c583c3bb100788283f3d69945e23831e1209d0782e84649d6111222a093f74efaa0786f207af7864e968 f2d9b6d58936a7d882269bd36a29799914c8e94012447c208854f124471eaa9c514bfe038b64d24ff2bb24bc27abac0f1b35 e78be9add97b42a49921d2fc0760959c663357669a406f8ac62b5ef10aba060710f581f9e3613a94f6c831e36d518626c550 d2116611c890bc5f963d3b2e8d0698fa1688ac2f751972214b5f8f0e126aab795c9ae4a387f3c22e68323b5f2d151e9c02a4 eb494f7a120f424e56791956cd4e33c7f2743efde94fb75baae7b933008a961dc8dec92b4cf2c1447968fe7a92cb86608b3a 69277c617c795299a9ae34d27c41406fb518276b056a28203ddff1a3b96006952b200f18c4400aef2aac3d16107562e9b4a4 f4b93ff367fecc8174b4054d0ecefacb0766a740268f8889556d81050704f781748f54000296fb408a6a1e07d7677ff6674b aeddf07cac6ddbdcea3e392014250d78d4a31ee52f6b8b4ba5b417720e1d985df41439a974167e655f71cf6beb2683256dc2 bbf414da8a7b7e225de0d0a55668bc20b4754021487a4d311a6bac05bfac36c8cbebbbf7bef7bd25ec2840a9696314c53ef7 733f1711fac4b67d3cb7fc8226e792682970a4142027bc1576362cbd42b462a4a58e169331020677889f1890c45033f6e142 3cf0c2ba185e1218c116d342be58f15a1b2c327064c1b45d5b4ed9f6a33bd5eec8e3b3e2f5a8531e024d6938e1a6279608b3 fed4a6b39271acfa0343204328fdf7e3d1bfcb13ec5f396c79af11c12e0a87f09e2c6872a4a2b234eb5c0a902bf68280b1b5 3c4db63411e032665d05088f59fd1ef7b8476b7949a00cb7f64c39c4a53d5ca1160768033d450a4cbe9ed124460ad9f657b4 3bd563f84da6ed49d4572232150880aa963a435b810e941720d2060865eebb298a4497a104f9b703343ca10a499061efccae 9e2cf9268760aa2b562719c06ad3d8c195e8006130cf83064a8763ab888af99f2089836a7f533789e2a05546325b4f2cfc6d a79543f80eb4c1ae8e0c1cf5a3aa6c175fc93fd22577565688f0adc814b74e46590d1ba0d343355070feeedffdbb9cb812e4 2820d65b079ae36f569ea46129b048c19c092f3297b872c5bcc028ab27b74eef52618484185c0b9a5c093ebf628dc4bb9d20 353b7b5d0c21f838ed99d8a113f64f35150b974efb22e99eef805642c2191df005e21c024da22457abc99f8d639ffd5317c5 c83d7be2139f28a59590dbbea445345d904edb0aeef0a1c23e4b90fc4b9d3949cc74130972ac3c08c5fcb1914ac5f44eae9a b390a511b771cc78ddbdf45ca036fb701f2afc7e316cb47c65160a1000d9d98790ae599a776e25dacf0b4b9c5246f841892b 0d7f043e5ac8d316241e320d4ce365739c5bf956056007f126a89ac19761b5ce9058df821da0c13e46423f611f270b2cb0d5 40c524c5086cd347fededffb7b394d80637e96539b51222c67b3edbba5aec1afe112f23ab4029d23643e6af024236bf66bb1 746627e952e1e550800c4ba56f919b352c021cd398b1365949d8321f2267c616f2087d666fae0688bf3867c72e0a94a6605a 44099cf1f28810dfef7ef793396249b4b33efdc4316c2b360d5686dea455cc105d90f6b649dba003e3c522c03664caa51200 d9b50054f1d1aca8211ac08c9a5d3759d06493f15aca5c010a500a682824907540b7279fb7bbdded56123af80b000a1d4180 8354af1498b193ea076d94260ee000cb6a1d1a135542d63fe0b070912bc4739a054b87690677da2e9bdb585f9866f2d34a42 19e890fc431c1d0155161670a9f2a7526af8866c5827020d590a72f9ae2f8212f753e0b041ac361cc24db6c4746664a1a5aa cba440a9f7b47d5b3ad3e4a55d387f2789edf22bebc643996f248d04ae1498abf5be420372d2051996e16e1f0035e72bf9ee effe6e9f26c98f7ce423ed020529d835ce09b4904fd4563131ef4ff8844f00829e8086e73ce7391eb6afbdc2209252a35a86 4cf929e5b98c6cb75cb9c014aaf249bbca529926c5aa56bce91081ad054de662a1a59e4ba60081c947400bb080c53c4f2c05 8c3d493ba8801bce517e13054494991bb3db3bbe0250accaa325d9e4a97cb6e08c77568498da52f085020253a8270237093c a4b3304f0d5adef91e8584fd4a67b1ad891b396972f3fde4c9d41a828f960e7a2e326da1507b7a4b7e519807dae5dd560c02 14cdb3679df2396866f19a2d6872c932b07c7e5e0a106382c1cd4984880a63a1f331c657726a905ef3b9c8abd0b29fe6dd7e b95c0f07861260560979d62a09ac3ed41a626d93e60f5908b6557cec0e65fc4a01618801940ca2fbdce73eeaa1ce68b38c78 6a0bd7b21a4a815b43379f4867b1c89866c461a43c0ce2dc8565c5a45dbaef6851a0533efefe03b1a0c9fe345c6a38220a14 c731bd4b2123305cb3cef49a1edfd52a5e096fed6c408bb127c8bc689219223a23d95f1b446d87b816454ae3a02271cad6e0 b403d162d8211ecc9342bfb0cb3c4b476c284546497fd540f25b07584c67d871a5d8a7a0a5ceb83a1e0c66f1f55a4f286985 afb705874a4aaba50451a066d9a6604193239284a5297351808cc90d23cf6eac4c11885da9199448fa2296ac8317bce00587 d88ecc277c570324ce4981994efe215aca4b4ed6ac3065e8260a2bc09fc2ad7332360c05683ad42e5be46b3cd4109da101b1 7a449142137165ce57712b4782853e8111ef2f6ac8a01323973b3b50898bc7fa03ded93de9b0a0c95c0cbcd4734414c8dea1 74702b902269172b8d53c0eef625c8122dc191d95befbb4561a918fc23d35074fe0b60c12f4bf8398cc571ed54d243856d2e fb88473c228fc64ac372af68390b6ec0414e99b0206773f7bcb02a845061964b24c88a44aa0ac38725c5379c8e236dd7d1c5 7ba2c912219e9d8b960a8f820284ca746d962621547d09ef9a351c28a4cbfe00362e23c0a671791f24aa0cf7b95a4fecd56c bf385f77bedf144df2fb4ae1a52cb032e80b7ca2b94b857b2d14b0e7be40aff670a6ca9ab7c5d1689577418f533ed238fadb 4d7851cc288ca0e6a899492562dd415ff26521910f49e7b31ba64d0c5ad443aff1ab760661bbd161c9859d8b79967a8e8802 0983980831231eb4fa95799ea4c1174159b042d26cfe98b931631fd4c6abaa5a2964a7d6ec2740636b823edaa139ac33f822 c0ec9eeb84a776e5ddf48baddac9dbca8ba4197cae82cd6ab01d0cd58ca1446f1a09c1bc3cf661022ebb41c9ebc07aab662d 85d750005f4a8bf2b7b3dddcb84a8248b3ad002dd493fe1d977f9d7562a2e07237474d7f3ab5b04a5cb9d97c4eb5e38b3d51 61bbf5dccc0b88f0bc9aa23947508690d867684a0a050459ec5756d64621db9da5e82c22f301fb903d1c1530280dd928eca7 94889e58a197f7b490b0a534365820fc206f7a469f06f3a76e35acf980edb6ed45412e0a8b27dc3a0f7ff8c3f9656d561023 690fa7ef3e4498198fb7eae4352b9c2fdd5f92cc5ce700d341f7f2a91c1929b6c72b669690bc48ab9404dd89935d05ed1ad4 d761fc1fdebed45b66b0c188dde08952b3bc8bdba8c4dee29c737998ab7f4f33f8aa0f1042f10ef08920b5d57436765c1115 a49381ca20d2535a005d6085f2fb50a0499e7ae2ebf40eda81a169dba453ab8535f655638608d93a18d4b22350827ff4021a 5a735ce3fd2b542c917787a6aa4daba4b7a88de1a306997e769c9211630b983d2bf7fa8226eb1826dffb40eed7d1ebffe9c3 1ee212c13c362da4001fd2991d3b003b46998270097fcef98cf393ca241bbeb3e9c29401319e70a40dbe198d7153e138a085 61b5339e33b3e14573e3e81ea5da27ac4f557834a999b057cee2f27d24ea72dfd54dde07491602c6fa68c51d4fc1d439a200 d763fb51530d14d867665ee9ac3a01840c3aca2658372508e2800949a88d63dff2b7716c20c6380e1e5052d898276544852c 268c91b6256f1ce202a0160d712af9a28c1b5571af78e886b6c20eca75b22d351634593722192968ea066a5031eca385416d 3e3e8e59cbaf4e65656e609a1201aa540e151e1a43a21233a401e3455b89c69d3a72aa2a7371d4a0313205342338c0acf41d dc208920b41aeb4db395565292da4a07a6982ac995a5652066f0b49b6b062811810959aeba8c35fbc8b380063dfd8a9e6d44 263d94d0ae9c22bcadb84ecb1b6e7b4af3b346d5d0df88f0f8f2a1b6877ee5a72a643ed120c62bb88e49c299d2b4e1af02c0 d18aa41dd0a4cf657dcbd365f8e05bd11cdb53b3aada6fc55764cae1cf1db6bcbcd1689204364e43a1f0af71e20633a5d006 f9e4319c8ce69129142f36960492e5424396056400dc745fb5d5a9a4ed6a282fe313d5204389ff4fc29271f595a1924c3932 161cdcef139d9bd9c5d2e1904bbfa8171a4c456afef145dff5ae8ed89bab4a302ed41bf321ae128ff45cb3e9e46409d054e1 60d66a4b24b69daca67db9f87bcdd6411de13d912766910b3b628a260a4064e28d6e9a2793cdfd0e73f2a95da3bada2800e5 c720d698a18020380863d758f2376ab0c208bfb165cc101d88a3916da736184fd047d0d7bb53ded89cbc2a4c0f7af4a31fcd 8dc27ff48c673c0323013e95c03bf96c4ca11df2d96e349a3409a0606e6dacc654218486d37a700f9328375890b589e264cf f24d138be7d2043ad4bee1a1b0905ef77407ba285b77ec189e9ab08217310a293d37517aca285379f6ba77cd215026a3c613 138ef424ee00fffa44d090d8001a6cea89b3f21850e384dab4927c847aea7428991a9895fe3240249ebe5a6832e8c684e934 0cde013ea601942843d39491e1a02f85e5a10b039dbabfd1e6b23a4ad2743a10036191710de9a63fa59b90f029b79842cc67 699af18c6c14ab6cc6acb043f37c0886d2d7dcd4710b118194aa38a7ad395cd0e414aa8e51490169826d96e00d3575107e06 a47b993cfd3456641227cc67f0d826e66d9a08feebe83626863001b582a344f43eed209fc854026b906a5b37111ff392e434 1de5cf524c543bb65c1f55c1322e5e535f8c15ea5543898f8197bf4a72d6fac9ec47e9689ff44a6aa71ae026f4d411de4a0b 4fe18baa3288b4b95564721028509417f9112154648c9e3bebdb3b08c0ceafc86d4fe990b8253f75486fa6100dd10e469402 9d157f99cb750dc25c5457d463b0940f929e3268181957660b05c64cd64fcd0add5403cee4f151e1ceeb6b8a15da9c0dce9a 8aa827b263228e59536c71872d0baebf6e82fa85638d879133398ba750fea90fe0c360b4460b71e10599310f98ea792b4def 640cd6745036c431c9608b349198a019bb2710c73093d82c1d4f643410c810ca137a4d63bf61c045c392d8e1ce08b362296a 701b85b25ca8450a9b6aa00c4400105e0c62c6d7937c7fb97278da34dbee1e185dba54e757e6ed6fd3405829e9bb1d06bdc5 cdace528c31304524d689903398c7616f20b7bd1c0491eb7e045c70b5eac5c4f78c21368281eda40c0b8ef2ca2d36aed59cf 4d83aa0c2820cefdf1addffaada61f14cbbbbf79f795d72a5a271d2a4e7603011b9dcdeb39599220b447b76c14d5e2043ca0 cdf474bcb16de5d71f4d9249c492f8f8dce73e776514d344d8b75cdc690a129ca10c04318466aa268a38a06961ccde5caa46 944500da336b839878713a0b0d4b3555a239ea5c3954264d67b4b9fa07960d9449f7092e2b4c5d02971eea387c6953bfc28d c3080f43b3717401989af1042607d8292c05c6c532ca1fcc2e600ab9878cf2b259da2d8d3df24b072d7b91c3a69d4c869342 22ad8ba713e9c44a3959b695a253bb0f3890c86c84c2a2b0761ee01db3df224c69b036241a067bec631f4b31842084dc5ba6 2bd814946c5ecfa99fc3ea1619ab048c1a53ba0986d13c38288376c3168e62d70a4d707f92d0ec8df5ed0a6338b9305aafe1 2784a3c8b9ccb484a1ac0d2f9a909d1d3726e4e49ffc040acc84166e535ea82d0678ba2c755ba25f4a79108005292fd47e2e 49ea7d9b86c2be3025f5dbbdb33845312968bcfd08e5391d8d23c95bec6a842a6e85442eba98980887229d45bfd280f664f1 d9e9a3c1f0b4ed88884d1b2c4f1b698a06227e3543809559da8f921c67262aea1e1af24669808b816953d8b4244159543d69 e7b285f1181d906e6b8b6c215b076b9420ab2ac898e1b63fa17c9a3ec2df074f4d2496176b9511a40705af5b7de2baa109be 4174a98da25c4283ed0791a8f0804004f6484bb0b017e3051b317c8cfa5028a2a032e66af42557063e5bb7bfb924e6b2aeb7 1aad7d0ae769ce566a5ad353ce027480142d396deb9d24cd7c1e34849e840d4d301f57ae6252d1e97a01743339f2329dc43e 516c164b619fceaebc9b5e09f8f4eb610f7b183d54816923310969d711fe2c2cb1ad149dda545f542d72d980b6a0befa9999 08652623c3b61d01d6a7ea41ded50c215b5853ac60b8f3b49fd3742ec8f6216b91e9e0768d920ec3d1e3a34d9f7684db960e 571e4d321c52f579529183a9920e024af20e381f803a2716a330c7078dd71cdbf034c1861480460a930959b0e64a28f033ca 9baa3209e92ffc0b743a3759641980313d5348f6a4b93d4546198c889e34b5d6ad7a8e8c52b669e6d968c7832c6c0d6a3ced e3a94f7daab64dc558072dae631b6abfee14269fc5de415226439efb93e3d5f6aed3e7589482bcc614b2b2a680dd2c975671 eb507cac2a664971ca86260631c370abebcaa30972d0d8f956b1b509b619d845a110e812e96c0f087c6f2ea5ad50ea94493c f8db153365e1b0242418f2eb95533db61af5b3e6d2413d0528e152f5f85f04951036d84d6de93c1a46dfbdee752f491c0a73 46603e142eda8d80486a83651650058ee1e2bca052195998b232b76b36a1321b6bbc59fa133ff11377c8dd3a8baad004e39d 44d5f80d55a73ff97738d74ead707634b1a440a80b4209eb9889755f7be8a137054d525c7136fb132d00bf31c898a7464abc 61d1001192c0632255d4253c91bde3e228e1c7c6e82ddf5c51e792996d75bc6390963ddb30acf7e1ca8dd7fd850e146f9882 d4e33885d4168e27ae3b58ec0600b1314dadbcb67e126cc29764e9210f7908b331237196097fb79e0aa99a7bf548088cee39 1d6268a283ccb4f88ad1b7e258d9ed8b11b0e53fe62d0e94a9b11cefe5bf1ff5872635a3bf9e0cc739267ffef39f3f5d04b8 73c37ad1277876e5c51019f0c1f6cf097d83d0847b95c16233618c6b30e278e61f0395dd6b3018322211b495e2f6010d0231 56b918db59f7d2997b4f3eb8c8d72363ea371f93498c5b6aecf4e52730c16f0756f8021056a44036148f0c0bc85bd4135a0c 13c9cd25c274396cbaf09297bcc4f282694bca0fc61b05dd13fb59288c1afcd33e2a9a43dfc196f8361ff6b9f5072580d8a9 7de6c5b418c94133d2509d524b24bf9a5c350c9a407f0ffd7b9d7593e14c957025518fea689c0c8fa8b8a440ae72249048c6 634f33e7262caceb21f738ad9bd5635087ded138e5893c77509702cd9f29234d982e44360a42008244fe4dfccc6c7c844c48 f766513fd11f3b760f884bfaa0159641a7fc5c12bbe100b176898a79fe6bbee66bf8d1a643af5318061a125af7f6761449d9 93379ab100534770c961a7a4e0491e59a9286802178057c7ee05d6b125ead13ef853f8b3192039bf732123636b7f37ecf2b9 c54213fe5713ad49c2f4ecde577c770734f98323dab38a8ff642e82e5946d0c1456fb41c13bf72fee53967f26011c3e027c0 61e42c1ec5ee633f91a3eddd956e98591d91c5dab17b4e28a3f3055ff005722b8c8b5f4597ed5768380c8a9ffc15ef244b14 cc0bee38e9d5422d712cdea99f1625f5abe5d74ce374de7d2e8c07a1a41df8a84b7f5df0459d9e0f96f690198e9365e24716 2ff637bfb84b63d0ad6b9f269d7c577b7c57f36cd1e42b74379ff0afc30077f8d06c20772e0a6e5b20ba7731c86d0f218657 d4cabc21bbc6ac8877597d027ed46c7b49d14d7c05cb625fac0365b9a64725db366029bf21051099ffd5de1cc2221cb4a650 9e42e7cef16b9a8729ea56d39bf728cfe923d68358d49beaeeca99b5e1b7f629464862aa54809355c90af39cf2726a0ec8b6 9fce9ce1f5f7d10cf091af5803d27d7cce2a3ebab3a80a43a6047c0f4f069552094f6d796d8b98dbb6b3f2d65e409322a47d 62cd87cefac451a389ee41688c28e554104b3f05ea6989f6e0b57844288b0e8935f947a403cb10e74ce24f11ddc4d606a3b1 697babe38953ee36d847fb16f246644e2b80c2d27426266130223085ce62a1aa84374e3e2751889548b80028a08459418531 4f1080e1fc3a6837f18fc4197f395c4f1515d3558a401b7fecd998fac530411f2b128289aa4581f022b77401264ffc3b7db8 62d1a4d4ac1172ba8c2fee0628e15dc8ae9190f7baa109f58fa16b4b71b625ff0858618433bfcb05a4a7c8eccc5b6ec707c1 2d79874830a355b9273fddb4d771334bc1f6a23c8eb4452e58e241853458d41339a0f250cc0492560ad2b302cc1339b976e0 dd1dc84b8d2f0abe8649c8d2ce32396d52e93632033d84263bb476e51515baca883df5e231e4ffde8792c03d4ca1feef804a c7a89b186f172e9420d0c61cf28ef884f8449830a63bcb6d025199663cb2ec70b952a6c771ed3f724b0d3b50007cb41b2ba3 465e36d06ff9bf91126533881c7e764b902565c8a8d64a8a1089a4c8779039666e28b9f640d7f0fbd2954efd509b42fb3a47 c65cba896428df9a25a69bd6c0ad5b86c4492a71dcd2d0b79a4dd5d3b1e72669ed64e255331fc20eeafc31a289294be29363 01f48a1384f24c5b963c4297e6186f372039ef4c1e1904c06504140ec4854bb5bb5180eb04ee8bcbe6bd1251e6db921c45f9 a72358fc66b6a0601b3e7153b91efeee2fc3e73675fdf4deeb1d16716e55eb0ba8810d4e38893736deb3b6f13aafb6fb53d1 448e5588b3d5b752674ac99585e8ef567834fdd651a049c62a1789cd8a84bea91b38cfaa3337dc7b82ed4e66e50ae1d24329 ff9ad9983f26373948d9ed3be0e856145f0a6f4b817c0154158b15d8a4e686bc92d2dbe49e504f14a0ad3066f3655007800b e5a5fdf7b7fddc26e57d3dede3ace94701e1d80a3463ef73116c0a973a2528ec534fbe554a4795309d3c3995e1530cb7fa56 6a63022845d8bbfaeea141d9c1623a0a34d17aca9b280c1d047ce0338180affbbaafc388cc6c6969dc221e0abf8b05286066 cba7b515e196c29748017928b8d60a7da3c6ddc8b1622859e9e60c082242271884a1cd25ee77e0e3cdbbb6c697e9a776d5cb 8edebcce534beaa9692fbfde9eb579dd72b3bed286c47b56381a2c2d38ff8eb4434a4acf3db135cf0ef275c96882285c773a 2097197bf1a5533768c89247e4bf336d846ca00c639b92ccb411b5c90d1e09f61cefe5f50ba380c1e247b77b08bb35db5e4e 878c29ba091ca178c217713a83cbd16e25be94909494d863c60b64f00e9cca3c7eea0ce03d7593d249a4c0d9f641cbe5eced 6c3bd471af4bdeed5e224fdad39e34a99188ecb230c228483ca94e8b1e0dc40e807514686274e58cb4d317c692a7e09eb79f c349af448561bcbc6c3982c89a9abae7f0ec3912cbebdb52600c1cc8e031c1af9ee0601690c8b131150c923ad55675ac776e 14d2e82bfb8bcd4a5355b846f7c16c6da6b7cf774d753eda296b4c8602cfdb526c5adeebe33093c2c07b569802e22f85d140 a8cdbf1261fbe85801bb6d9b2f0d4d0ac2410dcc4401e65b923b247b157bb16560075c37a24c6b9926b608d86197ca6d69b1 943f34050c28db9e75c393c280cda1fe255ff225d29a393e69a0ce9a7398966264e6f33ffff379708b256395fde5e7dcdef9 2e13bb0ff9e2ce429be7d5d2479d4d31d9079bd24db80b55a2490252b34ca591d47a2b3802dc739d04a3cc82ddda7c696882 46d287a5ab0a259a0d04a8dc709438d7e3318f790c8bda43211bf7d07da4f49ccb104b8163a64019135d96f330762008c605 2bec5c1e01fa3ccd54ae4af96f661aab7e21cb74ab84c37550ab86a0e6fbdcd9ce62c189420a2cc8e58b7b776e36f1564387 3d9a53e55eeda93ad592bcad45888c0227431a8a7fc7de34dbb6f912d0245094cb2433b2a443eaa525127460baaee9480181 4306b674e36dfbb394bf2a1430ee544e5e7669b26645aaa8b480785afe9b985d6947d0a4a3e7c6a2958be960472cee8c0282 92dacc09d87145b35c340884d22a99c4b35498ff08911df4479352a7fa7da54d3977b82e014db4de06bcce529699a6f53634 e273e5a2e37395ed6a52929e60571b4bf87653b776a0c2f2cac553c0e01a6b568f047cd8412ba1a148b767e7e210138905f2 7ec5ee4c1e7a2b5585bff022dbb9b3b3135773fae8a0d8b02eccd5e6aa82b6906eff3acdd9966baa0d94f0480aeea4f28840 ed5cf925a009554dc641f988fc3d3226ddf0c2da6a8066d8ae2d54af0bb09377a6daf2e28c14c0c13cee8cdc465c9600d720 5e37498a0135613a2af8718f7b5cd6c78c9f3e505556fa616fca9495b8333678449a1164ff941c60d7967a2d176e5b09d596 71b31b652e0e4d8af39b5eec8d86dc9a4b0761d700173352c9429cafd24cf473f1b9ee369c57f12db63a25c5210f96896bbf 7f650398db310c0dc5ca40fc4026a5a5586ce16126cf217aaa5afb7a8cca7758ade3151cce3a7323830387ef2c99273bc839 9aba245a9483639fcb6e2f741c395c3c0cedea9283a6f34377bb2e0e4db40f1f9861ac5c3060741039691edaeba8ad8f4473 642eed6ca9eed6ffe5ad23a100c810cd9175521e80a3183a64db43394729e1d628b3832e46431107386b39cc1a8a61631659 a7def0bfeeecc43df513631911170107d39e03079280381709c286dd2e6ba6f6099f5d049ae41b77b542cfbfd45a5631fcf6 577281fe58be61b9f09223bf278b5cddd7cd8a1452aa81c871496b764823969e53664d982086785b8b3cd70915eb696565b3 f8eeb69b8d6b64a7e4e88be4865bdce216dbd6b0a65596d2886f5680372099da61c4736f734da2b3d83c10e16420831acf89 b98fb3f222d04443b598d3d8e18c6eec70c136d61fc670674df39ee0981de8b2bc72cd2880196c02660783ec62a9cf92a4dd 4b4492214d440927554540f0383b6ea6cce9e3680bbebfd91be9309d4c27769fbf3b9b51af78c52bec6ca09d82c1c24f6351 92440dd5ee6c485e049a681cb466c8683d3dd61261394294145161e4e0f766f200dd597272661fbfa5c28ba400e5145e58fe 67c10e7ea09888f4b5e7b33c142b71410ca71bfda58d0eb76d5b7965dbbeb549f9e0cfc25492a917a20a3bcbe4599fd3728e 451bb5a91965c6e1019b346f5ac6ebd261647bc93fb674b69c630fc58c3a7b7867903a08654f768f4523fe87ca12e7b9a625 17986df00d588132ad8cd8b90fdb5273297fcc14c0cda61c99f5d2db4006b1a1c3e620e4ddec9857ee4341e56d71c18b8758 f813314b7837536aa766ef1319396b7410810495c6e65b3670d8791ca5f9a01effab7a444248a27fedf2119d7796c4c3a249 e9c9ac5f19ae9a283b98ee2a88f388473c82b682162238f863db65d43b137179f1aa5080c781025284d5ae7af2d930920334 204b47f3c852a1b378b8799a2c216cb3be431021735ee694bfd8db5766ff509f1027d2fe0ed348beb68d165b374887528915 2ded801f14b231f7a4cc41283bdaa4f3f452bb93200477092f89fedb41c74e0a6e1ce00868f7d1acf6ecfcf2fa71522051c4 3cfc6bf414b32534a190e3191bca971f613a955890386dd80b4c689de1ec06c8f8fa539ef2149bceb3d979370ec1d565e8d3 200a6b58e33656fd6e48818a759c006ad811ce21dcd94db207f7dfd2e9506852c0498b85f4da37c10e17369b14c1c119e613 9e36d9043beb545b91ef480a47932270fd1d375a389ef4fcd4c26540f4f770527124e4c21b66607b77ea2fec1010642c6b9b 2c6afaac87945ca98f9bb39092323efd3d8b7a5910db76bf9122a29c116ef0f9b6356c55de3294b1df2034d9aacd355542bd 2f0a9f21852377238804c2cd297956830f8826f00ff2c989d64a338c00b046f0aef99bbbe410dae0560373c1851b78d94d25 32d054296bfc47326e84cca969e68ae9c54966c81d9aa798c2520c1ce6a4867064730dff82bb39d7e7b087a998e49404e178 13e96d1e527279647d051d4409ed87b2e117f16160c1f578ea2b1176ab588c57cac9e4d31125d1368ed2d96d9c696b7db165 d668620f0122b6798a567b9a745a20be526d2e58976496fde7a743a189aeba38a5e87e2e808dd07cb10c36cfad0ca6736ec8 04d7a6581c208d82bd6acf0bc00a6a2d9395bc0726fc64b0a78a898ed3661d73094df89bd09096cb3de9883233e10eb3e815 a5a47458814cd433f95be1452dc7fa9d3e8362f655daaa5ff41d6191b35e310a392636bfbc62256e4bfbcdf016acee2f966b beee2bd6588fb3e269fa9cbe1bb6363c151e8677ba69d176ea9ee73cb21b56b2a6d8ba9d63f6a95d0f5ffdea57e37e7e2fba 199f19f5c4246c8235fdda2c3a37f23e9fb842efa28661831af643b5503d58b1cd97491271e8202d6fc3856c578677b38d44 00a8e1c2ace8860f808e540b228474d416f862fb0c85bd9837fe0ad164f3a6a25efb27316d10879a060e2802ba8f38eab199 33e90213eb75750494d904a01d75d081c4a7b601ca97cdb1c969c4199e92746d0c28e6ca702865e3d0178248c031ee3a0e64 29fb9b7c910ed5494698c734260fd03a7eec0401ddab617335e7d4cf1d4a9eb1bb51274268ddd6e4a27a4402f53b84fde640 09ba4b8586a4969f8012f935a215b43646af8c1b7150d3acc9d665ba002b6366c397b89f9ecfaba7bcac1ccc8a6bad9954c6 f04b6a7000b3a446a275bde929aba0fc7a5314354d67790d29fcf1b418675edbf51285f73af477c60b7e51b71d08e7ebc697 4367c6cad754253c8a37083ffd42f6ed861f452504d4d4dbdffef6c094da0b4a54624ef2107d36ace7ac628742132d6b873e 2868fb4fd38b6db5e82360453ed28ce9c67bf6ff70afe778d771fa8879d544e75b22e2ac1b28f0011ff00136bf30ba48919a 86561df53688d371702580faa91b6bc9b81eedfc2eb4017a2c7a62360a499aa53b3cfc703dbaac9a755c92bb652fa960e6a4 f61f03c47648f19095d10eacebafde322296d2ec0fbe05a7cdf6f2300d34ed00e8ef2f90e775e2ffff4e8ef45d47ec8ca953 1bda3bc2a968d8b603e886b63a22690d6bed9fa871283411ca69a130a794e61206dd70932ff6265cb94ba9125015cf3167ec ff24a9697f81572d4fa113ad687ff41aff4a8bb433b3a9e622b9f982071174d2e9083002329cfd2515880070cdb7f0f4dcf6 b46bd95cf6a0af9364f91afcaf44d172d69e9cdb8c590af81037425b31b17f5ffce2179fab9af55dfbdd69a7a5c3fe72a094 388a39e769d52cb54c2b69bc5b95e8b95085f163da31fe41389375f62f1e6785451c58d424dc8634a0849a461f19dc5cca50 535cf72dc76ae3c2e191ed8999a7023a9b466326e144602b0970f04991287335e68efec749937d5a856e66a62655711c22a4 a724aa8da9857e697f08b51e4fd36e38a73694bd350d5683cfd981458516c48bca1d22c7e4ac06a4c6b29a73db5378370132 14ebe031be4b378308acec7d8666bc3b3f9446e5f6bfd64a39269ef8571f5cc06596761f7f25927da5ed19755022af89c047 8131ea6e8ae3e88bf027378a0563529e25f59969f187272e1e414811a70e2f63f5b8b014ad04a6a804c458623b8b017c9ce4 2d312c19e0d2f6176edaa3af1bbed8f57d1fd46b53e53dfba836b385a5c6aae277988ece9e356ff8bad1b7f7659c601130e6 39f745988b49f295d8f0a1bc1b0b1431e7b9ef6e52607e34d144ea7de30a3b6ab1b137dee46a93365d8f32d64c13757e7e33 6aa26ed49b3c0d27bfa9d81e7f0a2ce00a31c900027b6edbd7c31e1f10c45a0498d2e54c6c0e7c6108640452c51146be097e a2f19aa5558eb94dda436cae0725eb45d0898518f93a28d0cea58daa8eb22f1d8137dadf35864ca70b2b33cea6d98d3e888f d4a22ac6c828503925d4ed56d59e6fe988ad3cf448bfc4d131d548473ab5e6d8a6c334f2b978910b6f7f6cfd8331dab33f27 5fd744067cee4398ad00aba7d995917f2d19fd541a32500b60990983924c7d4e782bd6b0207b9bbf83fc1be03037ffab62e1 4ed5ba518324256822b6479ce82f5334c9f0f193ca915df47df6313d860aeb9d96105de412292f9443f9451314604ab711d7 59ad95b5152a8d632e76eb573325e53178e205dfad9efddfd20c496830459388180e1973cca995975bc003c570fea99ffa29 65b45f8ec2fe2d39149ae8219f90da659a30cf349785860f1c973397793657e70f514face672062d992f91248c70c3f681b0 c2bd9ef084910437561860f4d437af7389658d2718e27fb2fe4cbc1d004e666831244a84229bb95e3859526df95f3631a10f d1f70ba81305a8f77a4d304af9733176ba41c3357d976ad1844c7ef699d5d4601aa03f22359656db25129c64f1cde9971e59 735800f82c4865e9b0713a9aa728585dd8871ad3419fdfd291579244d9d60982b837092337fdca91917379d42f807177fe84 be4b3c2b4bad955ac6cc61d40c16b8e0571e3bfa1a761408401937548f16559b36618d7d1be08e7c13c7c14a61300f3b6e06 a3506b9d6b459c04c82c74a2868816c53aaa95d3e55be2f17331c7ce1438e88b98aa0377b85df90b745c6271ebe8b9e7d6e8 26895c80b20f1ffa227d440d100deeb727cb41bb7c56e57117959faa6b2291de251967b8f04fbe4536318c69cc529d945f53 d49e76df61d1046c375acda509896bae28d4a50cdbb61f5d5937004deca22c2b3c5e37de12611147ba9a0bc89210da875f85 d519e46e8082141290241a4a1f11dda4c24010568fcc7a9e5a2e4975723dd63606941731babc8c6d5b7b85cae7f8a08c14f3 82da988d7bae64d092120e7d99128c8b6618c49d8f9e99b1916862338110cd34d34e05a7d65fb00f9a28903e452a8716bc7f 93e6d74dcc187901ccc01a4a21af95fb9cd3b17f3f2fac065d365d7470b77bd88aeff9db6d11ee7947d2f22b5134a2124d84 61283f5a3212bc30eb72a92ac9b245310e5aafb8714081930f55ab4eac4cc9e786b4f4898fb6e425c98163d6bd9611e24610 553b8e5367cd5812828315c99dfef29b40de9331f2e9746d1921fa9c256febf9c47ccedd201a524b44e2a438331936cc1c3b 1013ea38f5a4cc23fda2b16adba93a1ae60974464eb027d9e0b3b46d7e3431032727bae7c67411f8dd103419a362270e1d07 2298af1d5ed829f676911e221640b3a0a5dff9ce7736cd4216bfb26b9cc8dbee962ab1a5306d855d73b7bbdd0df5ec38a5aa e6135823c5de5fb9f6d2d8acac95cea34ed4966cbe46d59f85638ea112b32b762aada93d62a170eb957242af10c1bf802035 99d70019774313df72ac827a403cf7273d119c81a7f0e5b22e0c43e8064098c0cedde4912bb3d66233a0bc1b354ef6773634 09178d19c04e1d2db2addd811fb5f0b2c87d29dfc564f134b71133843b169ad83a8c66c1caf5dc28e2cbac1b7fc580c589cd aeb556c8a063595c9843f05828345f0c4f8a2dcb79b849147862555909e5153ff1c59abaf75cbb7529e4daeaa3e0c0ea047f 11962e1c4dd2deb3134f758b766256e994db92e8f7f787ff1dd1b402f0160d194d684e0197a70f4dc495200baf4479865b75 6787c2b547fe01deb0393e666bd95e311d6b2f34c3afa74e2d08357c25c2edd3c51c3bb464faca6c68524fd0117e1b4b4a78 6a556e647e814bf47bef49a3dd5eb75a8fe7a8770d1821870ed40dfb12361530b9c56bb860cd960a5098c946f32732d23e30 ab87e8c6b7621303792b0c2244e66b94d5565c59e02cdaa2b61c240edadd5a7b15dfd26597d899c683d152b0ac3df177458a 1493458eaae8bce172db158220b54dbf2cb322c3b4c57188974558528408a748bf401b4f1695f30288595c09a44a4110abc2 690c619b337448a63670db9fa574e80bde3b04e4cd89265adfd1c2fa4315d4e8ac329789f402487c0c9fd0ebbaccc761fa0a 433da48b4a57a3a23b6bb98d39649d98e24c20804601496b3c209c264103beb432d5aab6469d822d30ec45173dc55e539088 75c3b4112dea134007b21c03112ea00d3a1b83b5d5abe4a61c8a05b956a62ecfe16fde840d8f19f78aa149dd360466028e2d 83c8201591d5c1b10e53a68fd0ac4d273b89413aa28bce285cdd62bcd646f874d7e6c4f1f5341dafb7c91644533310316d70 d9c869a2f302145e338e05a36ff32d13b959dcda48f1269f53c33064ccf49ee43ad927aa755617664393268a24c195afdb8d 4647c1dc01d7fecae20b020cf37406f01375946eccdef12b9d1c8e58b913c51efef087db6a80a3c42bd24f608d886f3f3de0 010f90fe8cb67e4a24b097b3be29d8fe8d5331370e9bcb003ef2614213a2ebaffe16d671597d13714e75b2fed22ffd1256dc 4a41ce538e143ce5485d163240a1028cdcc2ea04fac65af6b3c83150637c89fd5be0ca7ae532732490a66e0b25695824bf6f b16d5528eb024670ea73205088ec4ec285cfce354b152307b2b8c56a72af58cd940e3b52dac08d6287c0911866363459e13f 90799663f9c839757df3420a7f0b2564dcf5103ad0264c624e1a336fb86864837d1378954b0a90c4299dd9d0da9d847e9ed3 5a55f19cbfeaa1e599f17052b103cf250bb092b04ec213880c135225408ab7c5e5f566a4e95553bbb69a218f76bcf84ac0f1 880a93ae68c8e858410d74a068e8f8e6f993ea319397540226d2b291c2bf34ca673ffbd961d9982d0caec6b0468d1ab591d5 6342a5360a278bebf3aac0021797b90112c41dd1a8a1b3a48978eea259d06441183d54f291d09ed94592485c04b0cc255cef 7e2dcd3a50d324bfdaaa62681ff459b1bf011f0a609b917b1d609d0abebb0dfa9c7baf21072a80464db1783c3ddfbfb05cea 1ab25e03f524064ae6c5f6c57a19e49ca3dc431e1a36a375d2c3e72706ad5985469ab72cad0d8b73aaf39bc01435886e8a14 e01526b1b54ea2420f79c8434c44924ae29532a3bdde57a8dc3898119414c501e6a57642d14e163e91137a30779597dc64ab 3dfb6f66b11bc3cdf5968e9058712eac45a153ad70580b6764e8c8d6997ec843284cc8c5e0155bafa14cf75eab924e5620ea 4c8c4e47465ee2cd6b9e91b5d2a938c44f3652627a108a024fd92cfd94deb102eb58429906dacd28a0bc279cee64ca68729f 9daa67a91c59300fe30b7b6409faabcb96716900a03127b1b57d176bf9897dd4aeefb3f0c38226ebd8bb7923416d6c649471 82126fc6088bdd43c366143349faf7a4b911d3483122f9a0871281c34c5c43013696cd18d0217da42fbe4e7bfcfd6538341a 36516cca05c886e77764c317fa510f77002d17d7f2c0d1c63b3025e008e6d4c6310c5ccce16ca27c96756a5c7389fa05d4a3 e574c0a09956b81e4d9054521f273769ec14c1352d5c4113b0ce7ef1393424c9a22762fcd500fa6907017d74ee7eaab3f453 09e22e2a675b73ca5b110c5a698617ab1917b16d8541f91fe93806abc9c04f55e8261fc278c513dde47a93676001d1187de5 39d7ca5190f70879b59f11c77fec5bd806b8cc65fe2c68b28ef3136c7f450acc6c04150434dec179464a63bc89083935da91 0e0aab84e92b47c0ec8ab7b02cc81830549d7d882d4349a1eb4a51b18f06ae12126e12836bb2d74284a0a16dee30222eb46f b0faedd2c61d68be0a50e2457f2944266ab3ab0a7b92c2bc492f8ea18cbe507b81f22668427405c59aa53b3ee25c345198bf 030139b3c83fe220b81137165ce0e8694a3764765731a62ae774c71250603d54f5dde1c838abb0028dc5fa113170e9321464 b826041e0b9966008715eaf5d434c3c7af2a730fdd0a08b2f860b15ffd149a6c1b323f958087f29b1c03c3eddf06c905c2b4 f8cf46447c163c7963f80d00f1c65b254d6df82db6ae3156d82bbc86c6924968e031aefa79ef0405b069977f5de086958e83 b9dc682562815931a0c48bcd4e7d1d73282c5e8875a08c66b3d84d56b45cbda09963a3525dbca22f188ba8d8bf4a9880f761 1331d8b09bc756cc5cadcbaecd4fe7424c2e4c220aeb8db5d03edf07a49610c4c24276963beb950e48d3949bebdf047b93be a7bf4cb5c295fb38e45cbef245c34ddd30c4bc451db4ca84b1f18a716fca5115ccb5598149d1b22fff524c4c21b18de79b7c 68934ebd8e03cf6df18615a58423ae988557a894e42475947647ea78a78e7fead305d302ef3d57b959bd0d78d65060f0c459 368e7729934da159cb2e4f38e4a46fa6a67ab2c66a4d6d8edb8ae9c01dda2c2d295e49b3e8ef9aa6022f5be49bb50c90b95a 22969496f411ef3aa9933eccdee6c7a99ecb5ac9b609bf85a1b2b62c38a014f0927a6bea37019a5370f4934b8f64f758697d 161fa2a7d16713b512175810361fe2f0ca1b48440bbbbae74c914f8849e8296d9daf5aca2347acaf9b691ab21863934e9d5b 26674ac5b0a89949c7c75ef3660536914f13346e781c55bebf5e8b2e4bb9a6839044b12750a2004b3932b663f12c8d9c0d4d c27ebdd54a8d33d2f6ec34a226c0f28e4dbfb3b4f85ca2ef53007db19d681c3f45e07dee6cc319c1d9611e33c027d934f8d0 71c142198ae049e5f8af46b235385380cba94eb5cae4ba8347dc344c2dca0bb708fe5027f9e707017c6de078ae72d100010e e08ed5841b6187ec2f0e05539c3afdc4d5477220dd48bddb879e077a37aa921c4a075f86a9788a26f408b839a5861ddb509e fc67519e35a66848c5e06208a303023e260317eb1a08c0c1f94507cce3eea01f05525e4afb2e0ca4012869e50475409959e8 20a663b00028bbdb90651a076174679f60d2c2bbd40dddf775ca29cf71600125051399c0baaf1e7c4bf5f61313de4c338b6c ce8626835e4c77fd31c60646af68e906c38d461fe732627215f511d782ee72db51dc1c6ecc845a8695dbf373b5957204e2e6 54069e73befd72cf708059c236b12640311d49259e986079464003ce1894cc450f8ba921b521279f7bc5e4a714b9002e740a 691729ba151be6cf68c3a90cad24bd9dfec8414048706aefcae6605841baf6342f0c398b48cc5589569963d113a715d3611b 76d035a7ec203efa2b0937f124a28172243a8926855a402a52a430d64e4e2b53bd7492a9a686fec294924d958c3e4a5ad5ad 1894c9d88c4fd4a330b73793d69c216d828e309271bd1e66e580eba3431565b9185310cf27a2c2749038301e30fa06089772 97306c83862e5baee0315385fac592ad5d8a1f3cd44114c0d552782dfe520f3dd7a162b38ceffc68c2cb28db470002946aa2 a1e5a632ea769a1389988b9966ac87109ae2a41b5183b51373984f6c3862e0314dd235940e8637c91fab69a6cd30729c5bfc 1182fcec8876c6750dcf6b2ebad8c55f6c2a9791008bf2c4912b281076045eb1a6fa2d96a5ac52a43dc93e0249d41689d5f4 23319df18aa83075e964e06085745aa2369617c8137a246f7c7581201fadc6b799c82cdc36e3a885265a851a7050cd2ceb4e 3e9fa249888c68fe8a8f8a139faa9be001d16553373553883dec5039a6a554fa77aa7536fdf0a71862aceea67ec13566144b 873969eef49c31d25147d341744fdadb460be5b58d4a28c9358cc33f5e841dfef562ca4e2853011a16c519130aff432eb860 d09b48aa90fdc53288d974dfa425f50936c5452191c436e259704a3da6baa38b1047539682331fb03869e9d475ca95465308 3902fd3b8b4eb5275f3665a90471e5803831bb742f702ea38cc6d8f4d2578c7d672c36b4392fd4609231544697130e2f2a89 f3e048f34025f55ac292aaeaf554b5495d57156713f3db14c490a148cb8cc6138dbde88c7a181d34676d13328c21e2ce21e1 99996c494a0af8a89d989b96cb27471820853349e2c8e12c1c1dec469d4c2732a9a9e6790654d99fde65299473712498a20b 5630f11490160da6e7eb02258b5f00ad3aa93b7f9061159d45161d849265880ce6a98027ac1b8e6a6f29c3f31a892005f80e d3a7eacc504edde00adc8e566d2e83744aba31ee7407e38586d44f7f711491eef0c61ae0f51a39e8df98e6820c4df2f4d35b 65ebf39453434c3faa2a20d0b75cd41f4e775f040db521d68ac7800e4069f45382200e7b36ddd6e7da1d714f997a1d7b0fd2 ec5f573530706455e912ed4bfcc2786b37120858fa29319beb5b3bd7d3f4628ccdc9d49086762a2dda4f2c1b9811ae0b0e80 23868023105d6a191b813a2646585642bbc6374842fa7448ff9e3bb77bb1af34d8717c29d531dca9faf9b4fb5ed729ba31e9 f257cb811dcd96da45d5c294eee5dab9f109375468f3f0d488f35135502acdae30880f92bec60e8f23a584adb8367726fefe 2fa2ad745289215aaba9d024879dd1214e4e08d0b544543745ac804569a62bfb8ca527c211d3090501a3ea23c143168c6128 cdd8eb273f9469210f09e7daa41efa10fbc8df9185c4c66192688ff980263270c45b18099b95bc4b8bc957a5531a600e7351 3d28c8304ee1312161861c671e72bd09e840c9a1c29c3c4155372959b4ce81a470040872e834b8cc3413e1fee3323f9a98d8 cd12fac656c4829a68e01daae886728504b3e8543bf7bcb4d100db4a2d1a66558d093fa956000790a5a60826003581a9ccf5 630849a3198cef43da329d823ac35ac12b940b0117af5344f93be04e8a4c935b23173355ede845ea4c5052632ad655e1e9f4 78b2fbde55d25fcc8739dabc9a42217ea991664e3a23ed9a035ff35abe8c0274f5611c8d195825ac24434632397dad3ff413 16a764791271ce6dcfce03b4c98b1a00e9c08486910ae9b05442a389da5a0bd9035fc548358dd8346644288063266b4ad70b 6491fee7a3d410d6a2199eba215b0c34b487c67a75cc2786aea742ef22298cc006851de2b7f4821cb718a963d5bddb224f35 8092cc678c642145cc3046bce96428c5cc6d9e208b33b456531b8eca4ff967505201731e5db5d9d173462263874104adbcc8 5a14ab4ab7da84fe6795991f4d8c9f5902d54cc812469b6fc99516501d79c22e31f4d8d86b8969ca9c96ac1a00202d4d3e1a 69701c9054bba727c311d39a8ee0607dd12fa25555e670ded3f6946eb617cca29260df15a2fb16074760eaa387d0d1b410fd e9c312496a7f2c62383805cc635c6e409071d72e707e053d14f5957333423ddc86c9f0374b8706a766722b99252a1da2fd1b b2b2e659bd421290115351288454901d6b998187273b84e577141153defc3ceacfed8a50660295e82930e2b034be0688ddaa a73b336a7e3116163767098a203b4dd388341cebe786da39e692c651934c66c23463c3274dddc4f64cf385aa883342049a87 627c852aa1138913edcf93074113d31a6cd601ba09c847140639dbcca4c161b6f3206dc86a6b8a256c8487909846b410bab7 3571b0e22f3395e4a41118397d61af326ab01d0f020b165f7ace2be4439e9828545866a4ca05b094f4fab49ba91e61997759 222cfc1de830d8ab7935991f3ac5e0bf146f10c07b8571291afc6d02960051d4c354ec27996c5e647e2302ee248d12e45666 3605381469feba6ce0a833bec823402c357ecf796c9fd1d40c2eb942a47267dc30ab09867f870b366ad0c58442f50b8652ef eb60288321f965e13b251ad432c6d104e9180e6ca5318defd04e246d801a1a75125d4f80570e94427e34594c78b27e865287 d821be9bc2b7c688e9aa92a6e76ade5043d4d9346ee32e4525ce9111c6b2d3f75888b9e77e5fbb21069df142292d4302386a b52503cf6502a45d7b489066fcd6b65519572e3a0d7331b6611c954fc348dab86a2781a1f7f220e03691174f4c5c84535ffc 851aeac1c7b251bda812973242714d7a2b97b1f41cb656b34fe4b8d9f6d27e2fd2ea713cc8abda64637af55cb321a39efa1c 450c5f020293b0369444eba2432940cd56ad2e5486dae2610451d85fa1107e6893014bde1342384e5ad8b60bb394675db6f5 9cb94a4f9142cbfd6bbca6f44719aca8cdd9a77937f5147d3871c556554291116267833782e2a627e9394b9b5706285eaa55 d34bf33c3f501b481f486d64f106e5ae7b1cc249742aeb6ed5f7f99308e05c87726907fddf5f58c807911e65f7aa1dc07eae 57880d3c36786c486ea7cc93a9cea9b5bec52782b85c0fa61117cca64e77e841392978915b04efca74488d2c6e6f1a3cb5a9 8c0510606e378bb28abdb2c9398f67f55a23b50dcca993895e9ba7571397667325d6c14e386263275726bacad3ad18026da4 22124cb428299c23c33bdb340825a5b7f03eb4c88de19043fdb22e944cdd83929a6a1c43555231b5bf50a6054afa3bb55e51 80aa453570c36540cfe7a6f5ba8411ddace6835ec942ce9d53af037d9d498e4bb9cfd48f15d93e75567b0a69eff9ddf9d1a4 513157184b9386267ac2b9c08fe08625692ac80dbe67d3b77adda741002841381706a2e91948230a5902140d466e5a65d17e 9abf998a4cba2784220804cfdc4e572c0cecca31a68049b213e786fe1fc4986a7c975346557419e5d980bed5b95c3b5c3e8a 80b9eea8f7423664294d67d416b372e288ef10303f6921bf004c64f5f8950fcfdcc882a3fae620571b630d46687f3b360f3e 4bbb26969ceb52da20a6c2a20ccc8172b72ff24aed42c3140d3941b5ad51a0b2ad606b6b1a44b5064628697ca5c6f22b0bbb 5251997e25047090b509d3a17be413287c2a9a78be265b77cf86a9998fc9886b0032b2bf86e9873e8c416a51b8bcdb87e647 130dd5e8c23a5ad6fe601a67e4fca521b715c826dea3ddba74d65bf4089a854fb3bf4ce9b92d046be2c5f24d34528a5da9ee bc0c262ede2998285983366136ebf0535e3a62dc5a8ca0fde466f13ea4fb20c9bc8759b957b2570b9fef36b7378f091668a1 0a8984b6697066f9c98e534634a046c271d61943ddec04537487288e5de0c46e2a464a0ba3fa17d6348f25a27ac11b0d9558 049e603edf9d778c36a98d670480a2a1cc3aeaba8e97c2abb32bc7954be4117fd55449e585a2d40f43c583dd50c1587ce006 9af8353f4212be4933ae6e199e3bf1c715b71702e24943bca2ad6fd5cdf9d1442b5d3c916dae6f2637deda6a562fedc20c99 31b65543772eec43e6618c55a63f1e3269b72386c6b442b408947ffd2af488b13265c53ecc5dd4693636dca10b482d317583 12b0c27ce0b7538f09d39a88a1e0e8af0a391a7c8e162300647901c3444885a6a35abe74b6cf0e3d4a5d97c926b002e0fc35 1bf30b58a8922ab4a2f129cc7849bd1239a659d8a35c6ec2e01860112ee8754b75fc0baada0d5bef3a64b7aef90b79e93b52 5720a94af4ab5dda2f6c34b541c3c265913837f014853373e2b43011350c50e0c8e3637cdd6b2a0431fada0f5314a672aa8a ae6aa0fdbb8ff3758701bd945750a9050463066a7c098290d6983c7668dbfc68321ad1c1f19411ea8981a443b6dd93092d33 fe622e9f4626690820c0a4cacb48a59f7e5a015e46c269495806b627ec670f89227ca1cb486d02101237b280fc6d59201306 0bf26c11cb3136d5c02290598053e511502f5b8f038988ae311b0bffb622828e88380ad0083a72859a4ba195f8140f8ea8fc d80d7fd4e9eb5ef1513714fb3c08120df40e3e02a3d63a30bbd8a18493f2c544e5512299020af98912dd51a796537368582a a4e048e2506067dd78abee2bec43ba49e6192f255c51b8aa44fb8702a2c14ae6b6330a15708ff1847e0c1f4cf4975fbc93c9 c5ece2936ddb7315cba30378156f8e4ad32e9872f81677eed401d1841f4192b896b10b3274190e6df9253e225456206de7a6 6ff8225e918924c0a13cc193ad34b6d5f393681cb2d2a47027e708d9904882e798d6a62fa2456cb49ff452a9e0081f2aaf90 c9596c958e80fa01a581191a32791355d5414feca603472088aaf031f9f7227cd1f15c005bcdeade328b82037e784647fb3f 7228f2dab48b3dabaacdcd234e463840f4219799599b4543dbf042dba8543cac12f085c9c952de071113efa2803a45b2755f 64a45307e23f39be8a75da0665cddf0bb05b5337644cd044f44597757fa82aba56e6482d09018d9ab7c626f50a1b5c3431e8 8259021cb921051c6582ed10b0df90038fad98814604007ad27967aea290c69c5b71667d3c149a688ac1363f8717d21cf4c1 133a82912693865099c1f787a3b8af98824a37a628c932c8cec267c40c1c8086f66af62bb9a2bd4b2ac188a047f348aff959 cb0930f35b7e8a09b9b5f05ec9ccf6c4bb630224e784301f87f01634e1376d037469c10652a8457bb4ca93adc6cc17dbd680 f6cead0bef5822d4132e210bcca81b6eca3feeaa0df48e14f8c0a2ad98f8c55979302597339b4eaf3d147433a57b426ed5c9 31016d892ee70218cd77882c329ecbcee063ce1176b8111c7d412e6a1143d513569b8f8aecba3cd74293c1502eeab8def95b e6a4cbbb180f124140236e7cfd6a5859a0951ff3c1a1fb72b9f5c7b75888d27db2cbc0dab4b79b7ffd506892f7847956e69f 35f5e453d3cd091416b244dbb7e2d3936d256adb91403bf1546dc06d846d18c677bad39d205af3183781d82759a200d3ff4d da9e330708129727e9c2acf91a6828e4073b4a1b41f7e66a3fe5b92856d58ad5da99fa4d4499424c038167ba035228338e7a dca447c19f6ab581ab38ef06f547b3a95d5ae82215ac33ea15b0204895f797eb0ac1c3502db460ca7080247e5c922678af01 d90b1c0a6669e4a2be5124b91210c1a4ed45502288933a896230572599df1cd51720873ad2999808480d698ccc5235699ae7 eab906836f25119fb95a99b213789acc22f438239b917b0153da26437cc1651084ef0f98c61803b2090827da59e704ae6fe4 a1d0047be142b10323e7deb892378d8679b12fd1a208d014f689486d3200bc0c4d59348be1ad30ab738260a62c149a3c91a0 a7901f71010e5412255e087198060ac86224aba48811ae422a8658b27f5919dd30a60c838437bf429cd1307a019fab32d419 4a842f12ec8232edb5b7491794f1a2cb7755c2a3c1f7e4462fb8ba810205de47992d308b5b916dd212c48e7de012427f8d6c 1b0ba0c01309372923cc9c5c455089ea0b4ad4232bdfea35ce206554a891942fd480804431e04037ca0b5cf3aec0d0c5e826 fa85c8fa0bc5f40b6252913cd12a74985a5bda1376e0b79c29f42c79b1de62be51caa878ee6973b06625bab1e1885cf562c8 8243d87a279532f31c4edb614c0f8526d15a73c541e2489a08fe0322249607b179c3ccb043a3371cc8b41e11418045ef607d 444197891711f95029f0fe2581d668932ef79c1a796acde104ccb7d4402d14a58f29099e995904441a1b01e363660d01202c ce0e829e642f0b487992c6cd01ad4452f84a9564fd615facafdacd3d5e69256d87e19e3b194e51a9726ccb1f01829ed0b668 439a010e18953ec14b82f2dac348a6c10a8d77ec7c4b8af8b6d862e860aa374c04ac9070f1f208e8afb5914c03f7fc418459 018d1126d38c0c1f6e97c3e998813e65aa4038f8637f058ba96c7ad1864353c63022ca502a6b1870f197b2c9c965386c62e2 45507272c5ed86dc75d58b35df7387e1d895bee0cfb078db313d2c9a184ede4d3376ee5831390c8d8f81485bdd5001581f07 0214b48059be886a82be05321191c6149ae02ad31dc3db1c05e36a24e02099a4749098eb1476d04d4c6e5a6bea267b3c2914 1695505e74104c982719f3eac4afc4cc6ce92f35044889f0cbddc0df3ec140d00cf166cd03af1bf6dd87d8fc70815a818c80 8c76c384816504c63a5aaa1ff1d60bed0167200f8ab5f18a0f8130b34d10603a12a24219c249a28c0238003ad09082463265 d9a18f870c3a2e1ebd8683b254309951a36a416755d12bc580a00cf202af6d396f73694422a42b56ed2b1aa025fa254746e3 3500294efa50699a5e2cb0d8368b0a1b05ce57c6ac8e1be881ec9b37e6da943482696d433c47d710470643e7ecb8dfbccb87 4593a68e3655ce4b4c1830846e7055c6c764a325d8b35f3e97c0f8220997e3d44c6b7e267b9e730a98df5a728ab89479ea3d 69678d93c9d4017f1583df6e3022df271ce1b0e0f7617be7e123cf6d26e439b7058d43e4959c534cd8a5941d5615eddac45e 484849a62922f869aa9fafa1409a14c3846cc362f0a43de253769081022c299434df3255505b374bbe688d298711b2435565 d286daa914d8319a82333b0fd17a8499d335882bfa804e109916d91cee0616e70b738f563ae8395fd28a6a30e368aad95449 fdf65150a29d742e63948ac71c03282b4ccfb52c84af6b54c28c327fa96c88c338750f4a589a45186ff865b84d4e2b444022 785d5c7273fa1c164d305cc9e6fcff34ed6c5d938c0eb0751917b5d5943eb63eddbce9954c01a177a49c4f5fefd3e882e778 4c4207977d2bf022c38738c95950a0006ac762b3c554e2a1402937551b76054c7ce08551f9fc24a7e0691cc9fda9663d0ae9 5d5c271cb4e63def4219ce0bb6ba3af356e2638a92cf7922ca607adfa4cbaae56d056ae49fcdafd95e64a0d1718884009349 58f37c9ad4f968ee7a6f6955b915d0c4bf0595a8878c4d7693be780886980082413097231662b6e9390c825c6acbea317c90 4b78d82b68abcbb4333578ae3b55b5495f362c13550daeb1e3cdd1052d695bd376365140629e8e686ac987a366a8ed5d9df2 44de605a2496531550768f3e12f936f75b6dd8e62b570c33607899a52de0aafdc5fe9057a46fab1e1d164d6a4a6c4d710a3b 28a8ed4f43a8a8037e32d826db76e2dff6420219e2c0b555ad67bd4ef2534cd802bc1e9869ec24e627ca3fcbdfbc47d84cb6 b599949a8715735f0a86774d8c3e6426279c5c0c909107d44f24d31e05944685213ad5dae7980c06c9d64a4605e3526dfc4a 30182c46d13c0959c6b16ceb3bce78d142e6861a88474613502357049e90b0bf4cd1e664f1ec8150ac2dc2ef451093e4d772 0a54ffb6a92a99349353a6d8652e4408190122a55253d560a662ee017d40892641b3c69370373e14d1b61dbe35e51b4db8d0 aeeb2a6f1f53fc6332f0441bd0ff54e5ae146716ab62105f49ae167343e7221a2cf73336f5aa5785d4067a8592885676dfe6 bdbb20343119320a44f86b19d60c504c83cc04fc8add896541d6cd5b1f4b31e6091b9d9f8c91b4112a07342a4c1fe1e9c875 af308f2c3bcbbf4db9947912cef2d748e2dd9a2b92e31e35d90ede3225d22fc09f7b3129cecece9dc1977c2ea63bf246b0dd db0a4403fa168955521bb8879adb3dc4e54d955089a64617287e7956afd39bb484ab5519ee00de56cd3327830f26009547a4 895f002e9405d357026b5e703e54f80265b40a1d983928a09d4a4a93659471ac527c8c888ef8576b2d3b8a38a91e9db0cdf0 61bb8910e51bf2095a5b5646fbf76c68b56d38be6a43499dea7471ddc1425cc8f051c37ad2b6f5d30adb7000357aa812a983 c694fe0be5c12e62661c6dd88c9b500c370a5fae4c06288c62e6c848ba091d2e024d6a87b612002bb5fab7f30a3c04284c0f fcc1942030ada0d9fc8aabe8b4449484302ec6bb10b77449951321aec715cee34021a53892d2c16ae84584333ff3bc7276f4 84d8d38a4dd42a24ae189a36e49e7c2a6c18789a4929a703b9e21c61a5cba0c5af3470923015331dd4602e5b9a05a1e5dd80 80e7269ef816adc714cd32e23ae9a4284844a1305d33b5b4bff10eb35c928fb31f7d1d4afa9c1b9fe312663b306d58798a09 2a0b9c239d1e9131c1ac204f61bd0685eddacf4a453dc3d766a5bea52a7f5d349d1499cd876cc392ea04fae4dfa8f16de9b5 def1b219025f845fd161e5f2932e6815d460181638230f4c4280a80658ac9b6be07bc3e65db36278521ae7b453e88ff26db5 b7e1f85e1c9a604a236d6269b9ad7f6928b415130ed59aacfa1507b3ff09f3e629e7dee23ad567b61f394711abfb868ec399 daee52bed5527a9a487e59657c9d34728582124232a8e62d8a928957190249e0552b1c009870b0bf0a400adc4915020a4602 6c69867ed1b1fd955e45f2994eedda1fa2692aab479d5483e64630a461ae202047b592b8dfbf79615c7aa43d445a7c5a1fb5 b96d047c91bc7106cbd6ef13340b8600db27ff2eacf41c0cb5f6d2055658439a6db19c024257ed5aa0fd20c95f686edd8364 3611595435b16b800a295f205b1754e86fb98854807633cdde8917eb48897cdb6a9a03d0d15c7bac00f075c24f799452cc77 5e648a32454b3af5fc30e5bda50c49d0af0e0cc063cc52ba55eb0c10615ea3ecaa234b530e76a2714f71d6bd1917276f48ae 8b439366bcac5f61c8d08e4d4bc1f69c0b8095eb06a317fbd8708454d8e44fc7c912e10401496a88ad6374aa3ee745497474 81e4969ecf71c03ca96189bd68ab091ce40102ff1257395a994b2a4c68a581659ef8cbca2069f494ce5b437a75fa09afd395 846999483ed18b0196c222b5de6df9928efb2982041f7dab7ba24bf10152dc3d7a41ccd81aa3b55195c1a5499e232c6d885d c6296356173f02283c411c902e1d51983285509ae4a3ac397009c4bd02894ce3c848eadcd059bc0e164920e55177c2117fc5 d42345e730c0beb13943a3163d2151fb666d7b51b0910e9c816cc82b50ed13b48c125ed1cd8de7a756ebbb7621687cb5b65d c4a936344d4f521eebc5b6adbadee593a326f57a1acfa70f6e981835ffbeb0e7123d46b44d0649d301ff9a3ccdfcf476f3a4 99d3435c4eaad9201b0e7c82ea2f61064fe90b048c6c508ca54be07bb88b3bb942f956c92771a2ba7bab548521cfe046bc93 bc6906fe23639cde232906a7522bb41f73ab1fdf73b5420755113f9a97cf3167b82134c0eb204608c66468c2e4faf55d8890 3f22d4705fc0d5cc4f064c11a94e407018ff9df3560b0b2a29e9af3250862a21f62972a477bc3c401082280920b27ba1a7e6 f14fd1c5dcf3a4f804bd434b50c63d1d4aaf51c613836220287a53fb453bb51f8878ae2f3ac2cda4c19048032017ed69c025 c94704092fca8f9386cee58a94b298d8a8b5ed6e0777f0641b50bc619ef42beb2c9ba508f14acdba2320c53b6b7c695e50c9 136e3503caa0e33f2e3ce4ad25a0737250d08a863235bdc314999028698cd6e70d5fa86e52eb93073266222db228758a0f85 f8d1f93dd47aec287e4cebde700e493d51b39885590827d17128237c07f411f1543fe13fd2a598cc1c8c8e4d9166643df950 ea86c5da8554d10e30d1900967de5c52d47e8e2a8126791ffc0b628890a40ff7ed0f68f25415ab44f4a45e98e74929feb640 599e488655737820425c05ad9918740ade0a9ece96a578de10aabca40f355367583402616e8427d4a0239e4b9f212d1935f4 7c60a161e0cfa749941e514354485bf169fabf9f482cf893a7afa9bec2b145b772d34a8d711160ae2e2e21825d55103f1592 5b7aa0b901455b9ce72b4681bbe75c1ca9801ad225119f41a7a71cbd180394b4471c62a20332525510e1aceddad34d947453 ca899e7a022b1190821625172839755c0c01bb722a742d7c61d836f9ad1fcd4b40931aa4719c7ce4a1d1650693404225088a a1f501f7885a61cae6e4a939b7a64b84aa047398421130ab33674a9f576127b3ba4cb02da59f5ea63e5c3b4e05355d7bb185 1e71278da37c591738a0ffb7485a85308b629f79827dfdea2f6d1c4af259a4726b09e0270fd26a55486d1143696d01d43321 0b3f2ba9d7f2e578494ca72ed3bb02029c448b2bc7a7a96c740188a07c9bfd9875212651e12d0ea148200b8b9cd772d854e6 284f8d5e145cf3a27b97877eeac80e28dc8870bb427c5a4fa7977568a9c6087e1b1d740640de92ffa28c4fe8bbc162470023 780d76373c8f720cae2944608e81e37360ce08b222196e884303826e6dced2999b67f14068a285ea911354b1b1f363abaed6 8bc44dfed5b81b022eaac404294adae2efdbc80b369d7f2efede5cc4a2318bb68f3cbd8095816f280ed8974cfa8992620e2c f4bb550b95175b193bb0ab9fb662ea2687049b6611107469092063605b5fdf3efbe41fe210783ff584e2907bd825b64231a1 f9b7f93804644db49dbda995979400789148e802496edb115609e1846badfaf3901fc4bd8e7b974aa24e40e09e92e573edd3 294aea450df69c325252af8b6c832715d2174c29108793d22bb2ce7cd48d09b933eb54e2eb3cd008a2311ae989fa1986aa55 8c52a3256af6a23c5d0f95f7ae7f097084f2963a7d68bac5bfb8b8926a488f505ea6a2d4a13c179b5c5ad226b56a36e2c60b 3151cfe73c2f0cec8b868651391db2532b5780eaa7193423a35353558b380dd0b9356cd2e6eb5d86dbb16318c640a367ecba bee3ffff40b94b2150804737c62b9aae03acf13849640763710d600562d361975b3552cda4c2848923a34be772b8f1971a32 8d9b0419b8cd2bbe4ee0e93503473ce4c2f42281ac0d2229dc99fe960f8277fddbe6e9940ef5c3a6c08581c0920f8fd440ea 4c9e2a4cc2b5c15bb2e38ae33409f31ad05fc22910a331dd7346a0462b505c941176817432bf7261c05f1e28fd050a60a57a 48111a52407c8be1e375442e7bd88d1adc5325a092c200a54a6aade72a1fc126afb0e3a650e21ed0b780a02901f07951ef36 1fac508fdaa53d9aa72588a0067f39ad3a8283bfc3348362e7ce28a14963ad77b556c310a1d489054dce1522aa7d049c8e35 7df6dc31bd344b277d92aa4c8f92a9c129283c89e319f69c0be56250252811b42f6ccd77289704876d1e742c6bd8ccef45f3 30bf063ae65320210231a0a1cc1c6462678106dff20aed4e2807426b06fb3c4709111d8ec66c814e9c569b5fd94774998e01 07043ed41681fed51d750247ff4a36334366b79bc04dc2bce578dd17e102070d355ec368132a54890fd94e8df299334c6d3e ca8243048d972402b348a0daccdbbe2ecf0270201de1e439f6397e596404d66a63b9f80a35a41ed177b0887b360e84a21a30 cd6028bcd36b17c3b013e97d17a10c0dbb6cc510a089603e0560013533bf92fe9e7bce93f684b67c43fc2cdce46ac6be7c67 3c26928f3c8ce66a36342833f5739d6b8f6836ef78c57ccb885b145e6ae2b9efdef002f91fa61e6e04dc644dd9eb63a94ba7 9db6e2157c4f02b900cc4204005bd3ffb13849c055700487d1d219f925716c75f102989931ba2cd2a4d445c2c933aaf92edb 04d7b65b7d6041216aef688ce8095ce386c0915199186b8fc93cece00607794c03be64c2ccc5e08b2dfce10b2cc62ce803d1 98063c0eeae171e04085926e48915e9ba2bda819394d7891f83e3ce12565f07bc283eb73a2b61a0008d0aacd627c9ad60068 94ef683b0ff5579d3ae815d4e3402d2b0f40e463d6bcf6f20baad6d013cca10f9451e14a31182a310c4e011ac132f520dd26 12ab01909486083ea0b914123e20c14850c25d2588c06302a4d4c95ae4f1cd01b4c9a0d3ce4e6ebb8b67c6bab04d2ab9c965 301e73a124a641072c54a0731d65ce557b2eac405a8399b3c3f7fc358d13b0ec672a348620699ed31a608d87d48acdedf314 13ae5672383e41d2b83954c5fb9001ef72231f048b670a958b0d593210220801238dfed60cce850c0a85b978cca51deb570d 6acbe9a0302d4c2fe8024dcb645ba4d95b7e65ef74704f768d4ad081e91105089e5ff95f193e524b7837545eb57aa16427dd 79d2c536d43cbf6a1e6f113ca2c5e49c27c6000e116a46ce20c4813859731e72bef85c9d65fbe88ed71b974efc73a3239071 c503b58661fa56bdf31528a91217e006883d2f9b8ec355e5f05767b7e2403411485a31c7fc8b9853c376ab3a6f5a6184324b 4d6998bc0c33ff2c821c856e32d0aec5ac8c64d14a6c47f2c99ea67b82e1089e6907cfe13c4e505aab4e52aacfc1cb3f8ca5 5406b8d0278899c956cc459cc2ec671a84cac547180e23694d03ca79a3148ccf093a70940a67f47595904ca851fe8fd00f90 623894b766e295b3e72b6c3a2a98f45c2dd77e05e80edac307e9d3191a2a74cf8622b11237693134763e307687d00c2248d5 e11a6028c1176d533f273cd8259cfaa5305811cef0d7b714d04db5f147e811c8d305bd669e68a4853cfe36ed17adf7699d52 8612973ceb9de815b8ec5bfe6ab9eeeb29e86f138373b59b31084a72f1c059111f24f545fa20cf8bbe53afd874a9150c250c cdcaa3ebadcf7158992a9b93c6f140fdaa8fb49ecd1b799315137d8726c682080cdd24851def8d03004e27d1f1e06eee0c7f f34d32c2cd8d39960909fe6356d0ab99184431171123885c79ee9531c7aee951ac363e216403a4c6acab365ff1add4a2fcff 35c627085bcdabfe4ef015d64d97a1197aa5d3d2fcaaa4a61278729b7620c59b242b90a2c133a2fd6dbf0e865445e1ea131e d63bea52de500a85b95ac7538e58b0b000ce16f210e5815c5ecc0dc1a7cb2883621a009d990cc4b5779bfc7372a7d4b8f222 8fdee573cd9794a6c3e5e42b1aa0fdcd51d4226d8b1ae35acf487dc2a781c87084f392b2fb22488198541e3db294310ffd20 f8868caa36bd06f4da39a2128626fd6bb936a180d1e7806bacbb0a8a59a9bf7e442ed90b3b45384058ae443e42a99c232d82 5fc3b4cc8762ca35218b1f9b2dd185c66e5a33eb52cbddebeafa59a5d9697c822f4022163e6e07230e0ea6015fa30640017f 93816458cd35af4fe4bb69670dd4b7aa50c0858d93aa920b90de41aa55e8756e5d29ff6d65a400f9212d3c027e9224a20126 f95e24b4845fdfd50cc588534b84991b1aa31e93b6fd07da550c6071be865f108d62850924aa9a9cb951d0cdee07fad58ef9 2c29fa0bd5434a48896729ff6efcea6f43301c1fbe4e373110a8a4310a6b3f9d4edbda0d77d073138f86b669b62c381fa26e 803c8da42e19383ee3d25b3586e2c67fec2faa6eee2b19e39e87db2a041ea2911c14616fb8c6b155f7dbcc615cf9bfe9bfe7 649d6c8255975226a580d9cc0c26bae6461849d204624d68e61f7fada619f0a9ff348be288bd5bcfd734be49b862543be052 da0b18562d1f3029e217800844b4b387879bc6cccf146fc25703e1046a8ab54ccec587a2b56ad34ef52b6666a6fe400108c2 b45192b80682433b18f8e526fd45339449eff0902b511a0561a39e9840d04182cca81ca15040794e139537edf361f72e1d47 0bb9b149afbe78c803aa854cadce48ee8250a260fc35393514405be121244a853997b0ba9fa65977640397fa517c9a3ec86e 2a900c9bfc9b56025f04717bab71d981f1a6afeb783901bebe839ab3c3d7afc72b71753eb214c9610d98b1b0cd59ddbce47c 9373a9afe9b233d8d22c8bf47feca887059575db9c66c2f49c51e727a043ad251ba53c60ca0d5565c55010dfcb1609176041 bcd8bde71935b5b9dcb612cc525ec09c929d4fea52981384325f4e4ab618b1644975ef2df0a7e512ea6b2449e082a583d071 fcaa722ec9f226721587292e5e180dd3a4f0a21c19e1397a967bd684858bc8228893d026d5aad5a4f6f8a891dcae75302f12 0cf2f59ca0f5daa77513a61b850d2959cd49352a51d9a073302d7f248a69ad6fa1987636ac7c552dd43c9725362fa0b6ccd8 96956fe5b0dffc2bd7af64b4c25d4de1d38bd0ad99a18fcb0b7b52194b97a6579ba27949e95a183497217783d40c1cd9921f 0e5ab3312d57648b41e45fc2c320e250cc77e85aa390fbd5d78527692214f2f43a35b8098c190bec11cab3bc18ff125d9e60 ae4aba063d10e39ae1394d2111476f1fd26cd3a3780a39e11055c63ccc3031c94bf1e0c8e48fa4c23088ca85f10ae821f04c 9b9626c250ae4a4e04fa02f3a4d40fc5e0a6b8ac27dad3d6537973e93e1a4c0992e4aa557437c53aac8f9b593c589dae4107 5f21e43c35c0027209159556808c7808b4c99d65ec74eae8d4d05b19a91a3fe42a138c82c3c3a2f23628e163a26d6930a58c 054e656382a1893182381d36b661747943a59d539ce9aa4e917b61f835eddfb0c21b526ccc978238f86d2a3566717192b3e4 e812d610ef3c24191a04d8546315867fb92dc00abf43a7e77ac2e436d5e3513ca4b034169d97e5252147c9cdd39fcc9f4866 7d07546250304c82303598ebd449f0e08bb02ba53d778331e0980070f008ee94bec5cb2349849cf8ab491ad60e40449a47c3 2bdaccbb4147e038545b62e921582166cc8d9ee88b0e0238a8d47ac5414669207e85051625127b9203083ab5a336284f83a3 65f077f0bf201dc8132a02525ac28203701033cf88b81588496bf0eec9bde04f1d3e0d6ecad247e12d4df2a1fc53e0cce21d 93011271e8b098684c91cb5f8068194e3bb9cdeeda80cba8a1c1a26968b2831766675ebd062f329909ce0a7060b38e7f3fb5 83570c4d303db66b7e1625811d3a966ae04634b1c8b1b57634ea56caf85579d3326d82709e9ba31999bc187c444d1268b697 ae1e1dd3f9dd9358f15a5e0cca85361078be468a92d06972480d7199995b70e80901e6d784477416afa89f6641fcdc40a214 87400790f18978a52e88e642523f0153e6d218ce5c0c5436c9a338803a231aaac1fc236da99f9c6bad62c2ba9d82dc93b436 cfe94aa41a7d485deee7f4a0cdc9a5191a062cc606bdba0c47189eaa022e963242db100758f3a9cbdcabbf0a1c4271186852 4eed86c8780d8060962ee001b18598765cd7074d56684406ac7f31877376e0e096e4ebbca99546c05860f8103f9e5409f204 1207a7c0d3532802eda1affc86d9d64aaa907fc1c5c86a4b9ec4c04fe456d287cf692485889ba39dc1c23e4a074b849edf31 3a2e0d1677a0b3784e353048d47e05045cea264f2a3b4b5f682e6a568faf00269f101bd272b9a7265e55d500af302eb84870 00bf096547e5425d9aa106ea00172c3af84aaf8459aa05858c354e96b6b03f97117d2ba80dc1434cb04e745bf7905d0398c4 9575cd00d116c729b12df2d630fad1e1c4bb9135f4f4359fa32e9ddbafa5c00a0510b064eee97382d3d923a792eb2ae9262b 1dc84b9f989131daac09b933dc94440512c24f610e244518ba1d0fabc42bd2a568fb3c0bc4e9ac8dbca65f8c4103ac8c20cc eabb854ed2202a603e37e5fababf5086da4259206cb47ad91f49a3c4bc16f2f3170085da4c6da1a770be14fd4d5ca9210c01 e973adc4573f2f03f1a07072bbf834d7264d47b5d0a4e08e54b7f6404c1150d540109f265deaa4b9f0b3685e4acae6a8aa55 2e9fe69a15824107c05a537994d4c98f0b0481973668b60479bf461cda938bd3a721d850f1d941ce1b2c1a9f183ccfb766Ecclesiastes 50c90d7fe55434212cb9a2ae1b9a4cfba3e7e44a8a07cf1ffeeea758ca0d8d9a6c732051f265e8f30b0e0b880cb8e70a01ba 70470820846aee3df75849ef92195686c819cf8824dd9420d556c9d489e55fd10db112ea037913d021901c5d84304c24692d 0e14934aa9714f79a17cf12bd3b642ab849349050aeba988efe87582ea75044907f197c797a6c0f4f02dd2e5f50d134cfb5c 6054cd200f96b5e3eca033dcd406d6991b6ea6bc57617a03c1fa037ff This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/schaff/ John 13:6. He cometh therefore to Simon Peter: he saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? If the narrative of the actual foot-washing begins here, and John 13:5 is to be regarded as a general description of what is now related in detail, we must infer from the words before us that our Lord began with Peter. If, on the other hand, the washing begins with John 13:5, we learn now that our Lord only came to Peter in due course, so that whatever place that apostle had it was not the first. The point is of little moment. It is more important to mark the strong emphasis belonging to ‘thou’ and ‘my:’ ‘Lord, dost thou wash my feet?’ There may be hastiness and self-will on Peter’s part, but surely there is also deep reverence for his Lord and a spirit of genuine humility. We must bear in mind that as yet he looks at the matter only with the outward eye, and that he can hardly be expected to think of the deeper spiritual significance which the act possesses. John 13:7. Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt learn hereafter. The Great Teacher now takes in hand the task of instructing the warmhearted but impulsive disciple in the true nature of the act performed by Him, and His reference to the future prepares the way for the revelation to be given. ‘Hereafter’ certainly does not refer either to Pentecost or the eternal world. The remarkable transition in this verse from ‘knowest’ to ‘learn,’ and the fact that the last of these two words is again taken up in John 13:12 (where we translate ‘perceive’), afford ground for the supposition that the ‘hereafter’ spoken of begins with the light there thrown by Jesus Himself upon what He does. Even then, however, it can hardly be confined to that moment. It is in the trying circumstances of the future, in the zealous discharge of the task that shall be his, and in the ripening of Christian experience, that Peter shall ‘learn,’ shall ‘perceive,’ the full meaning of what he at present feels to be so incomprehensible. He will not fully know what it is to have had his own feet washed by Jesus, until he shall have felt the need of constantly turning to Him in faith; and until, in the love ever renewed in the exercise of that faith, he too shall have washed the feet of others. John 13:8. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Peter is too much amazed to comprehend at once the lesson of the previous words of Jesus. He does not even heed them; and his impulsiveness, checked for a moment, leads him to break over the barrier that has been opposed to it with greater force than before: ‘Thou shalt never wash my feet.’Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Now, our Lord begins to unfold the true spiritual meaning of what He is about to do. We must carefully mark the words,—first, the word ‘wash,’ not ‘cleanse ‘or ‘bathe,’ referring to the whole body, but simply ‘wash,’ referring to the act which Jesus has immediately in hand,—the washing of the feet alone; secondly, ‘with me,’ not ‘in me,’ referring, not to the entire dependence of the believer upon his Lord and his completeness in Him, but to his share along with Him in a work of self-sacrificing love, triumphant over the world and crowned with glory. If we keep these two points in view, it will be at once seen that the words of Jesus before us have little reference to any mere spirit of self-will, for which Peter must substitute the childlike disposition that alone can enter into the kingdom of heaven, and also that they relate as little to our first cleansing from sin in the atoning blood of Christ. They refer to something different from either of these two great truths, and express, what we shall have to explain more fully (on John 13:20), that unless Peter enters into the spirit of that self-sacrificing work of love which Jesus performs, makes that spirit his own spirit, sees the beauty and owns the glory of the Master’s becoming the servant for His people’s sake (comp. Matthew 20:28; Luke 22:24-27), and becomes in like manner ready to sacrifice himself if he may thereby help the humblest member of the flock of Christ, then he is going his own way, not the way of Jesus; he is choosing his own portion, not the portion of his Lord; he must be content to separate from One whom he loved with all his heart, and to have no more a part with Him either in His sufferings or His reward. It is this thought, even though it may be as yet imperfectly apprehended by the apostle, that leads to the sudden revulsion of feeling in the following verse. John 13:9. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.—Peter sees that in whatever way the result maybe produced, suffering Jesus to wash his feet will bring him nearer to his Master, will make him to be more ‘with Him.’ The thought of the hands and the head as the uncovered parts of the body naturally occurs to him; and his reasoning is that, if the washing of one part will give him a deeper interest in the Master whom he loved, much more will this be effected by the washing of more parts than one. To everything he will submit, so that it bring him nearer to Jesus and His reward. John 13:10. Jesus saith to him, He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. The ground of the figurative language hardly needs explanation: he who has just been cleansed in the bath has only further to wash his feet as he proceeds from the bath to the banquet in order that he may sit down there wholly clean. Peter’s words had shown that he did not fully understand he application of the figure, and that he did not see that the washing of more than the feet, which had alone been in a position to contract defilement, implied that the first cleansing had not been so thorough as it really was. It was necessary, therefore, in furtherance of his training at this time, to remind him that in faith and love he had already been made completely one with Jesus, and that all now required was not an entire renewal of that first cleansing, as if men were to be born a third as well as a second time, but a preserving of it in its completeness. This was to be effected by suffering Jesus now to cleanse away any stain that could be imparted by the work of the world, but no more. A right perception of the greatness of what Christ did for us when He first united us to Himself, is as necessary to a true following of His example of love and self-denial, as is a perception of the fact that, at every step of our progress, in every part of our continued work, we need to turn to Him for the spiritualising of our earthly thoughts, the elevation of our earthly aims, and the pardon of our shortcomings and sins. Peter and the apostles ought not to forget this. They had all been truly united to Jesus except one; and there is sadness in the way in which the words are added, ‘but not all.’ John 13:11. For he knew him that was betraying him: therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. What a contrast to the eleven do these words present: they full of faith and love, ‘clean;’ Judas with his heart full of evil passions, at that very moment his treachery not a thing of the future, but of the present. And yet more! Jesus knew this. The eye that sees what is in man, saw what was in the heart of the traitor while he yet washed his feet. It may be asked, What is the import of the foot-washing in such a case? We can only answer, It is nothing but an outward rite. The complete bath must have been accepted, before the subsequent washing of the feet can bring its blessing to us, or be other than a carnal form. John 13:12. When therefore he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and had sat down again, he said unto them, Perceive ye what I have done to you? Again three particulars introduce the words of Jesus: and the frequent recurrence of this structure throughout these verses harmonizes well with the touching solemnity of the whole scene. Having washed the feet of the disciples, resumed His garments, and again taken His place at the table, Jesus proceeds to enforce the lesson of what He had done. He first awakens their attention by His question, and then proceeds. John 13:13. Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye my well; for so I am. It was in the full consciousness of the dignity belonging to Him that (John 13:3) Jesus had entered upon this scene. It is in a similar consciousness that He now urges its lesson. The word used for ‘Master’ is John’s Greek rendering for the Hebrew ‘Rabbi’ (John 1:29, John 20:16). No special meaning therefore, such as ‘Teacher,’ is to be given it. John 13:14. If I therefore, the Lord and the Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. The order of the titles which Jesus assumes to Himself is changed in this as compared with the preceding verse. The object appears to be to give prominence to that title of ‘Lord’ in the thought of which lay the strength of the obligation resting upon His disciples to do as He had done. They, then, were to wash one another’s feet when He would no longer be beside them to do so: they could not bathe one another, make one another ‘clean;’ but this they could do in self-denying love and fellowship,—they could restore one another’s failing faith and love by ever-renewed manifestations of that love to one another which, springing from the love of Jesus, leads back to Him. John 13:15. For I gave you an example, that ye also should do even as I did to you. What the giver of a commission does may well be done by the servant to whom the commission is given. It is important to observe that the act spoken of is only that of ‘washing one another’s feet.’ John 13:16. Verily, verily, I say unto you, No servant is greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him. How often does Jesus speak of Himself in this gospel as the ‘Sent’ of God! It is impossible to dissociate this usage from the words here, so that the same word is applied to the disciple in reference to his Lord as is applied to the Lord Himself in reference to God (comp. John 17:18). The disciples are the ‘sent,’ taking the place of Him who was first ‘sent’ but is now gone to the Father. John 13:17. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. Simple as might appear the duty to which the disciples were called, Jesus knew that it was a hard and trying task. He connects therefore a promise of blessedness with the actual performance of the duty. John 13:18. I speak not of you ail. At this point Jesus again turns to the thought of Judas, yet not with the view of simply repeating what He had said at John 13:10. It is contemplation of the blessedness first spoken of that fills His mind, and pity for that disciple who was not only to separate himself from the others, but, in doing so, to lose their blessedness.I know whom I chose. The choosing refers to election to the apostleship, not to eternal life (comp. John 6:70; John 6:16; John 6:19). The precise object of the statement is more difficult to determine. The most probable explanation seems to be that our Lord would anticipate what could not fail to be afterwards a source of perplexity to the disciples. It will seem strange to them that a traitor should have been chosen to be one of their number; and they may even be tempted to think that, had Jesus known what He was doing, no such choice would have been made. Therefore, with much emphasis on the ‘I,’ he says, ‘I know whom I chose. You may imagine that I have been deceived, but it is not so; I knew well what was to happen, and that it was a part of the purposes of God,’—but, that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me. The words are from Psalms 41:9. As originally used they refer to the suffering righteous man, but the Psalmist is led to employ words which have their full meaning only as applied to the ideal righteous one, that is, to Jesus; and Jesus now speaks them directly in His own person. As found here they are not a reproduction of the Septuagint, but are an original translation of the Hebrew. The figure may be taken from the tripping up of a runner in a race, or from the thought of kicking. The latter allusion is the more probable. The peculiar offensiveness of the conduct spoken of lies in the fact that the person guilty of it has ‘eaten the bread’ of him whom he injures, and has thus violated those laws of hospitality and friendship than which the East knew none more sacred. John 13:19. From henceforth I tell you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am. These words can hardly mean that Jesus would henceforward tell them events that were to happen in order that, when the events did happen, they might see that He had been a true prophet and might have their faith confirmed. He is here dealing with them as with persons who are to be sent forth to do His work in the world; and it is as if He would say, ‘Because the moment of your work is come I put you in possession of what is to happen, I make you anticipate and foresee it, I give you the same knowledge of it that I have myself, in order that, when suffering comes, you may not only not lose faith by the shock, but may be strengthened in your progress towards a deeper and truer faith. My ever present knowledge corresponds to my ever present Divine existence, to the fact that I am (comp. on John 8:24). Your knowledge shall be to you a proof that it is indeed One who can say “I am” that is in you.’ It is not so much of faith in Him as the Messiah that Jesus speaks: it is of faith in the Divine in Him, bestowed through Him upon themselves. John 13:20. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. The difficulty of tracing the connection of these words with the rest of our Lord’s discourse at this time has been felt by all commentators. Let us observe that they are introduced by ‘Verily, verily,’ and that we are thus taken back to John 13:16 with the expectation that the thought here will closely correspond, although in a deepened form, to the thought there. There, however, the distinct reference had been to that work of lowly love which ‘in the form of a servant’ Jesus had just performed for His disciples. What, therefore, He had done for them, they are now to do for one another, and for the world. Laying aside all thought of earthly preeminence, seeking only the glory of God and not their own, they are to go out, like their Master, ‘in the form of a servant,’ and in a spirit of self-sacrificing love like His to be His representatives to men. As they do so, they will experience the same reception as He had done. Some will ‘receive’ them,—that is, will not merely view with favour their general work, but will accept them when they come, and because they come, to them in the same spirit as that which Jesus had displayed in the act which He had just performed towards them. Others, it is implied, will reject them; will accept indeed the outward service, the external rite; but, yielding to the evil suggestions of Satan, and so proving themselves his children instead of the children of God, will cast away from them the precious truth of which the service and the rite were only the symbolical expression. Men will thus divide themselves into two classes which will take up towards the apostles doing the work of Jesus the same position as that which the eleven on the one hand, and Judas on the other, had now taken up towards Jesus Himself. It is important to keep this thought of Judas as well as of the others prominently in view in the verses before us. Just as John 13:1; John 13:3 constitute a parallel to John 13:19, and there is One behind Jesus who is received when Jesus is received (John 13:20), so John 13:2 constitutes a parallel to the implied thought of Judas, and there is one behind the traitor whose children the rejectors of Jesus, as He acts in the apostles, show themselves to be. Nor is this all; for, while the thought of which we speak binds the whole passage, John 13:1-20, into one, it also explains the apparently sudden transition to the powerful emotions stirred in the Redeemer’s breast by the thought of Judas at John 13:21, as well as the emphatic ‘Now’ of John 13:31,—now, when the last who would resist that true glory which consists in self-sacrificing love has been expelled. The last clause of Joh 13:20 is explained by chap. John 1:12.It is desirable to pause here for a moment, and to ask as to the real meaning of the wonderful scene, the details of which we have been considering. It is not a mere lesson of humility. The lesson is far deeper. It is the completing act of that great work of self-sacrificing love in which Jesus was engaged. He even includes in the thought of it the thought of the crucifixion now so near; and, as then He shall depart unto the Father, He affords now the most touching, the culminating, illustration of the fact that ‘the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.’ That is the very essence of His glory, a glory so different from that of the world, so different even from that upon which the thoughts of His disciples were yet fixed. Therefore He humbles Himself anew. Laying aside His glory He takes up His cross, not that He may justify disciples who are already His, who are ‘clean,’ but that He may bring them ever and again to Himself the source of all true spiritual nourishment, and may wash away any fresh stains of defilement which they have contracted in their work in the world.That is His part, What is ours? It springs from the consideration that, exalted in glory, He really labours and suffers no more. His disciples take His place and carry on His work, constantly leading one another back to Him, and washing away those weaknesses of faith, those defects of love, which their work in the world brings with it. Thus they ‘fill up what is behind of the sufferings of Christ for His body’s sake, which is the Church’ (Colossians 1:24); and it is thus only that, suffering with Him, they shall at last be glorified ‘with Him’ (John 13:8) in His glory. The leading idea of this section is the expulsion of Judas from the company of the disciples. We have already seen that before the chapter begins the world is shut out, and Jesus is to be alone with ‘His own.’ But Judas is of the world, the last remnant of it left in the apostolic company, the last particle, as it were, of the leaven that had to be removed with such scrupulous care from every Jewish house before the feast of the Passover. Before the true Christian Passover then can be celebrated, Judas must withdraw. Then only will the house be clean, the air be pure; and with no jarring element in their midst, Jesus will be able to pour forth all the fulness of His love towards those who are bound up with Him in the closest and most sacred fellowship. John 13:22. The disciples looked one on another, in perplexity of whom he spake. From the parallel passages of the earlier Gospels (Matthew 26:22, etc.; Mark 14:19; Luke 22:23) we learn that they expressed their perplexity to one another in words. To John, hastening always to the main figure of the scene, it is enough to speak of their looks. John 13:23. There was reclining at meat in Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples. It had been originally enjoined that the Passover should be eaten standing (Exodus 12:11), but after the return from the captivity the custom had been changed; the guests now reclined upon couches. The reason for the original injunction no longer existing, it had been permitted to fall aside; and our Lord recognised the propriety of the change. At this moment indeed the feast, properly so called, had not yet begun; but there is no reason to doubt that the altitude of reclining would not be changed when it did so.Whom Jesus loved. The universal tradition of the Church, as well as the information afforded by the gospel itself when various intimations contained in it are put together, leave no doubt that this disciple was John himself. John 13:24. Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to this one, and saith unto him, Say who it is of whom he speaketh. Peter, as usual the first to act, is the spokesman of the rest. Nothing is said to explain why either he or any other of the apostolic band should have supposed that John would know what they themselves were ignorant of. It may have arisen simply from their having witnessed many tokens of love and confidence on the part of Jesus towards him. John 13:25. He leaning back thus on Jesus’ breast, saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Nothing can be more graphic than the account here given of the movement made by John. He had been reclining on the bosom of Jesus: he now throws back his head upon His breast, looking up into His face that he may ask his question. It is worthy of notice that this little act is fixed on by the beloved disciple in John 21:20, to characterize himself: not ‘which also leaned,’ but ‘which also leaned back on his breast’ at the supper. Perhaps, too, we may justly infer that the question was neither asked nor answered in undertones, but that all could hear. John 13:26. Jesus therefore answereth, He it is for whom I shall dip the sop, and shall give it to him. The use of the definite article with the word ‘sop’ can leave no doubt upon our minds that it is the well-known sop of the Paschal Supper. The sauce in which it was dipped does not belong to the original institution, but had been introduced before the days of Christ, and was partaken of before the lamb was placed upon the table. At this point then we are at the beginning of the ‘feast.’ Two important questions meet us, In what spirit is the sop offered? Does Judas partake of it?As to the first of these, it was certainly more than a sign to point out Judas as the traitor. This particular sign is chosen in order even at the last moment to touch his heart. For this purpose Jesus departs from the ordinary custom at the feast at which each guest dipped his own bread in the bitter sauce, and offers Judas a piece which He Himself had dipped. It was as if He would say, ‘Thou art at my table, thou art my guest, I would fain have thee to be my friend; cans thou violate every rule of love and friendship?’ The giving of the sop then is more than an index to the traitor. It is a final appeal to Judas which may yet soften his heart, but which, if it do not soften him, will only make him more hardened than before.The second question, Does Judas partake of the feast? is not distinctly answered by the Evangelist. We must probably answer in the negative, because—(1) The ‘feast’ was only now beginning. (2) The drift of the passage, and indeed of the whole of this section of the gospel, leads to the conclusion that he did not. This view seems also to find confirmation from the words of 1 John 2:19, which appear to take their form from the memory of the scene before us. Thus looked at, the going out of Judas is the token that he did not belong to the number of the disciples, and that he could not share in that expression of communion with Jesus now to be enjoyed.When therefore he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas the son of Simon Iscariot. For the name Simon Iscariot, comp. John 6:71. That the name Iscariot belongs to the father as well as the son, confirms the idea that the meaning is the ‘Man of Kerioth’ (Joshua 15:25). John 13:27. And after the sop then Satan entered into him. After the sop had been given, Satan took such full possession of the traitor, that he is no longer only Judas, but one possessed by Satan.Jesus therefore saith unto him, That thou doest, do more quickly. Judas may now be addressed as ‘doing ‘what he was to do. It was too late to expect any change. Mercy, grace, offered to the last, have been to the last rejected. The sin must be committed now. Let him therefore not stay, as in all probability he would have wished to partake of the feast; let him be even more active than he is inclined to be; Jesus not only desires to be alone with His true disciples, but He is eager to take that last step which is now at hand; He is ‘straitened’ until His ‘baptism is accomplished’ (Luke 12:50). John 13:28. No one of those reclining at meat perceived for what intent he said it unto him. From these words the inference is generally drawn that the conversation between Jesus and John must have been in an undertone; otherwise the disciples would have known the meaning of what had been said. The inference is hardly warranted. Even although they now knew that he was to betray his Master, they might be so ignorant of all the steps he was to take for that end, that they could not attach a correct idea to the words addressed to him. And they did not. John 13:29. For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of for the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. On the ‘bag’ here spoken of, see on John 12:6. The first supposition made, that Judas might have gone out to purchase things needed ‘for the feast,’ is a proof that the feast itself had not begun, or was only beginning. It is important to observe the word ‘feast.’ It is that of Joh 13:1, and it shows that the disciples expected to partake of the Paschal Supper with Jesus. This expectation the Evangelist would in all probability not have communicated to us as he has done had he not known it to be correct. He knows that Jesus partook of the feast; that what He did not partake of was the ‘Passover of the Jews’ (comp. on John 13:1). The words, too, are much more reconcilable with the idea that the feast was just about to be partaken of, than that it was to be eaten twenty-four hours afterwards. On the latter supposition, the ‘more quickly’ loses all its meaning. On the former it retains its force. The expression here employed supplies therefore a powerful argument for the supposition that the evening on which Jesus and His disciples were thus gathered together was that of the Paschal Supper. It has indeed been urged that, if the Supper took place on the evening of the 14th,—according to sacred calculation, the beginning of the 15th,—such purchases would have been illegal and impossible, the 15th possessing all the sanctity of a Sabbath. This, however, is hardly a fair representation of the case. There are clear indications both in Scripture (Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7; Luke 23:56) and in the Mishna, that a difference was made between these two days in respect of sanctity, the preparation of food, for example, being expressly allowed on the latter of the two. A rabbinical provision, also, for the procuring of the Paschal lamb when the eve of the Passover fell on the Sabbath, is a proof that no difficulty was experienced on the point when the two days did not coincide (Mishna, treatise Sabbath).The second supposition of the disciples points to the same conclusion. They thought that Judas was to give something to the poor; and that it was to be given ‘more quickly.’ This could hardly be mere general charity to the poor. The time was not very suitable for the exercise of such charity, and there could be no call for its being given at once. We are compelled therefore to think not of charity in general, but of that particular aid which, in conformity with the law (Deuteronomy 16:14), was to be given at the Passover to ‘the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow,’ to enable them also to rejoice. Such an interpretation of the words of Jesus on the part of the disciples corresponds much better with the supposition that the feast was about at this moment to be celebrated than that it was to be so the following night. John 13:30. He therefore haying received the sop went immediately out. Again nothing is said of the sop’s being eaten.And it was night. It is impossible to mistake the symbolic meaning of these words, which thus become important as illustrating the general character of the thought and style of the Evangelist. They illustrate, no doubt, the minute accuracy of the narrative, and the fact that it is that of an eye-witness, upon whose memory the events witnessed by him had made a profound impression. But they certainly do more. In the darkness of the night in which Judas went out the Evangelist sees the symbol of the darkness of his deed of treachery. Judas has now gone out; Jesus is alone with the disciples whom He loved; and the last disturbing element has been removed from the midst of the little company. But the hour is come when the servants must be left without the immediate presence of their Master, and when they are to take that place, amidst the trials of the world, which He was about to leave for the immediate presence of the Father. It is the moment, therefore, for the Redeemer to pour forth all the inmost feelings of His soul on their behalf; and He does this in the discourse extending to the close of chap. 16, and in the intercessory prayer of chap. 17. We shall mistake the object of these chapters, however, if we suppose that they are intended mainly to console: they are still more to instruct and train those by whom the work of Christ in the world is to be carried on. The subordinate parts of the section before us are—(1) chap. John 13:31-35; (2) John 13:36-38; (3) chap. John 14:1-4; (4) John 13:5-7; (5) John 13:8-11; (6) John 13:12-21; (7) John 13:22-24; (8) John 13:25-31. John 13:33. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. For them there is separation from Him, and the thought of its nearness lends more than ordinary tenderness to the words of Jesus. He calls them ‘little children,’ a term found nowhere in the New Testament, except here and in the First Epistle of John (chap. 1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:12; 1 John 2:28, 1 John 3:7; 1 John 3:18, 1 John 4:4, 1 John 5:21); for the more probable reading of Gal 4:19 is simply ‘children.’ Ye shall seek me: and even as I said onto the Jews, Whither I go away, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. These words had been spoken to the Jews at chaps. John 7:34, John 8:21. It is remarkable that, formerly addressed to determined enemies, they should now be addressed to beloved disciples. Yet we are probably to seek for no other basis of the common thought than this, that the ‘going away’ of Jesus involved His separation from the community of human life, from friends therefore no less than foes. The desolate state in which the disciples would thus be left, and, not less than this, the greater responsibility that would then rest upon them to carry out the work of Jesus, prepare the way for the words that follow. John 13:34. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; even as I loved you that ye also may love one another. The new commandment is love, such love as Jesus had Himself exhibited, and as had been His ‘glory’ (John 13:31); and this love to one another they would need, that in an evil world they might be to one another sources of strength and comfort. It is again the lesson of the foot-washing; though here it appears not so much in the form of general love to all men as of that specific love which can only be exercised towards the members of the body of Christ. By ‘commandment’ is meant not a definite precept, but rather a sphere of life in which the disciples are to walk (chaps. John 10:18, John 12:50); and it is this, rather than the character or quality of the love, that makes the commandment ‘new.’ The whole life of Jesus had been love; the life of His disciples, as that of those in Him, was to be love also. There was to be a transition in them from the outward to the inward, from the letter of an injunction to its felt experience. Hence the first half of the verse is complete in itself; and the second half points out the ground upon which this love was to rest, and the means by which it was to be obtained. It was the very purpose of the love of Jesus that He might form a community all whose members, born again into His love, might love one another,—‘Even as I loved you, that ye also may love one another.’ Out of Him is selfishness; in Him, and in Him alone, we love. John 13:35. By this shall all men know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love one with another. The expression ‘disciples of mine’ is worthy of notice. It seems to show that the meaning is not exhausted by the thought of that language so often quoted in connection with it, ‘Behold how these Christians love one another.’ It directs our thoughts, not to the disciples only, but to Jesus Himself. He was love: in the love of the Christian community, the love of its members ‘with’ one another, it was to be seen not merely what they were, but what He was, and more particularly that He was love. Thus, then, the disciples have their great charge committed to them,—to be in the season now at hand what He had been who had washed their feet. John 13:36. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, whither goest thou away? Jesus answered. Whither I go away, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow afterwards. Peter has not been able to apprehend aright the truths of which Jesus has been speaking. We need not wonder at it; and, had he understood them fully, there would have been less necessity either for the instructions that follow or for the discipline of his fall. As it is, thinking only of himself and his fellow-disciples, failing to see the greatness of the charge that would be committed to them when Jesus went away, and not yet trained as he will be, he turns to the thought of the separation spoken of in John 13:33, and asks whither his Lord goeth. No direct answer is given to the question. Peter must have known his work and done it before he could have properly comprehended the answer, had it been given; for a disciple’s reward stands in such a relation to his work, that without a knowledge of the latter he can have no true knowledge of the former. Therefore it is that he is told that the time is not come for his following his Lord. He shall follow Him afterwards; follow Him in shame, in humiliation, to the cross, to the life beyond the grave: then shall he know. John 13:37. Peter saith unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now? I will lay down my life for thee. Peter sees that in the words,’ Thou canst not follow me now,’ there lies the meaning that he is not yet morally prepared for following Jesus. His self-confidence is hurt by the suggestion; and not in devotion only, but in too high an estimate of his own readiness to meet every trial for the sake of the Master whom he loved, he cries out that he is ready to follow Him ‘even now,’—nay, that he is ready to lay down his life for Him. Such want of self-knowledge must be corrected. John 13:38. Jesus answereth, Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice. For a similar repetition of Peter’s own words in the answer of Jesus, comp. chap. John 21:17 and the commentary. The words of Jesus fix with solemn emphasis His disciple’s attention on what He Himself had said. Before we pass on, it may be well to ask at what point in these chapters we are to place the institution of the Supper. The point has been very variously fixed: at the beginning of chap, 13, at the end of chap. 14, at the end of chap, 13, between John 13:30-31, John 13:32-33, in the midst of Joh 13:34 of the present chapter, but these suppositions are attended with more or less improbability. We have already seen (in John 13:26) that ‘the feast,’ with the institution of which the Supper was most closely connected, was then beginning; but that there is reason to think that Judas did not actually partake of it. If so, the natural inference is that it was completed between John 13:30-31, immediately after the traitor had gone out. The objection to this view, that the words of Joh 13:31 follow too closely upon John 13:30 to permit us to think that time was occupied between the two verses, is less weighty than at first appears. The words would follow with great appropriateness the giving of the cup which was the ‘new covenant in the blood of Jesus;’ and the word ‘therefore’ of John 13:31 does not necessarily imply that Jesus spoke at that moment, but only that the thoughts awakened by the departure of Judas must have remained in all their freshness when John 13:31 was uttered. This they would do even although the giving of the cup intervened, because that cup expressed in the most solemn form the exclusive intimacy of communion which now existed between Jesus and His disciples, and the existence of which is presupposed in John 13:34-36. If this explanation is not accepted, there seems no valid reason why the institution should not be placed between John 13:35-36. The latter of these need not follow the former at once. The words ‘I go away’ (John 13:33), once uttered, would linger in the minds of those present as the one thought demanding explanation; and This do in remembrance of me’ would deepen it.’ John 14:1. Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me. No separation ought to be made between this chapter and the last section of chap, 13, for the place, the circumstances, and the object of the discourse here entered on are the same as there. The dominating thought of all is that of chap. John 13:31,—that the time is come when a full revelation is to be made of the ‘glory’ of the Son of man in the Father, and of the Father in Him; when it shall be seen that the ‘going away’ of Jesus to the Father not only contains in it what swallows up all the humiliation of His earthly lot, but is the great proof and illustration of that union of Himself with the Father in love, the manifestation of which ‘glorifies’ both the Father and the Son. To such a manifestation, then, it is evident that the ‘going away’ of Jesus was necessary: He must in His earthly form be separated from His disciples, that His glory may be revealed not only to those who had the spiritual eye, but to the world (chaps. John 16:10, John 17:21). While however separation must thus take place, it is, on the other hand, the object of our Lord to show that it was really no separation,—that He does not ‘go away’ in the carnal sense understood by Peter in chap. John 13:36, but will ever be with His disciples in an abiding union and communion of spirit (comp. the interesting parallel in chap. John 20:17). The ‘trouble’ spoken of in the words now before us is not that of mere sorrow; it is rather that which Jesus had Himself experienced (see chap. John 12:27) when the prospect of His sufferings rose immediately before Him. It is ‘trouble’ from the opposition of the world while they carry on their work of love; but ‘trouble’ which at the same time passes into the heart, and leads to the conflict of all those feelings of anxiety, perplexity, fear, and sorrow, which make the heart like a ‘troubled sea’ that the Divine voice ‘Peace, be still!’ alone can calm. The work of the disciples, committed to them as it had been to their Master (chap. John 17:18), will bring with it this ‘trouble;’ yet they have enough to keep them calm with His own calmness (John 14:27), enough to lead them to say with Him, ‘But for this cause came I unto this hour’ (chap. John 12:27).—The foundation of all peace comes first, and the word ‘believe’ must be taken in the same way in both clauses of the statement. To understand it differently in the two would give, either to faith in God or to faith in Jesus, an independent existence inconsistent with the general teaching of this Gospel. We must, therefore, either translate, ‘Ye believe in God, ye believe also in me,’ or, ‘Believe in God, believe also in me;’ the hortatory form of ‘Let not your heart be troubled’ and of the whole discourse makes the latter probable. Yet, as the disciples already believed, the exhortation must have reference not to the formation, but to the deepening and constant exercise of that faith, the object of which is really one—God in Jesus. Thus also we may understand why faith in God is mentioned first, and not second, as in chap. John 12:44. It is the highest act of faith that is referred to,—faith, no doubt, in God through Jesus, but faith in Him as the ultimate Guide of all that happens. It is the evolution of the Divine plan that they have to do with; therefore let them believe in ‘God.’ In addition to this, we may call to mind that God Himself was the Fountain of that Messianic hope of which, by the departure of Jesus, the disciples would think themselves deprived. At the same time, it is to be observed that the order of the words in the two clauses is different, ‘God’ following, but’ me’ preceding, its verb. The effect is to bring ‘in God’ and ‘in me’ into the closest possible connection. John 14:2. In my Father’s house are many places of abode: if it were not so, I would have told you; because I go to prepare a place for you. All the substantives here used—‘house,’ ‘places of abode,’ ‘place’—are full of meaning. The first is not the material building, but the building as occupied by its inmates (comp. chaps, John 2:16, John 11:20, with John 4:53, John 8:35, John 11:31); the second, used in the New Testament only in this verse and in John 14:23, is connected with the characteristic ‘abide’ of our Gospel; and the third embodies the idea of something fixed and definite—something that we may call our own (comp. chap. John 11:48). But the full force and beauty of the words are only understood by us when we look at them in a light different from that in which they are generally regarded. For ‘my Father’s house’ does not mean heaven as distinguished from earth, nor are the ‘abiding places’ confined to the world to come. Earth as well as heaven is to the eye of faith a part of that ‘house:’ abiding places are here as well as there. The universe, in short, is presented to us by our Lord as one ‘house’ over which the Father rules, having ‘many’ apartments, some on this side, others on the other side, the grave. In one of these the believer dwells now, and the Father and the Son come unto him, and make their abode with him (John 14:23): in another of them he will dwell hereafter. When, therefore, Jesus ‘goes away,’ it is not to a strange land, it is only to another chamber of the one house of the Father: and thus ‘many’ is not to be understood in the sense of variety,—of different degrees of happiness and glory provided for different persons. The main thought is that wherever Jesus is, wherever we are, we are all in the Father’s house: surely such separation is no real separation. Had not this been the true nature of the case,—had it not been essentially involved in the mission of Jesus that His disciples, once united to Him, could never be separated from Him, He would ‘have told’ them, His teaching would have been entirely different from what it had been; but, because wherever He was there He would prepare a place for them also, He had not thought it necessary till now to speak either of being separated or of being united again. It will thus be seen that the words beginning with ‘because’ are to be connected with those going immediately before, and not with the earlier part of the verse. John 14:3. And if I shall have gone and prepared a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye also may be. All that has preceded these words has rested upon the idea that, although Jesus is now ‘going away’ to the Father, He is not really forsaking His disciples. Even when in one sense separated from them, in another He will still be with them; and this latter presence will in due time, when they like Him have accomplished their work, be followed by their receiving again that joy of His immediate presence which they are now to lose. This double thought seems to explain the remarkable use of two different tenses of the verb in the second clause of the verse,—‘I come,’ ‘I will receive.’ He is’ wherever His people are: they ‘shall be,’ when their toils are over, wherever He is (comp. chap. John 12:26). The Second Coming of the Lord is not, therefore, resolved by these words into a merely spiritual presence in which He shall be always with His people. The true light in which to look at that great fact is as the manifestation of a presence never far away from us (comp. John 14:18). Our Lord is always with us, though (as we have yet to see) it is in the power of the Spirit that He is so now. He will again Himself, in His own person, be with us, and we with Him, when our work is ‘finished.’ Observe also the change of order in the original in the case of the words ‘I am’ and ‘ye may be,’ the effect being to bring the ‘I’ and the’ ye ‘into the closest juxtaposition (comp. on John 14:1).’ John 14:4. And whither I go away ye know the way. These words convey to the disciples the assurance that they already had the pledge and earnest of all that Jesus had spoken of; for their interpretation depends on the same principle as that formerly applied at chap. John 4:32. To ‘know’ is not merely to know of; it is to have inward experience of. As, therefore,’ whither I go ‘is the Father’s presence; as Jesus is the way to the Father; and as they have experimental knowledge of Him, they ‘know the way.’ They might have feared that it was not so, that they had still much to be taught before they could anticipate with confidence the possession of their hope; and who was to teach them now? But Jesus says, ‘Ye know me; and, in knowing me, ye know the way; it is already yours.’ Difficulties arise in their minds, the first of which is started by Thomas, and has reference to the way to the goal. John 14:5. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest away: how do we know the way? In John 14:4, Jesus had spoken of ‘going away,’—not of ‘going,’ as in John 14:3. The idea of separation is thus again brought prominently forward, and Thomas is overborne by the thought of it (comp. chap. John 11:16). His discouragement, which blinds his eyes, is uttered in the words before us. John 14:6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father but through me. The three terms here used must not be taken as expressing three independent thoughts; still less can we fuse them into one, as if the meaning were, ‘I am the true way of life.’ It is evident, both from what precedes and from what follows, that the emphasis is on ‘way,’ and that the two other terms are in some sense additional and explicative. But in what sense? Let us notice that the thought of the Father is the leading thought of the previous verses of the chapter, and that in John 14:7 the knowledge of the Father is the great end to be attained; let us further observe that truth and ‘life’ are precisely the two constituent elements of that knowledge, the one that upon which it rests, the other that in which it issues; and we shall see that Jesus adds these two designations of Himself to the first, because they express the contents, the substance, of that in which the ‘way’ consists. The Father is ‘the truth,’ ‘the life:’ Jesus is the revelation of these to men: because He is so He is ‘the way;’ and because He only is so, He is the only way to the Father. We must beware, however, of the supposition that the ‘life ‘thus spoken of is only life to us in a future world. It is life now in that ever-ascending cycle of experience in which the believer passes from one stage to another of ‘truth,’ and thus from one stage to another of corresponding ‘life.’ In the present ‘way’ we have present ‘truth’ and present ‘life;’ and each fresh appropriation of the truth deepens that communion by which the life is conditioned. It may be well to notice, too, that the prominence here given to the mention of the ‘way’ arises from that thought of separation with which the minds of the disciples were filled. Jesus had said to them, ‘I must go away,’ and it seemed to them as if in the language a journey were involved, which would separate them from their Lord. Therefore with loving condescension the figure is taken up, and they are assured that He is Himself, if we may so speak, this very distance to be traversed. Is it a ‘way’ that they have to travel? Then He is ‘the way,’ and all along its course they shall be still with Him. Hence also the following verse. John 14:7. If ye had learned to know me, ye would know my Father also. The change in this verse from ‘the Father’ of John 14:6 to ‘my Father,’ as well as the use in the original of two different verbs for ‘know,’ is peculiarly instructive. The meaning seems to be, that when we have gained a knowledge of the Son, we find ourselves possessed of a knowledge of His Father; then, in that knowledge, the veil which hides from us in our natural condition the true knowledge of God is withdrawn, and we possess the highest knowledge of all, the knowledge of God in the deepest verity of His being, the knowledge of ‘the Father.’ It is true that we immediately read, Prom henceforth ye learn to know Him, and have seen Him. But we must bear in mind that possession of a perfect knowledge of God is never reached by us. Each stage of ‘knowing’ is but the beginning of a new stage of ‘learning to know’ more; ‘forgetting the things that are behind,’ we start ever afresh towards a knowledge of ‘the Father,’ always increasing but never consummated. The same remark applies to ‘have seen,’ by which we are to understand ‘have begun to see.’ This knowledge, this sight, the disciples have ‘from henceforth.’ The point of time is not Pentecost anticipated. It dates from the great ‘Now’ of chap. John 13:31, and the explanation is to be found in the peculiar circumstances in which the disciples have been placed since then. They have been separated from all worldly thoughts of Jesus; His true ‘glory’ and the true glory of the Father in Him have been revealed in all their brightness; and in an intimacy of communion with their Lord never enjoyed before they ‘learn to know’ with an inward spiritual discernment, they ‘have seen’ with a sharpness of spiritual intuition, not previously possessed by them. Another difficulty arises in the breast of Philip. John 14:8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. The same bluntness of spiritual sight (that is, really the same weakness of faith) that had been exhibited by Thomas is now exhibited by Philip, though in relation to another point. Jesus had said (John 14:7) that the disciples had seen the Father, meaning that they had seen the Father in Him. Philip fails to understand; and, thinking perhaps of the revelation given to Moses in Exodus 33:18-19, misusing also those words of our Lord which alone made his request possible, he asks that he and his fellow-disciples may have granted them some actual vision of the Father (comp. his spirit in chap. John 6:7). The reply of Jesus, John 14:9-21, falls into three leading parts, of which the first is found in John 14:9-11. John 14:9. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not learned to know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father: how sayest thou, Show us the Father? ‘Have I been with you,’ literally, ‘Am I with you,’ the very words of Joh 14:3. The words are those of astonishment and sorrow that the effect of all this spiritual intercourse has failed; and the declaration of Jesus in the latter half of the verse rests upon the fact that He is the complete expression of the Father (comp. chap. John 1:18). He does not say ‘my Father’ but ‘the Father,’ because He speaks not of the personal relation between the Father and Himself, but of the light in which God is revealed as Father to all who learn to know Him in the Son. John 14:10. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I say unto you I speak not from myself, but the Father abiding in me doeth his works. If what is stated in the first clause of this verse be the fact, the bluntness of Philip’s spiritual vision will be proved. It is of this truth, therefore, that Jesus speaks. The statement is that of one great truth with two sides, each of which has its appropriate proof—the first, in the ‘words’ of Jesus; the second, in the Father’s ‘works.’ For, as to the first, that Jesus is ‘in the Father,’ He is the Word, and words characterize Him. If His words are not ‘from Himself,’ He is not from Himself; if they are the Father’s, He is ‘in the Father.’ As to the second, the Father does not work directly, He works only through the Son; therefore as the Father He can be known only in the Son. Thus the Son is in the Father; He is in no other way: the Father is in the Son; He is the Father in no other way. Hence the proof of the statement to Philip, ‘He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,’ is complete. The distinction between ‘words’ and ‘works’ in this verse thus springs from a point of view wholly different from that which refers the one to the teaching, the other to the miracles, of Jesus; it is connected with the essential qualities of that Son who is the Word, of that God who is the Father. The transition from the ‘words’ to the ‘works,’ otherwise so inexplicable, is also thus at once explained. This is the only passage of the Gospel in which the verb ‘say’ is connected with the ‘words’ or with the ‘word’ of Jesus. ‘The words that I say unto you’ are equivalent to ‘My words.’ John 14:11. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe for his works’ sake. Jesus has established the proposition by which He would show Philip the impropriety of his request. He now calls upon him, and upon the other disciples through him, to receive it. First, they ought to do this upon the authority of His own statement, the statement of One who is in the Father; but, if that be not enough, then upon the authority of the Father’s works in Him. By these last we are certainly not to understand miracles alone. Miracles are, no doubt, included, although not simply as works of supernatural power. All the works of the Father in the Son are meant, all bearing on them those tokens of the Father which appeal to the heart, and ought to satisfy men that, in doing them, Jesus reveals not Himself but the Father. The second part of the reply follows in John 14:12. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he also do; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto the Father. It seemed to the disciples that, by the departure of Jesus, all the glorious manifestations of the Divine which they had beheld in Him would be brought to an end. So far is this from being the case that these shall not only continue but become even more glorious than before. By ‘works’ we are obviously to understand something wider than miracles, for the promise is to all believers, and it cannot be said that they in any age have wrought greater miracles than their Lord. What Jesus speaks of is the general power of the spiritual life, not only as it exists in the breast of the believer, but as it shows itself in all life and action corresponding to its nature. What He had been and had done was to be exhibited in the disciples themselves. They were to be put into His position, to take His place, to be sustained in all inward strength and outward manifestation as He had been. Nay more, He was going to the Father,—not the verb of chaps, John 13:33; John 13:36, John 14:4-5, but another, suggesting less the thought of what He was leaving than the thought of what He was going to; and He was going to ‘the’ Father, not His own Father only, but One who stood in the same relation to all the members of His body. Therefore what He had been and had done would be still more gloriously unfolded in them than it had been as yet in Him. When He went to the Father, His life would be set free from the struggles and sufferings by which its power and glory had been obscured on earth. But His disciples were one with Him, and what He was they should be. They are the organs not of a humbled only but of an ascended Lord; and through what He is at the right hand of the Father they shall do ‘greater works’ than He did in the world. The same great truth is expressed in 1 John 4:17, ‘Because as He is’ (not was), ‘so are we in this world.’ How little do Christians realise their position and their privileges! John 14:13-14. And whatsoever ye ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask of me any thing in my name, this I will do. The twice repeated ‘this I will do’ of these verses, is the taking up again of the ‘do’ of John 14:12; so that what Jesus says is, that He in His glorified condition, being the believer’s strength for what he does, will be the real doer both of the ‘works’ and of the ‘greater works’ done by him. The condition on our part of the accomplishment of this promise is prayer. (I) Prayer in the name of Jesus, the words ‘in my name’ occurring in both these verses. This expression is connected not only with our asking, but, in John 14:26, with the Father’s sending; and that the order as well as the contents of the thought is to be observed, is made clear by the fact that in the later part of the discourse the same order is observed (comp. chaps. John 15:16 and John 16:23). The ‘name’ spoken of is in the first place the name of ‘Son;’ as we shall find that in chap. 17 the ‘name’ of God spoken of is in the first place that of ‘Father.’ But the thought is not to be confined to this. When we bring all the passages together in which the words occur in chaps, 14-17, and particularly the verse before us and chap. John 17:11-12 (‘Thy name which thou hast given me’), it becomes clear that we must extend the meaning of ‘name’ so as to include the revelation of what the Father is in the Son. To ask ‘in the name of’ the Son of man, therefore, is to ask in a confidence and hope which have their essence and ground in the revelation of the Son. It is not so much asking ‘for the sake of Christ,’ or ‘in Christ,’ as asking because we know the Father in the Son, and have learned to cast ourselves, as sons, upon the revelation thus given us. (2) Prayer to the Son as well as to the Father; yet not to Jesus regarded as an independent personality, but to Him as the Son, so that in praying to Him we pray at the same time to the Father, for only in the Father do we know the Son. Hence also the ‘whatsoever’ of John 14:13, and the ‘anything’ of John 14:14, have in this their necessary limitations. Believers are not viewed here simply as members of the human family in the midst of the weaknesses, perplexities, and sorrows of humanity. They possess the spirit, they aim at the aims, of Jesus. They pray with the mind of the Son, which is the mind of the Father, and in that sphere alone can they be assured that whatever they ask shall be done for them and through them, ‘that the Father may be glorified in the Son.’ Only by the explanation thus offered does it seem possible to account for the insertion of ‘me’ in John 14:14; and the whole statement may be regarded as a realisation of chap. John 1:51, even the very same order of thought being there observed, the ‘ascending’ preceding the ‘descending’ of angels upon the Son of man. The third part of the reply to Philip follows in John 14:15-21. John 14:15. If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. An abiding communion between the glorified Redeemer and His disciples on earth has been spoken of as established,—a communion, as we have already seen, not to be broken by the ‘going away’ of Jesus to the Father. The object of the present verse (which is no interruption of the discourse by a direct precept) is to point out the condition by which alone this communion can be preserved and its greatest blessing, the presence of the Advocate, enjoyed—love. This love, too, consists in a loving self-surrender of ourselves to the sole object of glorifying the Father, analogous to the loving self-surrender of Jesus; for ‘my commandments’ are not merely commandments which He gives, but which He has Himself first received and made His own (comp. John 14:27). John 14:16. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, that he may be with you for ever. The word here translated in our English Version ‘Comforter,’ and partially introduced into the English language as ‘Paraclete,’ means properly, One called to stand by us for our help, our Advocate, Helper, Representative. ‘Comforter’ is not its meaning. And the unfortunate use of this term, so dear to the Christian amidst the troubles of the world, has tended in no small degree to make believers think less of strength than of comfort, of the experience of a private Christian who needs consolation instead of that of one who has to face the opposition of the world in his Master’s cause. The ‘Paraclete’ is really One who stands by our side, sustains us in our Christian calling, and breathes into us ever new measures of a spirit of boldness and daring in the warfare we have to wage. He is the representative of the glorified Lord with His militant people upon earth. The promise of this Paraclete or Advocate is given four times in the chapters before us (the only other passage in the New Testament where the word occurs being 1 John 2:1); and in the first two, chap. John 14:16; John 14:26, it has reference mainly to the preparation of the heart and mind of the disciples; in the other two, chaps, John 15:26, John 16:7, to their actual work. The Advocate thus spoken of is further marked out by the remarkable addition of the word ‘another;’ and the word implies that the first Advocate had been Jesus Himself, whose ‘going away’ prevented His continuing to be still the Advocate and Helper of His disciples. In this sense we find Him described by the very term here used in 1 John 2:1 : ‘We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.’ It is in the idea of representation that the two designations meet. Jesus glorified represents us before the Father’s throne; the Holy Spirit abiding with us represents Jesus gone to the Father. This word ‘other’ is thus full of the most precious meaning. It tells us that Jesus when on earth had been the Paraclete, the Advocate of His disciples. It suggests that what He had been to them during His earthly life, His representative will be after He has ‘gone away,’ so that every narrative of what He had done for them becomes a prediction of what the Holy Spirit will do for them and for us who come after them. The verb ‘ask’ of this verse is different from that so translated in John 14:13-14; and it can be used only of One who stands in that closeness of relation, in that intimacy of union with the Father, in which Jesus is represented throughout these chapters as standing to Him (comp. chaps, John 16:26, John 17:9; John 17:15; John 17:20). John 14:17. Even the Spirit of the truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it beholdeth him not, neither learneth to know him: ye learn to know him, because he abideth with you, and is in you. What this Advocate is, is now explained more fully. He is the Spirit of ‘the truth,’ the Spirit whose essence is ‘the truth,’ and who is the medium by which ‘the truth’ comes to men. This Spirit the world cannot receive, because it has no perception of the things with which He deals, no sympathy with them, no adaptation to them. As it cannot ‘hear God’s words, because it is not of God’ (chap. John 8:47), so it cannot receive the Spirit of the truth, because it has no eye for the spiritual and invisible, and no growing apprehension of them. The Spirit comes to the world, and would stay with it; but it will not have Him for a guest, and it never attains to that experimental knowledge of Him which is alone worthy of the name. But the disciples are ‘of the truth;’ they welcome the heavenly Guest; He ‘abides’ with them; He ‘is’ in them; they advance to ever deeper knowledge of what He is and does. How much by these words ‘abideth’ and ‘is’ is the analogy between the presence of Jesus and of the Spirit with us brought out. No two words of the Gospel are more characteristic of the former. John 14:18. I will not leave you desolate: I come to you. The disciples were the ‘little children’ of Jesus (chap. John 13:33), and He may therefore well speak to them as a father. Not from Pentecost, but from the moment of His reunion to the Father, and by means of the Spirit of the truth, He comes to them (see John 14:20). John 14:19. Yet a little while, and the world beholdeth me no longer; but ye behold me. The ‘little while’ here spoken of is that of chap, John 13:33, extending from the moment immediately at hand to the resurrection. After that ‘little while’ the world beholdeth Jesus no more, but His disciples behold Him,—the present tense being used in both clauses absolutely, and not as the mere present of time. In the first clause ‘beholdeth’ can be understood only of physical vision, for in no other way had the world ever beheld Jesus, and it is thus impossible to exclude a reference to the fact that the risen Saviour did not show Himself to the world. In the second clause ‘behold’ must be so far at least used in the same sense, and the appearance of the risen Jesus must again be thought of. Yet the meaning of the second ‘behold’ is not thus exhausted, for it obviously includes a vision of the Redeemer not limited by the forty days between the resurrection and the ascension, but stretching onward into the eternal future. The difference of vision, however, does not lie directly in the word itself: it is conditioned by the state in which Jesus is supposed to be, and by the necessities of the case. The ‘Me’ of the verse is Jesus glorified: Him, because He is glorified, the world unfit for the vision ‘beholdeth no longer.’ But the disciples, one with Him not only in His humiliation but in His ‘glory,’ behold Him, first from time to time with the eye of sense, always with the eye of faith and in the power of the Spirit. It need only be further remarked that this intensifying of the meaning of the second ‘behold’ may be indicated by the order of the original, which gives the place of emphasis to the word in the second clause; and that, by the view now taken, we at once see the connection of the words that follow: only the ‘living’ can behold the risen Lord, or have the abiding spiritual sight. Because I live and ye shall live. Not, ‘Because I live ye shall live also,’—which would divert the thoughts to something entirely foreign to the course of our Lord’s remarks; but, Because I live glorified, and ye, in this respect wholly different from the world, shall live in the power of Me your risen Lord, therefore shall this intimacy of intercourse, implied in My coming and your beholding, last unbroken and for ever. John 14:20. In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. Not the particular day of the resurrection, or of Pentecost, or of the Second Coming, but the day beginning with the return of Jesus to His Father, when He shall send to His disciples the promised Advocate, the Spirit of the truth. Then in the knowledge of ever-deepening experience they shall know that the Son of man whom they had thought ‘gone away’ is really in the bosom of His Father, glorified in the Father (comp. chap. John 13:31), that they are in Him thus glorified, and that He thus glorified is in them. So shall the end of all be attained, the perfect union in glory of Father, Son, and all believers, in one uninterrupted, unchanging, eternal unity (comp. John 17:21; John 17:23). It is of great importance to note the expression, ‘Ye in me, and I in you.’ We cannot here follow out the thought, but we must not fail to notice that the fulness of the union referred to belongs only to the time of Jesus glorified. The limiting influences of the world, of the flesh, must be overpassed before that perfect union of all existence is reached which can be established only (for ‘God is Spirit,’ chap. John 4:24) where the Spirit is the dominating, all-embracing, all-controlling element of being. Jesus says ‘my Father,’ not ‘the Father,’ because His personal union with the Father forms the basis of the wider and more glorious union here referred to. John 14:21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. The thought of privilege in John 14:14 led to that condition on which alone privilege can be preserved (John 14:15). We have a similar transition now. Here, as there, one thing must be distinctly remembered, that this unity is one of love. There is love on the part of the believer to his Lord, love on the part of the Father to the believer, love on the part of Jesus to the believer. In this fellowship of love the result of all will be the manifestation by Himself of the glorified Redeemer to His people. He will ‘manifest’ Himself from His glory, and in knowing and seeing Him by the power of the Spirit they will know and see the Father. A third difficulty arises in the breast of Judas. John 14:22. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how hath it come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Judas is distinguished from the traitor, that we may have kept distinctly before us that the latter had gone out (chap. John 13:30). His error consists in not seeing that the spiritual can only be apprehended by the spiritual. Filled with the thought of the external kingdom, he cannot understand why the glorious revelation of Christ to be made to himself and his fellow-disciples should not be male to all, so that all may believe and be blessed. John 14:23. Jesus answered and said unto him, If any one love me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Again the thought of Joh 14:15, and a fuller expression of the main teaching of this chapter, and, indeed, of this whole section of the Gospel. The answer to Judas is, that the manifestation referred to must be limited, because it can only be made where there is that communion of love which proves itself by the spirit of self-denial and submission to the charge of Jesus (comp. John 14:17; John 14:21). Two additional points are to be noted—(I) The climax: no longer ‘I’ but ‘We,’ a fuller presentation of the truth. (2) The beginning of the discourse is taken up again, and thus its parts are more closely united: ‘In my Father’s house are many places of abode’ (John 14:2); ‘We will make our abode with him.’ John 14:24. He that loveth me not keepeth cot my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. A fuller explanation than before why the world cannot receive the manifestation of the Father and the Son, but given now from the negative rather than the positive side. It will be observed that in John 14:23-24, we have first ‘word,’ then ‘words,’ and then, again, a return to the singular ‘word.’ The explanation may in part be that to him who receives in faith the ‘words’ of Jesus are one; he sees their unity; they are a ‘word:’ to him who receives not in faith they are scattered and unconnected, ‘words’ not a ‘word.’ It may be found also in another consideration,—that he who keeps keeps a whole, he who disobeys disobeys the several precepts. We remark only further that our Lord, while implying in John 14:23-24 that the world cannot receive such a manifestation of the Father and of Himself as had been promised to His own, shows with equal distinctness that there is no class favoured in an arbitrary manner. All make themselves what they are. If ‘any one,’ He says, ‘love me;’ and, again, ‘he that loveth me.’ The world need not be the ‘world.’ Every one may come and have the promise in all its fulness. John 14:25. These things have I spoken unto you while abiding with you. We now enter upon a new part of the discourse, in which the leading idea is the strength to be afforded to the disciples after the departure of their Lord. It is important to notice that this is bestowed upon them not merely as disciples, but as disciples about to be sent forth to occupy their Master’s place, and to do His work. During the absence of their Master the Advocate shall be with them. John 14:26. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and he will bring to your remembrance all things that I said unto you. Again we meet with the expression ‘in my name’ already considered by us at John 14:13, where we saw that it primarily refers to the name ‘Son,’ and then to the revelation of the Father in the Son. It will be found that this conception suits each of those nine places in chaps, 14-17 where the words occur, as well as the two others in chap. 17 where Jesus speaks of manifesting or declaring the ‘name’ of God. Here the Father sends the Holy Spirit ‘in the name’ of Jesus; that is, the sending of the Spirit is grounded in the Father’s revelation of Himself in the Son. It is because in Him He reveals Himself to us as our Father, because He makes us by faith in Him His own sons, that we are brought into that relation to Him which enables us to receive the fulness of His Spirit. In this verse, as contrasted with John 14:16, we have not merely a promise of the Spirit of the truth. There is an advance of thought, and the Spirit is spoken of in His training power, as He applies to the heart ‘the truth’ which is His being. Several particulars in the words before us illustrate this. First, there is the epithet ‘holy,’ which here, as throughout this Gospel, expresses the idea of complete separation from all that is of the world, and complete consecration to all that is spiritual and heavenly (comp. chaps. John 3:34, John 10:36). Secondly, the Father is to ‘send’ the Spirit to the disciples even as He sent the Son (John 14:24), a statement indicating that He is sent to be in them for a similar purpose. And lastly, the ‘all things’ that the Spirit is to teach must (according to the rules suggested by the climactic structure of our Gospel) be included in the ‘all things’ spoken by Jesus, and now to be brought to their remembrance. What Jesus taught shall be the ‘all things’ that they are taught; can they be taught for any other purpose than to be again spoken for the salvation of men? In the words of Jesus ‘all things’ needed for man’s salvation are implicitly contained, and with that teaching the disciples shall be filled. These considerations lead directly to the conclusion, of which we shall often have to make use in the closing chapters of this Gospel, that Jesus is now dealing with His disciples not as simply believers in His name, but as persons about to enter on His work. John 14:27. Peace I leave unto you; a peace that if mine I give onto you: not as the world giveth give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. The peace spoken of here is not the legacy of a dying father, but the salutation of a departing Master. It is thus not mere peace of heart, a pacified conscience, the result of a personal resting in the love of God. It is peace in the midst of the trials which the world brings on the followers of Jesus while they perform their task; peace that is the result of His having ‘overcome the world’ (comp. on chap. John 16:33). ‘My’ peace, again, is the peace which Jesus Himself enjoys, as well as that which He alone can give: this peace becomes the true possession of the receiver (comp. on chap. John 17:14). The effect is that the disciples shall neither be ‘troubled’ from within, nor ‘afraid’ with a coward terror in the presence of outward foes. John 14:28. Ye heard that I said unto you, I go away and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced that I go unto the Father, because the Father is greater than I. But the disciples were not only to have peace: true love would fill their hearts with joy. The ‘going away’ of Jesus is really a ‘going unto the Father,’ a re-establishment in all the glory of the Father’s immediate presence. The last clause of the verse contains simply the general teaching of the Gospel, of the whole Bible, and of all the greatest theologians of the Church, that the Son, while of the same nature as the Father, is subordinate to Him, inferior (for essence is not spoken of) economically, as Mediator. While, however, the departure of Jesus was thus a return to the glory of the Father’s presence, and good for Him, we must not suppose that it is on that account that the disciples are to ‘rejoice.’ ‘If ye loved me’ is not an appeal to their personal interest in Himself: it appeals rather to their interest in His work and purpose; it is a statement of the fact that ripened Christian perception, when they stand in the ‘love’ spoken of in John 14:21; John 14:23-24, will lead them to see that the departure of Jesus to His Father was an arrangement fraught with far higher blessings, both to His believing people and to the world, than His remaining among them would have been. The love which is the condition of higher revelations will teach them that the departure preliminary to these is not a matter of sorrow but of joy. John 14:29. And now I have told you before it come to past, that, when it is come to pan, ye may believe (comp. on chap. John 13:19). It is not a first faith, but the deeper working of faith, the experimental seal to it, that is spoken of. John 14:30. I will no longer talk much with you, for the prince of the world cometh. (Comp. on chap. John 12:31.) Here it is particularly to be noted that ‘the prince of this world’ is equivalent to the world in its essence. He embodies the spirit of the world, so that what is said of it may be said of him, what is said of him may be said of it. Observe the ‘cometh,’ the contrast of the ‘coming’ of Jesus.—And he hath nothing in me. John 14:31. But he cometh that the world may perceive that I love the Father, and that even as the Father gave me commandment so I do. Arise, let us go hence. The difficulty of interpreting these words is undoubtedly very great. The common interpretations of ‘hath nothing in me’—such as, ‘hath no power over me,’ I die freely; ‘hath no ground of accusation against me,’ I am innocent; ‘hath no hold on me,’ I present no point on which he can fasten his attack—are all at variance with the meaning of the verb ‘hath’ in the writings of John. Nor is the difficulty met by the suggestion which removes the full stop after ‘so I do, and connects’ Arise, let us go hence ‘with’ but, thus making the intermediate words (‘he cometh’ not being then, as in our translation, supplied) express the object to be attained by the arising and going. For, in that case, instead of the discourse in chaps. 15 and 16 and the prayer of chap. 17, this chapter ought to have been immediately followed by the last conflict with the world. The true interpretation seems to be that there is an absolute barrier between the ‘prince of this world’ and Jesus. Neither in the Person (in whom is no sin) nor in the work of the Redeemer has he any interest; there is absolutely no point of connection (the expression of the original is strong) between him and these. He has deliberately opposed, denied, and rejected the truth. Therefore he has now nothing to do with it—except in one terrible respect! The following words point out the exception. He ‘comes,’ and the ‘world’ ruled by Him comes, to see that He whom they have rejected is the ‘consecrated One’ of God, the ‘Sent’ of God, the Fulfiller of the Father’s will. But they come to see this only when it is too late; when amazement and horror alone remain for them; when the judgment shall be executed; and when out of their own mouth they shall be condemned. The words in short express, although far more pointedly than elsewhere, the great truth so often stated in Scripture, that those who reject the salvation shall meet the judgment of Jesus, and that, when they meet it, they shall acknowledge that it is just. Blind now, they shall not be always blind; their eyes shall be opened; and to their own shame they shall confess that He whom they rejected was the ‘Beloved’ of the Father, and that His work was the doing of the Father’s will. It is only necessary to add that, while this shall be the fate of this ‘world’ and of its ‘prince,’ the possibility of the individual’s passing from the power of the world into the blessed region of faith in Jesus is always presupposed. The description applies to the world as it hardens itself in impenitence against its rightful Lord, and rushes on its fate. Hence the startling close of the discourse, ‘Arise, let us go hence.’ Not merely, ‘Let us meanwhile arise, and leave this place that we may go to another where my discourse may be resumed;’ but, ‘Let us go: I have led you to the glorious places of abode in my Father’s house, and I have followed the world to its doom; I have traced the history of mankind to its close; it is over; arise, let us go hence. It is not easy to determine with certainty at what moment, or even in what place, the discourse which we have been considering was spoken. As to the latter point, indeed, the closing words of the chapter do not leave much doubt. Jesus and His disciples must still have been in the upper chamber where the Supper was instituted. The precise moment is more difficult to fix. Yet, when we turn to Luke 22:35-38, we find there words of Jesus so obviously connected with the topics handled here that we may, with great probability, suppose that both belong to the same period of that night. If so, the discourse in the present chapter was delivered after the Supper was instituted, and before our Lord rose from the table. We may further express our belief that the discourse in chaps, 15 and 16 was spoken in the same place, the difference being that during its delivery, as well as during the intercessory prayer of chap. 17, Jesus and His disciples stood. Not only is chap. John 18:1 (hardly permitting us to think of a ‘going forth’ till ‘after’ He had spoken these things’) favourable to this view, but it is extremely improbable that chaps. 15-17 could have been uttered on the way to Gethsemane. The tone of thought, too, in chaps. 15 and 16 appears to be in harmony with this conception of the circumstances. We shall see in the exposition how much more the idea of apostolic action and suffering comes out in these chapters than it does even in chap. 14. To this corresponded the attitude of rising and standing. The appropriate demands of the moment, therefore, and not any change of intention, led to our Lord’s still continuing in the upper room. He stands there with the solemnised group around Him. ‘I have given you,’ He would say by action as well as word, ‘My commission and My promise; let us be up and doing; there is still deeper meaning in the commission, still greater richness in the promise.’ We have already considered the circumstances under which the two chapters upon which we now enter were spoken; and, if we have been correct in the view taken of them, we are not to imagine that the first figure of chap. 15 was suggested by a vine seen at the moment on the slope of the temple mount, down which the Lord and His disciples were passing. It is equally improbable that it was suggested by a vine penetrating into the room where they were gathered together. Apart from all other considerations, it is enough to say that, at this season of the year, the vine was hardly far enough advanced to supply materials for the different illustrations used. The solemnity of the moment, the fulness of Old Testament thought which dwelt in the mind of Jesus, perhaps even a reminiscence of that ‘fruit of the vine’ of which they had all so recently partaken, are enough to account for the language with which our Lord begins this second part of His last discourse. It is of more importance to observe that it is distinguished from what goes before, not so much by presenting us with matter entirely new, as by applying the same line of instruction in an advanced form to the advanced position in which the disciples are supposed to be. In chap. 14 the main thought is that of the true union brought about by the apparent separation; the chief reference has been to personal experience; and the climax is reached in John 15:20; John 15:23. That is the preparation of the disciples for their work; they ‘are’ in Him, and He in them. The chief thought now is that of ‘abiding,’ and this abiding presupposes difficulty and trial. ‘Being’ in Him is life: ‘abiding’ in Him is life working, triumphing. It is the disciples working, then, that we have before us; and how well does this correspond to what we have already said of the standing attitude in which this discourse was most probably delivered. It will be observed that the advance from chap. 14 to chaps. 15 and 16 consists in the application of principles rather than in any change from one set of principles to another. The subordinate parts of the section are—(1) chap, 15, John 15:1-17; (2) John 15:18-27; (3) chap. 16, John 15:1-11; (4) John 15:12-15; (5) John 15:16-24; (6) John 15:25-27. John 15:2. Every branch in me which beareth not fruit, he taketh it away; and all that which beareth fruit, he cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit. Two parts of the husband man’s operations with his vine are here alluded to, the first that of taking away unfruitful branches. Any branch of the vine that is found, and as soon as it is found, to be not fruit-bearing is cut off. It is probable that the allusion is primarily to Judas (comp. chap. John 17:12), but thereafter to all of whom the traitor is the representative, who, taking their places for a time in the number of the disciples, prove by the result that they have no right to be there (comp. 1 John 2:19). They are branches of the vine; but, as only outward and carnal not inward and spiritual, they are taken away, their further fate being not yet mentioned. The second part of the husbandman’s work follows, that of pruning, for which the word cleansing, with its deeper meaning, is appropriately used. The object of the Father is the inward, spiritual, cleansing of His children, in contrast with the outward purifications of Israel (chaps. John 2:6, John 3:25); and the cleansing spoken of (which follows, not precedes, their fruit-bearing) is future and continuous. The means are afflictions, not of any kind but for the sake of Jesus, here especially the afflictions to which the disciples shall be exposed in doing their Master’s work, as He Himself ‘learned obedience by the things which He suffered.’ The attaining of this perfection is, however, a gradual process, and hence the words ‘that it may bear more fruit.’ It is possible that the ‘fruit’ to be borne may include all Christian graces, although it would seem as if the general growth of the Christian life were rather set forth in the growth and strengthening of the ‘branch.’ The considerations already adduced, and the whole strain of the discourse, lead us rather to understand by the ‘fruit’ now spoken of fruit borne in carrying on the work of Jesus in the world (comp. on John 15:16). John 15:3. Already are ye clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you. On ‘word,’ not ‘words,’ see on chap. John 14:24. The ‘ye’ is emphatic. They were pruned, they were ‘clean;’ and that ‘already,’ because they had already received the word which they were now, in their turn, to communicate. Jesus does not say that they are clean ‘through,’ but ‘because of the word which He had spoken unto them. They have heard (and received) the word of the Holy One of God,’ and because His word is in them they are clean. Thus are they fitted for imparting the means of a like cleansing to others. Not personal piety but Christian action is still in view, and still the ‘cleanness’ which they possess does not exclude the future and continuous cleansing. John 15:4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in me. Thus cleansed, one thing more is required, that they maintain their position, that they continue in the vine. It is the law of the branch that, if it is to flourish and bear fruit, there must be a constant and reciprocal action between it and the vine of which it is a part. This is expressed in the two clauses before us. He who will not abide in Christ cannot have Christ to abide in him. How much is made dependent upon the human will! John 15:5. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit; because apart from me ye can do nothing. The transition from John 15:4 to John 15:5 appears to be similar to that from chap. John 5:19-23 to chap. John 5:24,—a transition from the principle to its application to men. In substance the lesson is the same as before; and it has only to be distinctly observed that the words ‘ye can do nothing’ refer to the efforts of one already a believer. The state of faith is presupposed. John 15:6. If any one abide not in me he is cast forth as the branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they burn. ‘The branch’ here is simply ‘the branch’ of John 15:4, the branch considered in itself: the words ‘cast forth’ and ‘is withered’ are so used in the original as to denote the certainty, the immediateness, of the doom referred to: the last three verbs of the verse carry our thoughts to a later period than that to which the casting out and the withering belong. Instead of exhibiting beauty of leaf and bearing clusters of fruit, these branches shrivel up, die, and are consumed. It is to be observed that, although the branches spoken of are barren, it is not their barrenness that is the immediate thought here, but the fact that they do not abide in the vine. John 15:7. If ye abide in me, and my sayings abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto you. The sudden departure in this verse from the figure which our Lord had been employing is worthy of notice. A somewhat similar departure occurs at John 15:3, and in both cases it takes place in connection with a reference to the ‘word’ or ‘sayings’ of Jesus: these belong to living men. The thought that the ‘sayings’ of Jesus abide in us as the condition of blessedness is fundamentally the same as that expressed previously in John 15:3, ‘because of the word;’ the mode in which the word works is now more fully brought out. Still more worthy of notice is the fact that, in the latter part of the verse, where the asking is spoken of, the words ‘in My name’ do not occur; but in their place we find, ‘If ye abide in Me, and My sayings abide in you.’ This strikingly illustrates what we have already endeavoured to bring out, that ‘in My name’ implies a union with Jesus by faith, resting on a knowledge of and adherence to the revelation that He has given. The asking spoken of must be understood not in a general sense, but with a special reference to bearing fruit. Were this not the case the verse would be quite isolated. John 15:8. Herein was my Father glorified, that ye might bear much fruit and become my disciples. The last verse had expressed the highest and closest communion that can be established between the believer and the Father revealed in the Son,—a communion so high, so close, that the former asks whatsoever he will and it is done unto him. But that is the attainment of all God’s purposes, the issue of all His dealings, with His people. The ‘Herein’ of this verse is, accordingly, not to be explained by the words that follow, as if the meaning were that the glory of God is found in His appointing His people to bear much fruit and be disciples of Jesus. That is the result of His purpose rather than the purpose itself. The purpose is union, communion, fellow ship; and out of these flows an ever-increasing bearing of fruit (‘much fruit’), and an ever-growing conformity (‘become’ not ‘be’) of the believer with his Lord, alike in privilege and in life. Herein was my Father glorified belongs, therefore, to the previous verse,—to that abiding in Jesus, and that asking and receiving in Him, which expressed the purpose of the Father (comp. chap. John 14:13). At the point we have reached this is supposed to be accomplished, and as a consequence of such abiding fellowship with the Father and the Son comes the growing fruitfulness, the deepening discipleship, of those who are true branches of the fruitful vine. Hence the rendering ‘was glorified’ seems preferable to ‘is glorified,’ which we retain in chap. John 13:31. It is an ideal state of things with which we are dealing; and the much fruit and the discipleship referred to do not belong only to the present, but, like the ‘cleanness’ spoken of in John 15:3, are also future and continuous. John 15:9. Even as the Father loved me, I also loved you: abide in my love. By keeping in view what has been said on John 15:8 we shall understand the transition here to the thought of love. The main thought of that verse was, as we have seen, that of union and communion with the Father and the Son; but the main element of that communion is love,—love which flows forth from the Father to the Son, and then from the Son to the members of His body, thus forming that community of love so often spoken of in these chapters. In this love, then (it follows as a necessary consequence), we must ‘abide’ if we would experience its fruits. It is hardly necessary to say that ‘My love’ is the Lord’s love to His people, not theirs to Him. John 15:10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept the Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. The disciples have heard the words ‘abide in my love.’ How are they to do so? The words before us are an answer to the question; and they constitute a parallel to those which we have already met at John 14:20-21, only that now we read not merely of ‘being,’ but of ‘abiding,’ the characteristic word of this chapter. It is not simply the doing of special commandments that is thought of (comp. on chap. John 13:34), but a complete adoption of the Father‘s will by the Son and of the Son’s will by us: and this is not spoken of as a proof of love, but as the condition which makes continued love possible. The Father never ceases to love the Son, because the Son’s will is the expression of His own. The Son never ceases to love His disciples, because their will is the expression of His will; and without this harmony of will and act union and fellowship are impossible. John 15:11. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be fulfilled. ‘My joy’ must be interpreted in the same way as ‘My peace’ at chap, John 14:27. It is the joy which Jesus possessed as ‘anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows,’ which flowed from His uninterrupted possession of His Father’s love (John 15:9), which was ever and again renewed as He felt that He was accomplishing His Father’s will (John 15:10), which was crowned in that uninterrupted intercourse with His Father in which He asked and received whatsoever He desired (chap. John 11:42), and which filled His heart amidst all the trials and sorrows of His work on earth (comp. Luke 10:21). That very joy He will communicate to His disciples, and their joy will be then ‘fulfilled.’ Like Him who went before them, they shall ‘see of the travail of their soul and shall be satisfied.’ The arrangement of the words in the original of this verse, by which ‘my’ is brought into the closest juxtaposition with ‘in you,’ is worthy of notice (comp. chap. John 14:1; John 14:3). John 15:12. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, even as I loved you. The sum of what was to be said in this part of the discourse has been spoken. One point needs further elucidation—love. It is here enjoined and explained anew. The singular ‘commandment’ does not differ materially from the plural of Joh 15:10 (see on that verse, and comp. on chap. John 14:23-24). Jesus had loved them with a self-sacrificing love; and because He had so loved them He charges them to live in self-sacrificing love for one another. The ‘I loved you’ is not to be resolved into ‘I have loved you.’ As at chap. John 13:34, it is of His love brought back to their minds in His absence that He speaks. John 15:13. Greater love hath no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. How great His love which showed itself even unto death for them! They must imitate such love if they will ‘keep His commandment’ and exhibit His spirit. There is no contradiction between this statement and that in Romans 5:6-8. Enemies are not here in question. Jesus is alone with His friends, and one friend can give no greater proof of love to another than to die for him. The emphasis rests upon ‘lay down his life,’ not upon ‘friends.’ John 15:14. Ye are my friends, if ye do that which I command you. We have here no second motive to the exercise of brotherly love, based upon the obedience which the friends of Jesus are bound to render to Him. The emphatic ‘Ye’ shows clearly that Jesus would impress upon them with peculiar force that they were His friends. We must accordingly interpret in a manner similar to that applied at chap. John 14:15. The words describe a condition or state: ‘Ye are my friends for whom in love I lay down My life,’ and ye continue such in being led by the power of My love to lay down your lives for one another. This is your new and glorious state, for. John 15:15. No longer do I call you servants, because the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, because all things that I heard from my Father I made known unto you. At chap. John 13:16 Jesus had spoken of them as ‘servants;’ and (so closely connected with one another are the chapters which we are considering) we can hardly doubt that it is this very passage that He has now primarily in view. Then they had to learn the lesson of the foot-washing: now it is learned; and, animated by a self-sacrificing love like His, they are no longer ‘servants’ but ‘friends.’ In one sense, indeed, they would be always ‘servants’ (comp. John 15:20), and in the other writings of the New Testament we see that even some of those now listening, as well as Paul, delighted to appropriate to themselves the title (2 Peter 1:1; Revelation 1:1; Romans 1:1, etc.); but that is not their only relationship to their Lord. Nor are the two relationships inconsistent with one another. Rather may we say that the livelier our sense of the privilege of friendship the deeper will be our humility, and that the more truly we feel Jesus to be our ‘Lord and Master’ the more shall we be prepared to enter into the fulness of the privilege bestowed by Him. The evidence of this their state (or privilege) is given in the remainder of the verse. Jesus had kept nothing back from them of all that He their Lord was to ‘do;’ He had revealed to them all the will of God, in so far as it related to H is Own mission and theirs for the salvation of men. This was what He ‘heard’ from the Father, wits whose will His will was in such perfect unison that what He heard He did (comp. chap. John 5:30); and now, in the familiarity, the confidence, the fondness, of friendship He makes it known to them. John 15:16. Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go away and bear fruit, and that your fruit should abide. But He had not taught them merely to fill their minds with knowledge. He had ‘heard’ from the Father that He might ‘do.’ They ‘hear’ that they may ‘do’ also. As the Father, having taught, had sent Him, so He, having taught, sends them. He had ‘chosen’ them—a choice having here nothing to do with eternal predestination, but only with choosing them out of the world after they were in it. He had ‘appointed’ them, had put them into the position which they were to occupy on their post of duty. The manner in which their post is described is important. It is by the word ‘go away,’ the word so often used of Jesus Himself in this part of the Gospel. They were to ‘go away;’ that is, they had a departure to make as well as He. This can be nothing else but their going out into the world to take His place, to produce fruit to the glory of the Father, and to return with that fruit to their Father’s house. How manifest is it that here again we have to do with the fruits of active Christian labour, not of private Christian life! That whatsoever ye ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. This is the culminating-point of the climax, taking us to the thought of that intimacy of communion with the Father which secures the answer to all our prayers, and the supply of all our needs. Three times now have we met in this discourse the promise just given, and the attentive reader will easily perceive the interesting gradation in the circumstances in which those to whom it is successively given are supposed to be. At John 14:12-13, they are viewed simply as believers; at John 15:7, they ‘abide in Christ, and His sayings abide in them;’ now they have ‘gone away,’ and have borne abiding fruit. To each stage of Christian living and working the same promise in words belongs, but the fulness included in the words is dependent in each case on the amount of need to be supplied. It may be questioned how we are to understand the second ‘that’ of this verse, whether as co-ordinate to the first ‘that,’ and so, like it, dependent on ‘I have chosen you,’ or as expressing a consequence of their bringing forth abiding fruit in their work of Christian love. The latter is undoubtedly to be preferred. Jesus chooses out His disciples for work first, for correspondingly higher privilege afterwards; and those who faithfully bear fruit are here assured that in this sphere of fruit-bearing with all its difficulties, and temptations, and trials, they shall want nothing to impart courage, boldness, hope, to make them overcome the world, as He Himself overcame it. John 15:17. These things I command you, that ye may love one another. A verse characteristic of the structure of this Gospel, forming like chap. John 5:30 at once a summary (to a large extent) of what has preceded, and a transition to what follows. All the great truths spoken by Jesus are intended to promote that which is the truest expression of the Divine, that which is the real ground and end of all existence—love. On the other hand, again, the mutual love of believers is that armour of proof in which they shall be able best to withstand the hatred of the world. John 15:18. If the world hateth you, know that it hath hated me before it hated you. It is the active work of the disciples that has been before us in the preceding verses, but that work always has provoked, and always will provoke the world’s hatred. In such a prospect, therefore, there is need for strength; and strength is given by means of truth presented in one of the double pictures of our Gospel,—the first extending to the close of chap. 15, the second to chap. John 16:15. First of all, in that hatred which they shall certainly experience, let them behold a proof that, engaged in their Master’s service, they are really filling their Master’s place; and let them feel that the trials that befell Him ought surely to be no ‘strange thing’ to them. Their Master, their Friend, their Redeemer trod the same path as that which they must tread. What thought could be more touching or more full of comforting and ennobling influences? John 15:19. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hateth you. The word ‘of’ here calls attention to the root from which one springs. Did the world behold in them its own offspring, it would love them; they would be its own. The rule is universal and needed no farther exposition; but they were not ‘of’ the world, they were born of a new and higher birth, they had even like their Master to bear witness of the world that its works were evil, and therefore it must hate them as it hated Him (comp. John 7:7, and 1 Kings 22:8). John 15:20. Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord: if they persecuted me, they will persecute you also; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. The word referred to had been spoken at chap. John 13:16, in an apparently different sense, but really, alike there and here, with the same deep oneness of meaning. The disciples are in the position of their Master, are one with Him; therefore are they bound to the same duties and exposed to the same trials. The parallelism between the ‘word’ of Jesus and that of His disciples is instructive. Lying at the bottom of all the language here employed is the great truth that what He has been they are to be. John 15:21. But all these things will they do unto you because of my name, because they know not him that sent me. Their sufferings shall not only be like those of Jesus, but ‘because of His name,’ because of all that is involved in His Person and work—the Person and the work which they continually hold forth to men. The latter part of the verse contains at once an explanation of the world’s folly and guilt, and a striking comment upon the fulness of meaning involved in the word ‘name.’ It is because the world knows not God that it hates alike the Son and His disciples. It thinks that it knows God, it has even a zeal for His worship; but the spirituality of His nature, the love which is the essence of His being, it does not know; it turns from them and hates them when they are revealed in their true character; how can it do otherwise than hate One who is the very expression of that spirituality and love; and, hating Him, how can it fail to hate those who continue His work? John 15:22. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. But in so doing the world is without excuse. Its unbelief, with all that hatred of the disciples to which it led, is its own deliberate act, its ground of condemnation at the bar of God, to be in due time the terrible ground of its own self-condemnation. Everything had been done, alike by the word and the works (John 15:24) of Jesus, to lead it to the truth and to a better mind. The revelation of the Father, given by the Son, was not only the highest that could be given, it was such that it ought to have found an answer in that voice which even in the heart of the world echoes to the Divine voice. That it did not do so was the world’s sin,—a sin self-chosen, without ground, without excuse. There is not merely instruction, there is also consolation to the persecuted followers of Jesus in the thought. John 15:23. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. Nay more, in hating Jesus the world was also setting itself against that very God whom it professed to honour. It was really hating not the Son only but His Father whom He revealed. This was the disastrous issue of its course of action! Not they who inflicted suffering, but they who suffered, were the conquerors. John 15:24. If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they would not have sin; but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. Jesus had spoken in John 15:22 of his ‘words’ as sufficient to deprive the world of all excuse in rejecting and hating Him. He now turns to His ‘works’ as effecting the same end. The words of Jesus were the Father’s words as well as His own (chap. John 3:34); of the same character are the ‘works,’ which here, as elsewhere, are not to be confined to miracles. They include all that Jesus did, and their appeal had been to the same internal eye which ought to have seen the force and beauty of the ‘word.’ But that eye the world had closed, and for the same reason as before, so that it was again without excuse. John 15:25. But this cometh to pass, that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. The quotation is in all probability from Psalms 69:4, with which Psalms 35:19; Psalms 109:3 may be compared. On the ‘fulfilment’ spoken of see what has already been said on chaps, John 2:17 and John 12:38. The quotation is made for the purpose of bringing out the aggravated guilt of those who were rejecting Jesus. They had condemned their fathers because of the persecutions to which God’s Righteous Servant of old had been exposed: yet they ‘filled up the measure of their fathers.’ Their pride and carnal dependence upon outward descent from Abraham blinded their eyes to the distinction between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and made them do what they acknowledged in the light of Divine truth, of Scriptures which they honoured, to be worthy of condemnation in their own fathers. Light is thus thrown upon the words ‘their law,’ which become the Fourth Gospel rendering of Mat 23:30. The very law of which the Jews boasted, and into which, from imagined reverence for it, they were continually searching,—in that very law they might see themselves. In such a connection of thought might it not he called ‘their law’? John 15:26-27. When the Advocate is come, whom I will send onto you from the Father, the Spirit of the truth, which goeth forth from the Father, he will hear witness concerning me, and ye also bear witness, because from the beginning ye are with me. Up to this point Jesus had encouraged His disciples by the assurance that they shall be strengthened to overcome whatever hatred and opposition from the world they shall have to encounter in the performance of their work. Now He further assures them that this is not all. They shall not merely meet the world unshaken by all that it can do: they shall also receive a Divine power, in the possession of which they shall bear a joyful and triumphant witness even in the midst of suffering. The Advocate shall be with them, and with them in a manner adapted to that stage of progress which they are thought of as having reached. In the promise of the Advocate here given there is an advance upon that of chap. John 14:16; John 14:26. In the latter passage the promise had been connected with the training of the disciples for their work; in the present it is connected with the execution of the work. First of all, the Advocate ‘will bear witness’ concerning Jesus, will perform that work of witnessing which belongs to heralds of the Cross. But He will do this in them. We are not to imagine that His is an independent work, carried on directly in the world, and apart from the instrumentality of the disciples. It is true that there is a general influence of the Holy Spirit by which He prepares the ear to hear and the eye to see—such an influence as that with which He wrought in Judaism and even in heathenism; but that is not the influence of which Jesus speaks in the words before us. It is a specific influence, the power of the Spirit, to which He refers—that influence which, exerted through Himself when He was upon the earth, is now exerted through the members of His Body. In the two last verses of this chapter, therefore, we have not two works of witnessing, the first that of the Advocate, the second that of the disciples. We have only one,—outwardly that of the disciples, inwardly that of the Advocate. Hence the change of tense from the future to the present when Jesus speaks of ‘ye,’—the Advocate ‘will bear witness, ye bear witness.’ The two witnessings are not on parallel lines, but on the same line, the former coming to view only in and by the latter, into which the power of the former is introduced. Hence also the force of the emphatic ‘Ye.’ The personality and freedom of the disciples does not disappear under this operation of the Advocate; they do not become mechanical agents, but retain their individual standing; they are still men, only higher than they could otherwise have been. Hence, finally, the reason assigned for the part given to the disciples in the work; they are from the beginning ‘with Jesus,’ with Him as partners and fellow-workers; and this ‘from the beginning,’ that is, from the beginning which belongs to the subject in hand—the beginning of His ministry. The 26th verse of this chapter (John 15:26) is often thought to be of great importance in regard to the doctrine of the ‘Procession’ of the Holy Spirit, the Greek Church finding in it its leading argument for maintaining that that ‘Procession’ is only from the Father, not from the Son. So far as this text is concerned, the question resolves itself into the further one, Is Jesus here speaking of the Person or of the office of the Advocate, of the source of His being or of His operation? Attention to the preposition used with ‘the Father’ ought at once to decide this point. It is ‘from’ not ‘out of’ that is employed: it is of office and operation, not of being and essence, that Jesus speaks (comp. chaps. John 1:6; John 1:14, John 7:29, John 9:16, John 10:18, John 16:27, John 17:8). The words ‘which goeth forth from the Father’ are not intended to express any metaphysical relation between the First and Third Persons of the Trinity, but to lead our thoughts back to the fact that, as it is the distinguishing characteristic of Jesus that He comes from the Father, so One of like Divine power and glory is now to take His place. The same words ‘from the Father’ are again added to ‘I will send,’ because the Father is the ultimate source from which the Spirit as well as the Son ‘goes forth,’ and really the Giver of the Spirit through the Son who asks for Him (comp. chap. John 14:16). In the power of this Spirit, therefore, the connection of the disciples with the Father will, in the time to come, be not less close, and their strength from the Father not less efficacious, than it had been while Jesus was Himself beside them. The emphasis on the ‘I’ of ‘I will send’ ought not to pass unnoticed. It is as if Jesus would say, ‘You tremble at the prospect of my going away, you fear that you will be desolate, but it is not so. I will not forget you; I will be to you, through the Spirit, all that I have been; I will send the Advocate to be in you and by your side.’ Could more be necessary to sustain them? The consolation offered reaches here its culminating point; but all has yet to be made clearer, fuller, more impressive; and to effect this, not to introduce new teaching, our Lord proceeds to what we have spoken of as the second of the double pictures of this part of His discourse. John 16:1. These things have I spoken unto you, that ye may not be made to stumble. The ‘things’ referred to are especially those described in chap. John 15:18-27, and the verse is a pause (not the introduction of a new idea) before the same subject is resumed: there is no change either of circumstances or of topic: the difference between this passage and the earlier is simply one climax. John 16:1-6 correspond to John 15:18-25 : John 16:7-11, to John 16:26-27 of the same chapter. The word ‘make to stumble’ is used in this Gospel only in one other passage, John 6:61. It points to the danger of having faith and constancy shaken by trial instead of standing firm in allegiance to Jesus, whatever might be the difficulties encountered in His service. John 16:2. They shall put you out of the synagogues; yea, an hour cometh that every one that killeth you should think that he offereth service unto God. It is of Jews that Jesus speaks, and the figure is therefore naturally taken from Jewish customs; but opposition on the part of Jews is in these discourses the type of all opposition to the truth. On the severity of the trial alluded to in the first clause of the verse, see on chap. John 9:22. Yet not merely excommunication but death in every one of its varied forms shall be their portion. Nay, they shall even be regarded by their murderers as a sacrifice to be offered to God; they shall be slain as a part of the worship due to Him. ‘Every one who sheds the blood of the impious is as if he offered a sacrifice,’ is said to have been a Jewish maxim. Not in indifference only or in lightness of spirit shall they be slain, to make a Jewish or a Roman holiday, when perhaps their fate might be mourned over in soberer hours, but in such a manner that those who slay them shall return from the scene as men who have engaged in what they believe will gain for them the favour of heaven. It is impossible to imagine a darker picture of fanaticism. Yet the picture is heightened by the mention of ‘an hour,’ an hour laden with the divine purpose, which must ‘come’ to them as it had come to Jesus Himself. John 16:3. And these things will they do, because they know not the Father, nor me. The root of the opposition as formerly spoken of, chap. John 15:21. John 16:4. But these things have I spoken unto you, that, when their hour is come, ye may remember them, that I told you. The analogy of such passages as chaps. John 2:22, John 12:16, John 14:26, seems to show that the ‘remembering’ here spoken of is not an effort of memory alone. It involves the deeper insight given by experience and the teaching of the Spirit into the meaning and purpose of trial in the economy of grace. The disciples shall so remember that they shall have a fresh insight into the mystery of the Cross. Nay more, they shall learn to feel themselves peculiarly identified with their Lord. As there was an ‘hour’ in which His enemies were permitted to rage against Him, an hour which was theirs (Luke 23:53), so there is an hour again given them when they shall rage against the preachers of the truth (comp. John 16:2). And these things I told you not from the beginning, because I was with you. Had Jesus, then, not told them these things in the earliest period of His ministry? It is often urged that passages such as Matthew 5:10; Matthew 9:15; Matthew 10:16, show us that He had, and that it is impossible to reconcile these with the words before us. Yet we have only to put ourselves into the position of our Lord and His disciples in order to see that there is no contradiction. It is not merely that He now speaks, or that they now understand, with greater clearness than before. His ‘going away’ is an essential part of ‘these things,’ and with it all that He now says is so connected that it has its meaning only in the light of that departure. He could not then have so spoken ‘from the beginning,’ for the simple reason that He was not then going away. General allusions to their coming sufferings there might be and were. But that they would have to take His place, and, in doing so, to find that His trials were their trials, He had never said. That solemn lesson was connected only with the present moment, when their training was completed, and they were to be sent forth to be as He had been. John 16:5-6. But now I go away to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou away? But because I have spoken these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. It was in the joyful consciousness that His ‘going away’ was really a going to the Father, that Jesus had been speaking. But the disciples had not sufficiently considered this. They Had looked upon His departure simply as a departure from themselves, and had failed to enter into all the glorious consequences connected with it. Thus they had been overwhelmed with sorrow. It is true that, at chap. John 13:36, Peter had asked—‘Whither goest Thou away?’ But he had done this with no sufficient thought of the ‘Whither’: the parting, not the goal to which Jesus went, had been in his mind. It was with no proper sense of its real meaning, therefore, that the question had been put. The suitable words might have been used, but not with the spirit and feeling which they ought to have expressed. This state of mind, not the failing to use certain words, is that which Jesus has now in view, and to which He refers with a certain sadness before He points out (as He does in the following verses) that, truly considered, His departure was not less a cause of rejoicing to His disciples than it was to Himself (comp. chaps. John 16:22, John 17:13). John 16:7. Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Advocate will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. Sorrow filled the hearts of the disciples at the thought of the departure of their Lord. Now, therefore, in these His crowning teachings, not only must their sorrow be dispelled, but they must be sent forth with the joyful assurance that, so far from His departure’s being a just cause of sadness, it is rather that which shall secure to them the most glorious strength in their conflict with the world, and the final possession of the victory. The great truths set forth, then, in the deeply-important verses on which we now enter are: (1) That the departure of Jesus is the indispensable condition of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit; (2) That through such bestowal the world with which the disciples must contend shall become to them not only a conquered, but a self-convicted, foe. The first of these truths comes before us in John 16:7, the second in John 16:8-11. The first thing to be observed in the former verse is that in it, along with John 16:5, no fewer than three different words are used to express the idea of ‘going away’ or ‘going.’ Between the first two there is probably little difference, although the second may bring less markedly into view than the first the mere thought of departure. The third, in the words ‘if I go,’ is distinguished from both of them in that it distinctly expresses not so much the thought of departure as that of going to the Father (comp. chaps. John 14:2-3; John 14:12; John 14:28, John 16:28). The glorification of Jesus, then, is here clearly in view; and this passage teaches the same lesson as chap. John 7:39, that upon that glorification the bestowal of the power of the Spirit was dependent (comp. on chap. John 7:39). Not that the Holy Spirit had been given in no degree before. He had certainly wrought in Judaism, and had even been the Author of all the good that had ever appeared in heathenism: but He had not been given in power, had not been the essential characteristic of an era in which He had made only scattered and isolated manifestations of His influences. It was to be different now. The era to begin was the era of the Spirit, in which He was to breathe a new life into the world. Various reasons may be assigned why this gift of the Spirit could be bestowed only after Jesus was glorified; but we omit them for the sake of that which seems to us the main consideration upon the point. The end of all God’s dealings with man is that he shall be brought into the closest and most perfect union with Himself, and that, in order to this, He shall be spiritualised and glorified. This is effected through Him who took human nature into union with the Divine, and the end of whose course is not the Incarnation, but His being made ‘the first-born’ among many brethren so spiritualised, so glorified. Only, therefore, when this end is reached is Jesus, as not only Son of God but Son of man (chap. John 3:14-15), in full possession of the Spirit: only then is He so set free from the conflicts and the troubles of the time of His ‘sufferings’ (Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 5:8) that His Own spiritual power and glory are illimitable and unconditioned; only then can He bestow in His fulness that Spirit which, as the essential characteristic of His Own final, perfect state, is to raise us to the similar end which the purpose of God contemplates with regard to us. In this sense the Holy Spirit not only was not but could not be given so long as Jesus was on earth, unglorified. But then, when, as Son of man glorified, and still, because Son of man, in closest fellowship with us who are men, He should have in Himself all the power of the Spirit,—then would He be able—and how could they who knew His love doubt that He would be willing?—to pour forth upon His disciples that ‘Spirit of glory and of God’ which should make them more than conquerors over all their adversaries. Surely it was ‘expedient’ for them that He should ‘go away,’ and, in going away, ‘go’ to the Father. Nay, it was better for them that He should ‘go away’ than that He should remain; for not only was this fulness of the Spirit connected with His glorified condition, but the disciples, instead of leaning upon Him as they had done, would gain all that strengthening of character which flows from working ourselves rather than having work done for us by another. John 16:8. And he, when he is come, will convict the world concerning sin, and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment. The Agent has been spoken of; we now enter upon His work, and the climax from chap. John 15:26, where the same aspect of the Spirit ‘s work is spoken of, is clearly perceptible. We are not to understand by the word ‘convict’ either simply ‘reprove’ or ‘convince.’ It is much more than both, and implies that answer of conscience to the reproving convincing voice, by which a man condemns himself (chaps. John 3:20, John 8:26). The word ‘concerning’ also is not the same as ‘of.’ The inference to be drawn from these considerations (comp. also on chap. John 14:30-31) is that in the conviction of the world here spoken of its conversion is not necessarily implied. Conversion may or may not follow for anything here stated. The promise now given to the disciples is not that they shall convert the world, but that it shall be silenced, self - condemned, overwhelmed with shame and confusion of face. The Judge of all the earth is upon their side; He will judge for them. John 16:9-11. Concerning sin, because they believe not in me: and concerning righteousness, because I go away to the Father, and ye no longer behold me: and concerning judgment, because the prince of this world hath been judged. The general work of conviction to be effected by the Spirit having been stated in John 16:8, the several particulars are next explained more fully. The point of view from which all are to be looked at is that of the controversy with the world in which Jesus had Himself been engaged. So long as He was on the earth this controversy was left unsettled; but after His departure, His disciples, in the power of the promised Advocate, shall bring it to a triumphant issue. The first part of that controversy had reference to sin. The world had cast on Jesus the imputation of sin (chaps. John 5:18, John 7:20, etc.); and, on the other hand, His whole work and life had been first directed to bring the charge of sin home to the world. But the world had no just idea of what sin was. It thought of gross violations of the Divine law, or of violations of positive religious ceremonial: of sin in its true sense, not only as a departure from truth and love, but as even a failing to recognise and welcome these with all the affection of the heart and devotion of the life, it had no idea. Hence the work here spoken of—the work of Him who was at once the Advocate of Jesus and of His disciples. He shall convict the world of wrong in its estimate of Jesus, and thus also in its estimate of itself. He shall bring home to the world the fact that it believed not in Jesus, did not trust itself to Him as the impersonation of Divine truth and love, and that in this lay sin. Nay, not only so, the world shall learn that in this lies the very essence and root of all sin, for it is really a rejection of the Father manifested in Jesus—it is hating the light and choosing darkness (chap. John 3:21, etc.). Thus it was unnecessary to speak of other sins: this was the crowning sin, inclusive of them all. The second part of the controversy of Jesus with the world had reference to righteousness;—in what righteousness really lay, what the true nature of righteousness was. The world boasted of its righteousness; in its form as the Jewish world it was proud of its fathers, of its outward inheritance from them, and of itself. Jesus had pronounced that righteousness to be worthless (Matthew 5:20, etc.). Again, which of them is right? The Advocate, working in the disciples, shall decide the controversy in such a manner that the world shall be silenced. He will bring home to it the truth that, notwithstanding its rejection of Jesus, the Father has received Him, and has set His seal upon Him as His Righteous One. Hence the last words of Joh 16:10, ‘because I go away unto the Father, and ye no longer behold me,’—words which do not seem to mean that the realm of faith shall henceforth be the abiding state of the kingdom of God on earth, and the home of the righteousness which is of faith, but which appear simply to give expression to that removal from the bodily sight of the disciples which is the essential concomitant of the glorifying. They gently explain that what brought such grief to those who were now to be separated from their Lord was the very means of accomplishing the great purpose that the Father had in view—the settlement of the controversy as to His Son, and the manifestation of what the Son really was. It is interesting to notice how the disciples, at a time when the work of conviction here spoken of had begun, dwell upon that characteristic of Jesus which is thus referred to (Acts 3:14; Acts 7:52; Acts 22:14; Romans 1:1, etc.). The third part of the work of conviction is that of judgment; and it has reference to the same controversy to which, as we have seen, the two previous parts of the work of the Spirit are related. The world had judged Jesus; but He, on the other hand, had judged the world; and His judgment would be proved to be just when the Advocate should enable the disciples to bring home to the world that it was founded upon eternal reality and truth. ‘The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life’ were now the objects of the world’s ambition and pursuit; but a day was coming when it should be compelled to acknowledge a different standard of judgment; when it should discover, with terror and dismay, that its past standard had been altogether false; that what it had approved was passing away; that what it had despised was abiding for ever. Then should it see that its very prince had been judged in a manner against which there was no appeal, and that, instead of being the conqueror, he had throughout been the conquered. Then should the world be constrained to confess that it had been madly attempting to reverse the position of the everlasting scales, and had been foiled in the attempt. Such, then, is the great work of the Holy Spirit upon the world during the whole period that was to pass between the departure of Jesus to His Father and His coming again in glory. It will be observed that it is the same work which Jesus had Himself carried on, that is now completed by the ‘other’ Advocate. The difference does not lie so much in the nature as in the effect of the work: to the one period belongs the beginning of the controversy; to the other, the final decision. It is also clear that the conviction spoken of is to be understood in the same sense throughout. It is not primarily a work of conversion (although it may lead to conversion) that is referred to: it is a work that confounds and overwhelms the world when, as God gives His judgments unto the King and His righteousness unto the King’s Son, ‘they that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before Him, and His enemies shall lick the dust’ (Psalms 72:9). That work is the glory of the Church of Christ as she takes her Master’s place in the world; and, when she remembers that it could not be done, did not the exalted Redeemer send down to her His all-powerful Spirit, she may well feel that it was ‘expedient for her that He should go away.’ John 16:12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Jesus is about to draw His instructions and consolations to a close. He does so by returning to the great promise of the Spirit already given in chap. John 14:26. Yet there is a difference between the promise there and here; and the difference, as usual, is one of climax. Teaching of a higher kind is now to be referred to, for the element of experience comes in. It is not enough to have been taught by Jesus Himself. The disciples were to take their Master’s place, and to carry on His work. The Spirit, then, who had been His strength, must be also theirs. Thus it is not so much new teaching that they need as the old teaching in a new way, brought home to their hearts with a new power. It is, indeed, often supposed that the ‘many things’ here spoken of refer to new truths. This seems improbable. We can hardly suppose that Jesus had left any large part of His revelation not given, especially when He had so often spoken of the revelation of ‘the Father,’ as if it contained the sum and substance of religious truth. Besides this, we have already seen that in the words of Jesus ‘all things’ are implicitly contained (comp. on chap. John 14:26). And, further, the word ‘bear’ does not mean to apprehend; it is to bear as a burden, and the most glorious and encouraging truths may become a burden to one too immature to bear them. Not, therefore, because the disciples could not in a certain sense even now understand further revelation, but because they had not yet the Christian experience to give that revelation power, does Jesus say that they cannot bear the many things that He has yet to say unto them. When shall they, or when shall the Church, be able to understand them? The answer is, When at any stage of their or her future history the ‘many things’ are needed, and so may have their power felt. But just because of this they need not be, as the whole context teaches us they are not to be, new truths. They are old truths made new, expanded, unfolded (as we see especially in the Epistles of Paul), illumined by receiving light from the lessons of history, when these are read in the spirit of Christian trust and confidence and hope, but not wholly new. There will not be in them one revelation, strictly so called, that was not in the words of Jesus Himself: but their ever greater depths shall be seen as the relations of the Church and of the world respectively become more complex. It has been so in the past: it will be so in the future. There is no reason to think that the treasure in the words of Jesus will ever be exhausted: it contains, according to the seeming paradox of the apostle, what we are ‘to know,’ although it ‘passeth knowledge’ (Ephesians 3:19). This is the true development of Christian insight and experience, not the false development of Rome. John 16:13. But when he is come, the Spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth: for he will not speak from himself; but whatsoever things he shall hear, he will speak: and he will declare to you the things that are coming. These words lend strong confirmation to what has been said on the previous verse. For this work of the Spirit is evidently different from that of chap. John 14:16; John 14:26, or chaps, John 15:26, John 16:7; the first pair of these passages relating to preparation for the work, the second to the discharge of its duties, while this relates to something to be given in the midst of these duties and their corresponding trials. Further, ‘He shall guide’ implies not merely that He shall show the way, but that He shall Himself experimentally go before them in the way (Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39; Acts 8:31; Revelation 7:17). It will thus be observed that we are again led to think, not of new revelation, but of earlier teaching deepened by experience. The view now taken is strengthened by two important particulars in this verse:—(1) The unexpected use of ‘for’ in the clause ‘for He shall not speak from Himself.’ This word, so closely binding the clauses together, makes it plain that ‘all the truth’ can be nothing else than the truth of which Jesus was the Proclaimer: ‘all the truth,’ He would say, ‘which I have proclaimed, of which I am Myself the substance (chap. John 14:6). He will guide you, for it is not from Himself that He will speak: He comes as My Representative, not for new and independent offices of grace: He will carry on My work.’ (2) When it is said, He hears, we are not told whence He hears. It is possible that it may be from the Father; but when we call to mind that the unity of the Father and the Son is a leading thought in this discourse (comp. chap. John 14:23), particularly in relation to the sending of the Spirit (comp. chap. John 14:26, and especially chap. John 15:26), it seems highly probable that the mention of the Source whence the Spirit hears is designedly omitted. Thus we are led to think not of the Father only, but of the Father and the Son, and again the revelation given is bounded by what Jesus has Himself revealed. The last clause of the verse may indeed, at first sight, appear inconsistent with this view. Are not ‘the things to come’ new revelations? We answer that in no strict sense of the words are they so. Even should we suppose that Jesus speaks of such things as ‘the things to come’ of the Apocalypse (chap. John 1:19), these properly interpreted are not so much revelations wholly new, as new applications of what had already been revealed, and in particular of that very controversy between the Church and the world of which the mind of Jesus was now full. ‘The things that are coming’ are the things that happen when ‘He who is to come’ begins in the power of His Spirit the great conflict carried on throughout all the ages of the Christian Church in her militant condition; and the whole verse thus refers not to new revelations, but to revelations made new by the teaching of Christian experience. John 16:14. He shall glorify me, because of that which is mine will he receive and will declare it unto you. On the glorifying of Jesus here spoken of, see on chap. John 13:31. This glory will be given Him by the powerful working of the Holy Spirit in the Church, because that which the Spirit applies for the ever increasing growth and efficiency of the Church is only a fuller unfolding of ‘the unsearchable riches of Christ.’ To Him as the Alpha and Omega of our faith, and never beyond Him, the Spirit leads us. John 16:15. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I that he receiveth of that which is mine, and will declare it unto you. It is of Himself as Son of man as well as Son of God, not of Himself only as the Eternal Son, that Jesus speaks. In that capacity ‘all things whatsoever’ had been given Him by the Father. Therefore might He well say in the previous verse that, in leading His disciples onward to the ultimate goal of the Divine purposes, the Spirit would do this by receiving and declaring of that which was His. What was so received and declared would not fall short, therefore, of leading them into the highest truth—the truth as to ‘the Father.’ John 16:16. A little while, and ye behold me no longer; and again a little while, and ye shall see me. Trial has been spoken of and encouragement given. That both shall soon be known is the transition to the present verse. The difference between the verbs ‘behold’ and ‘see’ must determine the meaning of the words, the former here denoting (as in chap. John 14:19) vision with the bodily, the latter vision with the spiritual, eye. The time closing the first ‘little while’ is the death of Christ, when ‘not beholding’ begins; the time closing the second ‘little while’ dates from the resurrection, when the ‘seeing’ begins and continues for ever (comp. chap. John 14:19). After the death of their Lord the disciples shall be in the position of the world (chap. John 13:13); under the saddening influence of that event their faith shall wane, and all the joy experienced in His presence shall disappear. But He whom they had thought lost for ever shall enter at His resurrection on a glorified existence, from which He shall send to them that Advocate in whom and through whom He shall be always with them, and they with Him. John 16:17-18. Some of his disciples therefore said one to another, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while and ye behold me not: and again a little while, and ye shall see me: and, I go away to the Father? They said therefore. What is this which he calleth, A little while? We know not what he speaketh. Their perplexity is natural, and it is occasioned not only by the last words actually used by Jesus, but by what had been so prominent a point in the previous part of His discourse, that He was going away to the Father (John 16:10). They fear, however, to ask a direct explanation from their Lord, and some of them discuss the matter among themselves. John 16:19. Jesus perceived that they were desirous to ask him, and he said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves concerning this that I said, A little while, and ye behold me not: and again a little while, and ye shall see me? He entered at once into their difficulties, and proceeded to explain more fully what he meant, not indeed dwelling most upon the ‘little while,’ but upon the great and sudden contrasts of mind to be experienced by them, and previously hinted at in the words ‘behold’ and ‘see.’ John 16:20. Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice: ye will be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. The one is the result of the ‘not beholding,’ the other of the ‘seeing.’ John 16:21. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow because her hour is come; but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no longer the tribulation for her joy that a man is born into the world. An illustration of what had been said familiar to all, but drawn out of the very heart of Old Testament life and feeling (Isaiah 21:3; Isaiah 26:17; Isaiah 66:7; Psalms 128:3; Ezekiel 19:10). Yet there is more in the language than meets the eye at first sight, and its peculiarities form a valuable proof of the correctness of the interpretation given above by the twice repeated ‘little while.’ For why (1) the expression her ‘hour’ is come, but because the crucifixion was the ‘hour’ of Jesus, that of His deepest sorrow and the sorrow of His disciples? And why (2) the use of the word ‘man’ instead of child, when it is said ‘a man is born into the world,’ but because that which is brought forth in tribulation is the new birth of regenerated humanity, and because that new life with which the Church springs into being is life in a risen Lord (Ephesians 2:5), and carries us back to the moment when Jesus Himself rose from the grave? John 16:22. And ye therefore now have sorrow; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one taketh away from you. At John 16:19 Jesus had said ‘ye shall see me,’ but now He says ‘I will see you.’ It is the blessed reciprocity of intercourse between Him and His own. From the moment of the resurrection He will see them, and they shall see Him, and shall rise to the full brightness of that position to which He elevates His people. Nor will this ‘seeing’ terminate with the ascension, for it is their spiritual vision that is mainly thought of. In the power of the Spirit He will see them and they Him, and they shall rejoice with a triumphant and abiding joy. John 16:23-24. And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name. Hitherto ye asked nothing in my name; ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be fulfilled. The two verbs here rendered ‘ask a question’ and ‘ask’ are different; and though the former may be used of prayer when our Lord ‘asks’ the Father (chap. John 17:9; John 17:15; John 17:20), it seems impossible to separate the use of ‘ask a question’ in John 16:23 from its use in John 16:19 and again in John 16:30, in both which passages it refers to asking information upon points occasioning perplexity to the mind. The declaration of Jesus thus is, that in the day when the joy of the disciples is perfected they will not need to feel that they must have Him beside them to solve their difficulties. They will then be so entirely in Him, one with Him, that along with Him they will have such a full knowledge from the Holy Spirit—a knowledge belonging to His ‘day’—as will exclude the need of such questions. But this full knowledge will do more. If it restrains the questioning of ignorance, it at the same time opens their eyes to see better all their true need, and the source from which it shall be supplied. Therefore, not in a spirit of curious questioning but in a spirit of perfect trust let them approach the Father, for He will give to them ‘in the name’ of Jesus. He has revealed Himself to them in Jesus as their Father; He has made them in Him His own sons; therefore shall they receive as sons, and nothing shall be awanting to the fulfilment of their joy. John 16:25. These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs; an hour cometh when I shall no longer speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall tell you plainly concerning the Father. Jesus is now about to close His last discourse. At this point, accordingly, He refers to the method of teaching, of which He was giving them illustration at the moment, for the purpose of bringing out by contrast the glory of the period upon which the disciples were about to enter. On the word ‘proverbs,’ comp. on chap. John 10:6. The contrast suggested is not between figurative and direct speech, or between enigmatical and clear sayings. Jesus had used few figures, and He had taught with the utmost simplicity and plainness of language. But the effect of His teaching had depended upon the authority of the Teacher, not on the spiritual insight of the pupil. The Teacher alone had Himself ‘seen’ what He described (chap. John 6:46), and it had been His aim to make His pupils understand it. Now, however, that stage of instruction was to come to a close, and the pupils, in ripened manhood, were themselves under the direct teaching of the Spirit to ‘see.’ That this is the case, is clear from the fact that the ‘hour’ of John 16:25 and the ‘day’ of John 16:26 were an hour and a day when Jesus was to be personally removed from His disciples, and when the ‘Spirit of the truth’ was to take His place. The contrast, therefore, between ‘in proverbs’ and ‘plainly’ is to be sought in the difference between outward teaching of every kind and that internal teaching which comes from the illuminating influence of the Spirit of God, and which is the best, the only true, teaching. The Spirit shall be given after Jesus goes away, and the disciples shall see in their own free and independent insight what as yet they received only upon the authority of their Master. John 16:26-27. In that day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you, That I will ask the Father concerning you: for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father.In these words, which may be spoken of as the last words of this discourse before Jesus turns to its closing thoughts, the encouragement that He would give to His disciples reaches its highest point. They are assured that they shall stand in such unity of love with the Father that the Father shall embrace them in constant affection as His sons, that they as sons shall approach directly to Him as their Father; and that in that intercourse there shall come to them every blessing which the fulness of Divine love can supply. The verse will best be understood by contrasting it with the words of chap. John 14:16. There Jesus had said that He would ask the Father, and He would give them another Advocate. Here He says that He will not need to ask for this Advocate on their behalf; and why? Because the Advocate has come, because He has taken full possession of their hearts, because it is His ‘day.’ What is the consequence? They will ask ‘in the name’ of Jesus,—that is, the habit of their mind is that of prayer as persons who, through the revelation of the Father in the Son, know the Father to be their Father. Further, Jesus will not need to ask concerning them, for the Father needs no one to remind Him of His children. Lastly, the Father Himself will enfold them in His love, because in faith and love they have been united to the Son with whom He is one. It is an ideal state, the perfected state of the Church of Christ under the teaching of the Spirit; a state not yet reached by her amidst her many sins and weaknesses. Nevertheless the state is one not the less ideally true, because not yet reached; and not the less to be kept before us as the hope of our calling to that glorious issue, when all contradictions and disharmonies shall be done away, and when, through the power of the Spirit, the one unity of father, Son, and redeemed man shall be completely realised. John 16:28. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world and go to the Father. The connection of this verse with the preceding is not to be found in the supposition that we have here additional mention made of two great truths in which the disciples are to rest. They are supposed to be beyond that now, and the connection is best found in observing that the discourse of these chapters is about to close, and that it does so in the manner of which we have had so many illustrations, by returning again to the leading truths that had been spoken of. The words before us are accordingly a summary of the whole history of Jesus in the light of His redeeming work, from the period of His pre-existent state in the bosom of the Father to the period when He shall again return to His everlasting rest in Him. He came that He might lead men to the Father: He goes that they may be perfected in the Spirit, and that He may prepare a place for them in the many places of abode in the Father’s house. John 16:29-30. His disciples say, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and sayest no proverb: now we know that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any one should ask thee questions: by this we believe that thou earnest forth from God. Two entirely different views may be taken of the feelings and language of the disciples as here described. Either they are really led into a sudden knowledge of the truth, thus affording a striking illustration of darkness dispelled and of heavenly light shining into the heart from the teaching of Jesus, while He again joyfully recognises their faith and beholds in it an earnest of completed victory: or the disciples misunderstand themselves, and confess their faith in a manner which, though sincere, is so imperfect that Jesus is constrained to speak to them in words of warning. The latter view is that which deserves acceptance. The disciples ‘words,’ ‘now we know,’ contrasting with the promise of Joh 16:23, a promise relating to the future, are obviously hasty; there was nothing clearer in the latest words of Jesus than in words often uttered by Him before; and, above all, the confession proves itself by its very terms to be imperfect, inadequate, inferior to that of a true faith. ‘From God,’ the disciples say in John 16:30;—not the ‘from’ of either John 16:27 or John 16:28, but one expressing a less intimate relationship with the Father than that of which Jesus had just spoken. The disciples think that they believe, but they do not believe in such a way as will alone enable them to stand in the midst of coming trial. They are not content to take Jesus at His word, that by and by their faith will be experimental, deep, victorious. They persuade themselves that even ‘now’ it is all that it need be; and they must be warned and reproved. John 16:31-32. Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? Behold, an hour cometh and is come, that ye should be scattered, each one to his own, and leave me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. The view taken of the preceding verse leads to the conclusion that the first clause of this verse is interrogative, not affirmative, and the conclusion is favoured by chaps, John 6:70, John 13:38. The meaning of the reply is, ‘You anticipate the time, you deceive yourselves; this faith of yours, sincere and real up to a certain point though it be, needs deepening and perfecting. It will be deepened and perfected in such a way that no trial will be too hard for it—but not yet: rather the hour cometh, and is come, when you shall all forsake Me in the time of My greatest need, and shall think only selfishly of yourselves. Yet, notwithstanding, even then, when to all appearance alone, I am not alone, for the Father is with Me.’ John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye have tribulation; but be of good courage, I have overcome the world. ‘These things’ refers to all that had been spoken from chap. John 14:1, to the thought of which beginning of His discourse Jesus now returns at its close. The present tense, ‘ye have,’ seems to indicate that tribulation is not merely a historical certainty, but the natural consequence of the position of the disciples in the world. It must, as well as will, be so. But what of that, ‘Let not their hearts be troubled’ (chap, John 14:1). The world is a conquered foe. Jesus has overcome it; and that not for Himself only, but for them. His faithful disciples have still sorrow in the world, but their sorrow is turned into joy; they have still to wage a warfare in the world, but each part of the field resounds with their exulting shouts, and the very death which the world may bring to them is the gate of higher and more glorious life. The world is not to be overcome: it is overcome; and to those who follow in the footsteps of their Lord, the path through is not so much a conflict as a victory. As reapers in the harvest field, they rejoice together with Him who sowed (chap. John 4:36); as soldiers of the cross, they share the triumph of the Captain of their salvation. The chapter on which we now enter contains what is generally known as our Lord’s High-priestly Prayer. Such a name is appropriately given it; partly, because it is the longest and most solemn utterance recorded of the intercessions with which Jesus approached the throne of His heavenly Father on His people’s behalf; partly, because He was at this moment standing on the threshold of His especial work as their great High Priest. No attempt to describe the prayer can give a just idea of its sublimity, its pathos, its touching yet exalted character, its tone at once of tenderness and triumphant expectation. We are apt to read it as if it were full of sorrow; but that is only our own feeling reflected back upon what we suppose to have been the feelings of the Man of Sorrows. In the prayer itself sorrow has no place; and to think that it was uttered in a tone of sadness is entirely to mistake what must have been the spirit of Jesus at the time. It speaks throughout of work accomplished, of victory gained, of the immediate expectation of glorious reward. It tells, not of sorrow, but of ‘joy,’ joy now possessing His own soul, and about to be ‘fulfilled’ in His disciples (John 17:13). It anticipates with perfect confidence the realisation of the grand object of His coming,—the salvation of all that have been given Him (John 17:12), their union to Himself and the Father (John 17:21), their security amidst the evils of this world while they execute in it a mission similar to His (John 17:11; John 17:15; John 17:18), and, finally, their glorification with His own glory (John 17:24). The prayer, in fact, corresponds closely with the words of its Utterer immediately preceding it, ‘Be of good courage, I have overcome the world’ (chap. John 16:33). It is nothing less than a prolonged anticipation of the shout of triumph on the cross, ‘It is finished’ (chap. John 19:30). The prayer divides itself naturally into three parts, in the first of which Jesus prays for Himself, in the second for His immediate disciples, in the third for all who, in every age, shall believe in Him. But the three parts are pervaded by one thought—the glorification of the Father in those successively prayed for, by the accomplishment in each of the Father’s purpose, and the union of all in the perfect, the spiritual, the eternal bond of love. The subordinate parts of the chapter are thus—(1) John 17:1-5; (2) John 17:6-19; (3) John 17:20-26. John 17:1. These things spake Jesus, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said. Thus the Evangelist connects the prayer before us with the parting discourse contained in the previous chapters. It is offered in the same place, while the disciples stand around, and in the same frame of mind as that in which Jesus had just spoken; so that, when we read of His ‘lifting up His eyes to heaven,’ we must think of them as full alike of holy devotion and of the consciousness of completed victory. Father, the hour is come. The first word of the prayer is ‘Father;’ not ‘our Father’ as in the Lord’s Prayer, but simply ‘Father,’ and so throughout, though twice with ‘righteous’ or ‘holy’ connected with the name (John 17:5; John 17:11; John 17:21; John 17:24-25). The word sums up the peculiar revelation of this Gospel, and expresses the whole consciousness of that relation to God in which ‘the only-begotten Son’ stood, and would have us to stand. Yet it is not a word of tenderness only, but of authority and power: if it stirs affection, it awakens also reverence and awe. ‘The hour’ referred to is not merely that of death, or of death as a transition to glory; it is that in which the Son makes perfect the accomplishment of the Father’s will (comp. chaps. John 2:4, John 7:30, John 8:20, John 13:32). This no doubt involves alike the death and the exaltation of Jesus, but it is the inner character of the hour, rather than its outward accompaniments, that is mainly referred to in the words ‘The hour is come.’ Glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee. On the meaning of ‘glorify’ compare what has been said at chap. John 13:31-32. It is not a bestowal of personal glory for which Jesus prays, for such a thought would both be out of keeping with the mind of Him who never sought His own glory, and would compel us to understand the word ‘glorify’ in the first clause in a sense wholly different from any that can be given it in the second. What Jesus prays for is, that the Father would now withdraw the veil which had hitherto obscured to some, and concealed from others, the ‘glory’ belonging to the Son’s unity of relation to the Father, in order that that ‘glory’ of the Father Himself, which is the end of all existence, and which can be seen only in the Son, may thus shine forth in the sight of His creatures without any shadow to dim its brightness. The former is the means, the latter is the end (comp. on chap. John 11:4). The transition from ‘Thy Son’ to ‘the Son’ is worthy of notice, the former including an appeal to personal relationship, the latter bringing especially into view the work by which Jesus ‘declares’ the Father (comp. chap. John 1:18), and leads men into the condition and privileges of son ship (comp. chap. John 1:12). John 17:2. Even as thou gayest him authority over all flesh, in order that all that which thou hast given him, he may give unto them life eternal. This verse is clearly connected with John 17:1. It unfolds the means by which the glorifying of the Father is to be accomplished; and the first clause corresponds to ‘glorify Thy Son,’ the second to ‘that the Son may glorify Thee.’ To the Son the Father gave authority over all flesh, that the Son on His part might give to them eternal life. The words ‘all flesh’ (the Old Testament expression for all men) here used are remarkable. No words could more powerfully bring out that universality which is so characteristic of this Gospel and this prayer; while, at the same time, they set before us the picture of all humanity, Gentile as well as Jewish, in its weakness and sinfulness, in its want of the power of the Spirit, in its separation from that spiritual and eternal life in which alone it accomplishes its destiny and attains to the completion of its joy. Over all men the Son received authority that if they would only listen to Him they might be saved: thus the Father glorifies the Son. By the execution of this mission, again, and by the giving of life eternal to all believers, the Son glorifies the Father. The commission, in short, was glory to the Son: the execution was glory to the Father; and the prayer is, that the loving purpose of the Father may be accomplished in the visible glory properly belonging to it. The peculiar structure of this verse, by which Jesus first presents those spoken of as a connected whole, and then proceeds to refer to them in their more individual aspect, has already been spoken of (see on chap, John 6:37); and in the commentary on the same passage we have also seen that under the words ‘all fiat which Thou hast given Him,’ we are not to think of any absolute, predestinating decree laving no regard to the moral and spiritual character of those thus ‘given.’ Their moral and spiritual state is rather the prominent thought; they are believers; they possess eternal life. It is true that this is to be traced to the ‘drawing’ of the Father. From Him alone comes every perfect gift; they are in themselves only weak and sinful flesh; but, at the stage at which we view them here, the working of prevenient grace is long since past; the Father has called them, and they have answered the call: then they are viewed as ‘given.’ John 17:3. And this is the eternal life, that they may learn to know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, Jesus, as Christ. The article is used before ‘eternal life’ in order to carry our thoughts back to the ‘life eternal’ of John 17:2; and the conception involved in these words is now dwelt upon in meditation which finds utterance because of the disciples who heard (comp. chap. John 11:42). Therefore when Jesus, with His mind full of the thought of the glorification of the Father and the Son, speaks of the eternal life bestowed upon His people, He turns to the manner in which, through the reception of that life, such a glorification shall be effected by them. Two points must be kept in view while we endeavour to understand the words:—(1) The force of ‘that;’ this word sets before us the ‘knowing’ as a goal towards which we are to strain our efforts. (2) That the word ‘know’ does not mean to know fully or to recognise, but to learn to know: it expresses not perfect, but inceptive and ever - growing knowledge. Those, then, who receive ‘eternal life’ enter into a condition in which they learn to know the Father and the Son as They really are,—learn to know Them in Their love and saving mercy,—and are thus enabled to ‘glorify’ Them. The knowledge of the Father and the Son is neither the condition of the ‘life,’ nor the same thing as the ‘life.’ It is rather that far-off goal which is constantly before us, and to which we come ever nearer, in proportion as we enter more deeply into the life which Christ bestows. The ‘life,’ on the other hand, is that state in which we are introduced to the knowledge of the Father and the Son, the state in which we learn to know Them with constantly-increasing clearness and fulness, and finally the state in which, when life is perfected in us, we come to know Them as They are, to ‘see’ Them, and to ‘be like’ Them (comp. 1 John 3:2). Strictly speaking, the knowledge is thus dependent on the life, rather than the life on the knowledge. But, in truth, the interdependence is mutual; neither can exist without the other; there is no life which does not lead to knowledge; there is no knowledge without life. The ‘eternal life’ is thus also a present thing, stretching indeed into the endless future, but begun now. The constituents of the knowledge are also given. They are first to be viewed as two; and each has a distinguishing attributive connected with it. The first is God: He is the ‘only true God.’ We cannot exclude from these words the thought of a contrast to heathen divinities; for, as we have already seen on John 17:2, the Gentiles are here present to the mind of Him who prays for all that are to believe in Him. But, if so, we must recognise in them an allusion to the cardinal formula of Judaism, ‘The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4); and the force of such an allusion in its present use we shall see immediately. In addition to this, however, the word ‘true’ has also its meaning real. This God whom we are to know is the foundation of all real being, the God in whom all things are that are, and thus as ‘true’ the ‘only’ God. The second constituent of the knowledge is Jesus: He is Christ,—God’s anointed One, the Messiah. In a chapter where so much importance is attached to the word ‘name,’ we are justified in thinking that the name ‘Jesus’ is here regarded in its proper meaning of ‘Saviour:’ it expresses what the word ‘Me would not express with anything like similar fulness. These two constituents of the knowledge spoken of are next to be viewed as one; for the fact that the words.’ ‘Him whom Thou didst send’ precede the name ‘Jesus,’ as well as the whole teaching of this Gospel, suggests not the thought of God and Christ but of God in Christ, of God declaring Himself in Him whom He ‘sent.’ Herein, therefore, lies the truth, that the one God whom Israel so vainly boasted that it knew could only be ‘known’ in connection with, and by means of the knowledge of, Jesus. Hence, also, we need not wonder that Jesus here names Himself in the third Person instead of the first. He is giving expression in its most purely objective form to the sum of saving knowledge. To effect this the second clause mentioning this knowledge has to be combined with the first: it must, therefore, be presented not less objectively; and thus, seeing this knowledge as it were without Himself, our Lord speaks not of ‘Me’ but of ‘Jesus.’ Had such a use been unsuitable to prayer, it would be as difficult to account for it from the pen of the Evangelist (on the supposition that the words are remoulded by him) as from the lips of Jesus.[1] [1] The words of this verse are so important that it may be well to explain more fully in a note that in the clauses attached to ‘learn to know’ there is probably a fusion of two thoughts: learn to knowthat Thou art the only true God. Thee as the only true God.learn to knowthat Jesus whom Thou sentest is Christ. Jesus whome Thou sentest as Christ. John 17:4. I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. The first petition of Jesus in this prayer had been ‘glorify Thy Son.’ That petition is now to be repeated in a more emphatic form (John 17:5), but first we have a fuller statement of the ground on which it rests. In John 17:2-3, the petition had been connected with the design of the Father; now it is connected with the accomplishment of that design; and the general prayer for glorification is to rise into the prayer ‘Glorify Thou Me now.’ This glorifying of the Father is said to have taken place ‘on the earth,’ that is, amidst the humiliations and sorrows of the Lord’s earthly life. There in word, and deed, and suffering even unto death, Jesus revealed the Father’s loving will for the salvation of men; there He accomplished the purpose for which the Father sent Him; there He glorified the Father. It will be observed that all is spoken of as past, for the whole work of Jesus is at this moment looked upon as finished. It is not indeed entirely finished, for He has not yet been nailed to the cross; but that final part of it may still be connected in thought with the whole suffering life, and may be spoken of as if it had been met. All the life of Jesus had been a death; in all of it He had been accomplishing His work and glorifying the Father: the one step still remaining, and already fully taken in will, may thus be easily associated with the rest, and the whole be contemplated as over. Therefore Jesus prays. The predicative ‘Christ’ requires the verb to express knowledge of a fact: the impression given by the verse is that great stress belongs to ‘know’ in the sense of acquaintance with a Person. John 17:5. And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. The glory prayed for is distinguished by two particulars: (1) It is ‘with Thine own Self’ (comp. chap, John 13:31-32), in contrast with the words ‘on earth’ of John 17:4. (2) It is a glory that Jesus had possessed ‘before the world was;’ that is, from eternity. Thus the prayer is that the clouds which during His earthly life had obscured the glory of His Divine Sonship may be rolled back, and that as Son of man (as well as Son of God) it may now appear that He possesses that glory in all the brightness with which it encompassed Him before He came into the world (comp. on chap, John 13:32). The word ‘glory,’ in short, is to be understood in the sense of glory to be manifested as well as in a sense expressing the contents of the glory; and the petition is for a bestowal of the manifested glory rather than of the original real glory considered in itself. Thus the unity of thought in the whole passage is preserved. Not the Son’s personal exaltation, but the Father’s glory through the Son’s, is still the keynote; for, when the glory of the Son is seen the glory of the Father is seen also, and the less the obscurity resting on the former the less also that resting on the latter. With this petition the first section of the prayer closes. John 17:6. I manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world. Jesus now passes to the thought of those disciples who had been led to rest on Him in faith. His work was over: theirs was to begin; and it involved a struggle and needed strength, similar to His own. In tenderest pity and love, therefore, He now prays for them, that they may be preserved as He has been. Yet not their preservation (for its own sake), but the glory of the Father, is still the leading thought. Jesus is glorified in them (John 17:10), and we have already seen that when He is glorified the glorification of the Father is secured. First of all their position is described; they have so entered into and embraced the ‘word’ of Jesus that the great purpose of His coming has been answered in them, and they are fitted to take His place in the world. That ‘word’ had been especially the ‘name’ of God, His name as ‘Father,’ including His character, His attributes, His saving will as revealed in Jesus. The whole purpose of God’s Fatherly love had been embraced by them as tidings of great joy both for themselves and for the world. They had been given to the Son by the Father ‘out of the world;’ that is, they were no longer in the world as the element of their existence. The position is exactly His own (John 17:14), so that even already we see how closely they are identified with Him, and are fitted, as taking His place, to lift men up into their own higher sphere. It is not enough, however, to say this, for the completeness with which the end has been attained has to be further brought out from two sides, the Divine and the human. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them. That is the Divine side. The change of order from the same words as used in the earlier part of the verse ought to be noticed. The emphasis is now directed to ‘Me,’ and the meaning is that they were now by Divine appointment the Son’s, that they might take up His work. And they have kept thy word. This is the human side. They, on their part, had answered the purpose of the Father: they had kept the ‘word’ of God; not the general revelation of His will, but, if we may so speak, the revelation of the Logos, of the ‘Word,’ in the soul. In the Word of God they have God’s word in them. How completely are they put into the position of Him who is now ‘going away’! John 17:7. Now have they learned to know that all things whatsoever thou gavest me are from thee. These words do more than state that the disciples knew this fact. They include a far deeper meaning, intended to bring out more fully the position of the disciples as the representatives of Jesus. For what was it that He knew? What was the element of relation to the Father in which he lived? It was that all He had was from the Father; that all He was the reflex of the Father; that His words, His works, His whole activity, were the Father’s; that He came forth from the Father, and was sent by Him into the world (chaps. John 3:13, John 6:46, John 7:29, John 3:34, John 13:3). This was the consciousness which especially distinguished Him in the fulfilling of His mission; and now that consciousness has passed over into them. John 17:8. Because the words which thou gavest me I have given them, and they received them, and learned to know truly that I came forth from thee, and believed that thou didst send me. These words explain the fact stated immediately before. The disciples had received a consciousness similar to that of Jesus, because He, on His part, had implanted His words in them; and they, on their part, had responded, receiving what He gave. They ‘received,’ ‘learned to know,’ ‘believed:’ the three verbs, closely following each other in the same tense, correspond to the solemnity of the statement. Again, however, we see that far more is meant than the reception of particular truths: the main thought is, that He has transferred His own mind to His disciples, that He has taught them His own truths and thoughts, and that they, while retaining their own proper individuality (the word they before ‘received’ being equivalent to ‘they themselves’), have fully made them their own. John 17:9. I ask concerning them; I ask not concerning the world, but concerning them which thou hast given me. In the preceding verses the mind of Jesus has been filled with the thought of the position of the disciples: He now proceeds directly to pray for them; and the substance of His prayer is that they, occupying His place, may be so preserved as to be what He had been,—true to the word given them, victorious over the devil, consecrated, filled with joy, to His glory and the glory of the Father in Him. So fully, too, are His thoughts occupied with them, that the whole energy of His prayer is devoted to them alone. He will not for the present ask concerning the enemy to be assailed, but about the assailants who are to take His place. Without denouncing the ‘world,’ therefore, He simply sets it aside. It may indeed be asked, Why mention it at all? The answer probably is, to bring out that perfect correspondence between the will of the Son and of the Father, which is the ground of the Son’s confidence in prayer. Hence the emphatic ‘I’ with which the verse begins,—‘I, who came forth from the Father, who am sent of the Father (John 17:8); I, who am the perfect expression of the Father, willing only what He wills,—I do not go beyond those whom He has given Me.’ This last thought then finds utterance. Because they are thine. In John 17:6 it had been ‘They were thine:’ then they had been looked at only as the possession of the Father. Now ‘they are thine:’ they have been brought back to Him and united to Him in a closer, dearer bond than ever,—the bond of fellowship in the Son. John 17:10. And all things that are mine are thine, and thine mine, and I have been glorified in them. It does not seem necessary to regard the two first clauses of this verse as a parenthesis, and to restrict the last words ‘in them’ to the disciples only who had been spoken of in John 17:9. Jesus seems rather to be carried away, by the thought that disciples one with Him were as truly one with His Father, to another and a more glorious thought, that all that He possessed was His Father’s and all that was His Father’s was His, so real, so intimate, so deep is the unity between Them. In all things, then, though (it may be) especially in His disciples, He has been glorified. But His being glorified in them is really the Father’s being so, because the glory flows from their recognition of Him, and their fellowship with Him, as the Son. It is not, therefore, because they glorify Himself that He is to pray for their being kept by the Father, but because the promotion of His glory is the promotion of the Father’s glory. From every thought of the prayer we must ascend to the Father, that glorious Name in which, with its blended authority and love, are given the order and the happiness of all creation. John 17:11. And I am no longer in the world, and they are in the world, and I come to thee. One thought rising before the mind of Jesus now deepens His earnestness of entreaty on behalf of His disciples,—the contrast between their condition and His own. His labours and sorrows are over, but they are left behind in the struggle which He is leaving. The very greatness of His joy in the thought of His own glorious return to His Father rouses His tenderest sympathy for those who have so much to do and to suffer before they can share His joy. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one even as we are. In John 17:1 we had simply ‘Father:’ we have now ‘Holy’ prefixed to that name. The reason is obvious. ‘Holy’ does not express mere freedom from sin; He who is holy is entirely separated from all that is carnal and outward in this present world, so that pure spirituality and heavenliness alone rule in Him. As, therefore, a state similar to this is that to which God would raise His people, the epithet ‘Holy’ brings this thought prominently into view, and strengthens the argument of the prayer. The petition is that, for the purpose mentioned in the last words of the verse, they may be kept in the Father’s name which He has given to the Son. Light is again thrown upon the word ‘name.’ It cannot be simply the name ‘Father,’ for that could not be given to another: it is His revelation of Himself in Jesus. That revelation had been given to the Son; it had been appropriated by the disciples; they were living in it; the prayer is that, amidst all the temptations of the world, they may he kept in it. Then follows the purpose, that they may be one ‘even as’ are the Father and the Son. It is the Divine unity of love that is referred to, all wills bowing in the same direction, all affections burning with the same flame, all aims directed to the same end—one blessed harmony of love. John 17:12. When I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me, and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. It is out of the fulness of His heart that Jesus continues to speak. The sad change that is to take place in the condition of His disciples after He has ‘gone away’ presses on His mind; He recalls tenderly the care with which He had hitherto watched over them in an evil world; and now that He can no longer show that care, He commends them with longing earnestness to the Father. He does this all the more because it was in the Father’s name given to Himself that He had kept them,—in the revelation of the Father, in the unity of His own relation to the Father, in the consciousness that God was their Father as well as His; so that the Father as well as He shall keep them, and, in keeping them, shall only continue the work that He had Himself begun. The word ‘I’ is very emphatic,—‘I kept them: now do Thou.’ The distinction between ‘kept’ and ‘guarded’ is not to be found in the thought of different spheres, such as inward and outward, to which it may be supposed that the words apply; but in the fact that the latter word points to the watchfulness by which the former is attained (comp. on chap. John 12:47). At the same time the difference of tense in the original is worthy of notice, the first verb expressing continued care, the second the completeness of the security afforded. Yet one dark cloud rested on the bright past, and the eyes of the disciples might at that moment be directed to it. Judas had not been kept: how was that? To this Jesus gives an answer in these words. The wonderful fact itself, when rightly viewed, affords evidence that He has fulfilled His promise that He will keep His own. It was in carrying out the Father’s will that not one of the Eleven had been lost: it was in carrying out the same will that Judas had met his fate. He was ‘the son of perdition,’ one who had freely chosen to move in that sphere of perishing, and therefore he perished. A scripture, too, or word of God (Psalms 41:9, already quoted in chap. John 13:18), had declared God’s will, and that will could not fail to be accomplished. To suppose that Judas is now brought before us as one originally doomed to perdition, and that his character was but the evolving of his doom, would contradict not only the meaning of the Hebraic expression ‘son of’ (which always takes for granted moral choice), but the whole teaching of this Gospel. In no book of the New Testament is the idea of will, of choice on the part of man, brought forward so repeatedly and with so great an emphasis. The history of man is taken up at that point when God’s previous dealings with him have prepared him for the exercise of a choice in which his responsibility shall appear. How far this previous discipline is the result of absolute decree is not said; but the very fact that it is discipline implies that the result might have been other than it is. They in whom the Father’s object is attained are those ‘given’ to the Son, and Judas, therefore, was not one so ‘given.’ (On the construction here compare what was said on chap. John 3:13.) John 17:13. But now I come to thee. These words are to be connected with what follows rather than with what precedes. The thought of His immediate departure leads Jesus to pray that His disciples may be filled with a joy independent of His personal presence,—‘in themselves.’ And these things I speak in the world, that they may have the joy that is mine fulfilled in themselves. The words ‘these things I speak’ refer to more than the fact that Jesus is at present praying,—to more even than the actual petition at present on His lips. He has in view the substance of His prayer, continually taught by Him. His ‘joy’ was fulfilled in this, that the name of His Father had been given Him, that He realised the unity with His Father in which He stood. He had led the disciples to the consciousness that they too were in that name of the Father, and by that means the joy that was His had become theirs,—it was ‘fulfilled’ in them. In answering this His prayer the Father will only be accomplishing His own plan, and securing His own glory through the glorification of the disciples in the Son. ‘In the world’ does not mean merely ‘upon earth,’ but in the midst of the efforts of the world to defeat the purpose of Jesus. John 17:14. I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. The prayer for preservation is over: our Lord now speaks of the work of His disciples in the world. In John 17:8 He had said ‘the words (or sayings) which Thou gavest me I have given them,’ and the statement had been immediately followed by a declaration of their personal faith. Here He says ‘I have given them Thy word,’ and the statement is followed by a declaration that the world hated them. We see at once the advance of thought. The disciples have received the Father’s word for utterance; and, as a natural consequence, the world, which might have known nothing of them had they only nourished their faith in secret, becomes their persecutor. How closely are they again identified by Jesus with Himself: they have not only His peace, His joy, but His work,—the very peace, the very joy that filled His soul, the very work in which He died. John 17:15. I ask not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them out of the evil one. The disciples are in the world, and Jesus cannot yet pray that they may be taken out of it, for it is the very purpose of the Father that they shall be left in it to carry on His work. What He does pray for is, that, as their work and His will be identical, so also their preservation may be identical, with His own. The element distinguishing His preservation had been that mentioned in chap. John 14:30,—a total separation between the prince of this world and Him. The same complete separation He would now have for them,—not merely that they may be delivered from attacks of the evil one, but also that they may be kept ‘out of’ him, may have no fellowship with him, no weakening of their testimony by yielding to him, but may be single, pure, and faithful to the last as He had been. The expression ‘to be kept out of the evil one’ may surprise the reader until he re members that in 1 John 5:19-20 the Apostle really speaks of the world as lying in the evil one. The teaching of this Gospel and of the whole New Testament is that there are two spheres in which man may live, that of the world and its prince, and that of ‘Jesus Christ.’ (Compare the many passages which speak of the Christian as ‘in Christ.’) Our prayer ought to be, not that we may be kept ‘from’ the one, but that we may be kept ‘out of’ the one and ‘in’ the other. John 17:16. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. These words met us in John 17:14, but they are again introduced in a slightly different order, the emphasis being now thrown on of the world, in order to prepare the way for the complete antithesis to be immediately expressed. John 17:17. Consecrate them in the truth: thy word is truth. The word here rendered ‘Consecrate’ is constantly used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to express the entire dedication and consecration both of persons and of things to God. In this sense, but with the deeper meaning of inward and spiritual consecration, we find it here. It is thus, when applied to persons, not less but more than sanctification, the latter being implied before the former can take place. The word corresponds to the attribute prefixed to ‘Father’ in John 17:11 (for which, however, we have in English no other word than ‘holy’): the same word, too, is used by Jesus of Himself in chap. John 10:36. To be consecrated is, therefore, to be separated from the world, to be dedicated as a holy thing to God. This is to be done ‘in the truth,’—in that sphere of the truth which is the sphere of the Father and of the Son; in living communion with, and appropriation of, the truth, so that the truth shall be that in which their whole being is moulded and consecrated. This meaning of ‘the truth’ is then more fully brought out by the statement, ‘Thy word is truth.’ Here by ‘word’ we are not to understand the word of God in genera], but the word already spoken of in John 17:14,—that special word of the Father which is found in His revelation of Himself in the Son, the Word. And this word is ‘truth’ in its most absolute sense, truth which finds concrete expression in ‘the truth.’ It is the ‘truth’ that came by Jesus Christ,—not merely truth in opposition to error, but the eternal reality of things in contrast with that which is unsubstantial and shadowy, that which must pass away. John 17:18. Even as thou didst send me into the world, I also sent them into the world. Jesus has prayed for the consecration of His disciples in the truth, and He now speaks of the necessity that existed for it. They have been sent into the world (the sending is viewed as already accomplished) ‘even as’ He had been sent into the world. Not merely is the fact of sending similar, but they are sent by the Son with the same commission as that with which the Son Himself had been sent by the Father. They are to ‘declare’ the Father as He had done, and to make the same revelation of eternal truth, of eternal love, to a sinful world. How much, then, did they need a consecration like His! But not only so. There is a further ground upon which His prayer ‘or their consecration rests.’ John 17:19. And for them I consecrate myself, that they themselves also may be consecrated in truth. It was for the very purpose of bringing them to a consecration like His own that His whole work of love and sacrifice had been freely undertaken. He might have said ‘I was consecrated,’ a thought which has its perfect parallel in chap. John 10:36. But He speaks of consecrating Himself, partly because He entered into His consecration with perfect acquiescence and freedom; partly, perhaps mainly, because He is thinking of that High-priestly work of His which was now immediately impending. (It will be observed that the proleptic form of expression is not always maintained: see John 17:13.) The following words express, with special reference to the disciples, the end which Jesus had been desirous to attain. It is that their consecration might be the exact counterpart of His (‘they also’); that they might act in it a free and independent part, devoting themselves in personal faith to the task assigned them (‘they themselves’), and that all might be done ‘in truth,’—not simply truly, but in conformity with the real, the essential, the everlasting (comp. on John 17:17). Finally, let us notice that the consecration spoken of is, alike in the case of Jesus and of His disciples, not a process but an act completed at once,—in His case, when, gathering together in one view all His labours and sufferings, He presented them a living sacrifice to His Father: in theirs, when they are in like manner enabled to present themselves as living sacrifices in His one perfect sacrifice.Thus the second section of the prayer closes, its main burden having been that the disciples, who are about to be sent forth into the world in order to carry on the work of Jesus there, and who for this purpose have had the name of the Father manifested to them that they may know the Father, and the word of the Father given them that they may proclaim the Father, may be preserved by the Father from the world, and may be enabled to exhibit a perfect consecration to the Father’s work. Thus shall the Father be glorified in them as He had been glorified in the Son, who accomplished the work that had been given Him to do. John 17:20. But not concerning these only do I ask, but also concerning them which believe in me through their word. From the thought of the disciples whom He was sending forth to carry on His work, Jesus now turns, in the third and last section of His prayer, to the thought of all who through their word shall be brought to faith, to the thought of believers in every country and in every age. They are spoken of as those ‘which’ believe,—not indeed in actual fact, for none had as yet believed through the instrumentality of the disciples; but in idea they rise before the mind of Jesus,—His Church down to the very end of time. The ‘word’ spoken of is that of Joh 17:14, the special word which is the revelation of the Father, and which brings man to recognise the love of the Father as it appears in the Son, and in the Son to them. John 17:21. That they all may be one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they themselves also may be in us. The petition on behalf of all believers follows in these words, and their last clause expresses it in its highest form. The second ‘that is neither parallel to the first, nor is the sentence to be inverted, as if it ran, that they themselves also may be in us as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee.’ It is dependent on the words coming immediately before, and thus brings forward the final purpose of the Incarnation of the Eternal Son, and of that whole work of His by which our human nature was perfected into union with the Divine nature,—that believing men may be taken into the same glorious unity. The unity spoken of, then, is not merely that of Christians among themselves, whether outward or inward. It is unity in the Father and the Son, effected by that ‘word’ regarding the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son which has been appropriated in faith, and which produces a result corresponding to itself. It is what is known by divines as the ‘mystical union;’ yet in it believers maintain their own personality and freedom, for such is the force of ‘they themselves.’That the world may believe that thou didst send me. The first ‘that’ here is not to be connected with a verb so far removed as ‘I ask’ of John 17:20. It is a word of purpose, marking the ultimate result of the fulfilment of the prayer. And this result is that the ‘world’ now the enemy of the truth, may be brought to faith. Although (John 17:9) Jesus had not prayed for the world, because He was praying for those who were to act upon it, He was not forgetful of its need. It was the world that He had come to save; and, although it rejected and crucified Him, He looked onward to a time when, as ‘greater works’ were done by His disciples than He Himself had done (chap. John 14:12), the world would own the Divine power appearing in them, and the Divine origin of His mission. It is the spiritual life of the Church, however, that (so far as has yet been spoken of) is to effect this end. Her unity is included, but it does not receive its special emphasis till we come to John 17:23. Her spirituality is mainly before us here, that life which her members live, not conformed to the world,—not coming down to the level of the world, with the vain idea that thus they shall bring the world nearer them, but ever rising as far as possible above the world, dwelling in the Father and in the Son, a city of God, from which even now there streams light that shall kindle light in hearts that have been formed for light and life like its own. John 17:22. And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them, that they may be one even as we are one. Jesus had prayed that all believers might be one as He and the Father were one. He now turns to what He Himself had done that He might effect this end. We have already seen that the ‘glory’ referred to is that of self-sacrificing love, brought out from amidst the taunts with which men met it when displayed in Jesus, and owned by the Father as the only true glory. Such a glory Jesus had given to His people that, in living fellowship with the Father and the Son, they may be one in Them. Not worldly honour or station, the favour of kings, the patronage of statesmen, or the wealth of nations, was their glory; but the gift to love, and to sacrifice themselves for the world’s good. Then in that love would they be one, even as the Father and the Son are one. John 17:23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one. That is: not only that this oneness may be readied, but that, in its being so, the last step to be taken with believers may be accomplished, the final issue and perfect of all that Jesus has to do for them. Whereupon follows again the effect to be produced upon he world, stated, however, in a fuller form than in John 17:21.That the world may learn to know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them even as thou lovedst me. The substitution of ‘learn to know’ here for ‘believe’ in John 17:21 is remarkable. The two words cannot be understood to signify the same thing, nor can the latter, in conformity with the style of this Gospel, express less than the former. In one way or another there must be an advance of thought. We see this in the addition of the clause, ‘lovedst them even as Thou lovedst Me.’ A similar advance must be traced on the point immediately before us. Chap. John 14:31 appears to solve the difficulty. There the same word is used as in the present verse, and we are thus invited to extend our thoughts beyond the number of those who shall be led to faith. The whole world shall recognise what Jesus speaks of: even they who do not confess in faith shall confess in shame, that He whom they rejected was the loved of the Father, and that He has gathered His people into the same blessed unity of love.It is in this verse that the unity of the followers of Jesus is peculiarly dwelt upon. Their spirituality is accompanied by its highest result when it is perfected into unity; and with this result is connected the most powerful impression which they make upon the world. It is therefore a visible unity for which Jesus prays. His Church is visible; and that idea of an invisible Church, in which Christians seek an escape from the sentence of condemnation which their divisions compel them to pronounce upon themselves, finds as little countenance in these verses as in any other part of Scripture. John 17:24. Father, what thou hast given me, I desire that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me, because thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. Having prayed for the spirituality and unity of all His disciples, Jesus now, in the closing petitions of His prayer, passes to the thought of their complete deliverance from the troubles of the world, and of their entrance with Him upon that glory with which He Himself was about to be glorified. It is difficult to translate the Greek verb rendered ‘I will’ in the Authorised Version. ‘I will’ is too strong; perhaps ‘I desire’ comes nearest to the original. The peculiar structure of the verse, in which the clause ‘what Thou hast given Me’ is so remarkably thrown forward, arises from the fact that believers are viewed not so much distributively as in the unity immediately present to the Redeemer’s mind. It is the perfect glory of Jesus not only as Son of God but also as Son of man that is spoken of,—His glory shining forth in undimmed brightness in the heavenly world. There is the true home of His being; and hence not ‘I shall be,’ but ‘I am,’ as in chap. John 14:3. Again, however, we must remember that this ‘glory’ is not that of outward estate. It is the spiritual glory of perfect union with the Father, seen and shared in apart from the shadows of earth. Hence the last words of the verse do not contain a statement of the ground upon which Jesus prays for His own, but of the nature of the glory which they are to behold when the ineffable, everlasting love of the Father to the Son is seen by them poured forth on Him who has taken the human nature into perfect union with the Divine. That had not been beheld in the Man of Sorrows: it shall be beheld when—His sorrows over, but His humanity as true as it had been upon the earth—He is crowned with glory. The full, the perfect love of God will then be seen to have embraced humanity in its tenderest outgoings, and the joy of the redeemed in the vision and fruition of that love will be complete (comp. on John 17:22). John 17:25. Righteous Father, both the world learned not to know thee,—but I learned to know thee,—and these learned to know that thou didst send me. Not in the last clause of Joh 17:24, but now, we have the ground upon which Jesus prays that the ‘glory’ of which He has spoken may be conferred upon His people; and it connects itself not so much with the love as with the righteousness of God. It is just and right that those who have been prepared for the glory to be beheld should at last obtain it. Hence ‘Righteous’ (not as in John 17:11, ‘Holy’) ‘Father.’ For God as Father is not merely love, but love resting on perfect rectitude,—is One who will see that what befalls His creatures corresponds to what they are. The word ‘both’ here perplexes commentators, but is to be explained by what seems to be the usage of this Gospel (comp. chap. John 15:24), in which propositions subordinate to the principal statement are thus introduced; while, at the same time, like a dark background, they bring out the main thought with greater force. In the present instance this thought is contained in the last clause of the verse, and it is made more noteworthy by the fact stated in the first. The intermediate clause, again, ‘but I learned to know Thee,’ appears to be designed to lead us up to the main proposition following. It was because Jesus knew the Father that He had been able to communicate that knowledge to His people. Because they had received this knowledge, therefore, it was fitting that the love into which, along with the knowledge, they had entered, should bring to them its full reward, and should shine upon them as it shone upon the Son in whom they had renounced the world and the world’s ways. It may, indeed, at first sight startle us to find Jesus using such words of Himself as that He ‘learned to know’ the Father. But (1) it has to be borne in mind that ‘learned to know’ is not in every respect a perfectly satisfactory translation of the original; it only approaches much more nearly to the truth than ‘knew.’ The proper meaning would be ‘got knowledge,’ or ‘came to know.’ (2) There is nothing more startling in the statement than in that of the Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. John 5:8), ‘Yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered.’ There, indeed, we have another and a separate word for ‘learned;’ but a process, a progress, is also implied in the word of the verse before us. The writer to the Hebrews speaks of an experimental learning of obedience by One who was possessed of a truly human, as well as of a Divine nature,—not the will to obey becoming more perfect, but actual obedience being practically more and more learned in the varying duties and trials of life. So here, He who was human as well as Divine ‘learned,’ practically and experimentally, ‘to know’ the Father; and it was because He so learned that He was able to communicate that knowledge—His own knowledge—to His people. Knowledge such as that spoken of can be acquired by us in no other way; and we have repeatedly seen, in considering this prayer, that what Jesus bestows upon His disciples is first His own. John 17:26. And I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known, that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them. The thought of Joh 17:25 is now more fully expressed, and, with it, the result to which the knowledge spoken of conducts all believers is summed up in the one word inclusive of every blessing, both for time and for eternity,—love. How exhaustive is the mode in which Jesus teaches the ‘name’ of God, the revelation of the Father in the Son,—‘I made it known to them; they know; I shall make it known to them!’ It is the expression of complete revelation, similar—so far as in such a matter we may speak of similarity—to ‘Which was, and is, and is to come.’ Therefore there naturally follows to all who embrace this revelation a perfect entering into that of which it tells, into that love which unites the Father and the Son, and which shall be in them, as Jesus Himself shall be in them, the unbroken rest of ‘peace’ after the toils, the eternal sunshine of ‘joy’ after the sorrows, of the world.Thus the third section of the prayer closes, its main burden having been that the whole Church of God, believers of every age and country, may be so brought to and kept in the unity of the Father and the Son that the glory of the Son in the Father may be theirs. For then, the conflicts of this world ended, they shall be partakers of the fulness of that love of the Father which shall encompass them as it encompassed the Son before the foundation of the world,—pure, undimmed, undisturbed by the presence of either sin or sorrow,—the Father in the Son and the Son in them, all in perfect holiness and blessedness consummated into One. Thus, too, shall the end of all be attained, the glorifying of Him ‘of whom and through whom and to whom are all things.’ With the beginning of this chapter we enter upon a new section of the Gospel, extending to the close of chap. 19. The section contains the final assault of the devil and the world upon Jesus. But the struggle is of a kind entirely different from that contained in the fourth or leading section of the Gospel, chaps. 5-12. There Jesus contended with His foes. Here He submits Himself into their hands, and they appear to be the conquerors. Yet they are not really so. God Himself takes up the cause of His Son, and so bears witness to Him, that all the suffering which He endures is but a ‘lifting on high,’ and that the death upon the cross is victory. The first paragraph of this section records the betrayal by Judas, and the seizure of Jesus by the officers of the chief priests and Pharisees accompanied by the Roman soldiers. John 18:2. And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes assembled thither with his disciples. The ‘ofttimes’ must refer to many previous visits to the garden, and not to those connected with the present brief sojourn in Jerusalem. The omission at this point of all mention of the ‘Agony’ in the garden has often occasioned great surprise, and been even used as an argument against the fidelity of the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. Yet it may be observed—(1) That, while the supplementary theory (see Introduction) cannot, as a whole, be received in explanation of the structure of our Gospel, it is quite natural to think that the Evangelist may have felt himself justified in the omission of particular scenes, because he was aware that they were already well known, through his predecessors, to the Church. (2) That his relation of the similar mental conflict and prayer in chap. 12—a relation in which he stands alone—made it both more possible and more natural for him to omit this section here. (3) That his object being now to bring prominently forward the calm majesty with which Jesus met His final sufferings, he was led to select those parts of His actions and words which peculiarly illustrate this, and to say nothing of other parts by which the picture might seem to be disturbed. Such a proceeding is consistent with the most perfect faithfulness. It was not the aim of any one of the Evangelists to present us with a complete narrative of all the life of Jesus, or of all the aspects of His character and work. Each drew rather out of His infinite fulness what was peculiarly appropriate to the design which he had himself in view, or to the range in which he felt himself called upon to work. What we have to ask is not that each shall tell us all, but that the several narratives shall not be inconsistent with each other. No such inconsistency can be urged here. The Agony is the illustration of the words,’ O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: ‘the narrative before us is the illustration of the words,’ Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt; and we know that both these sentences were uttered at the same moment by the lips of Jesus (Matthew 26:39). John 18:3. Judas therefore having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. The circumstances here mentioned are in contrast with those of Joh 18:1, constituting the obverse side of the picture, before the ‘went forth’ of that verse is again taken up in John 18:4, and thus illustrating the same principles of structure as those which met us in the opening verses of chap. 13. The general situation is set before us from its two different sides: the first consisting of (1) Jesus, (2) His disciples; the second, of (I) Judas, (2) the band of soldiers, etc. The mention of ‘the band’ has been made an object of ridicule, as if it could only mean ‘half a Roman army.’ The ridicule is groundless, for—(1) Even if we allow, what it is extremely possible was not the case, that the band was of its full strength, it was after all only the same as the ‘cohort,’ the tenth part of a legion. (2) The Romans in all probability did not think of one man only to be made prisoner, but of the danger of a popular tumult. (3) In Acts 23:23 we have a remarkable instance of the number of soldiers used upon a similar occasion. As the band now mentioned was obtained from the Roman authorities, we see that, from an early period of the night, they must have been led to interest themselves in the transactions taking place. The ‘officers’ were the servants of the chief priests and Pharisees. The trees of the garden made ‘lanterns and torches’ necessary. Although the moon was near the full, the Jews would imagine that Jesus might hide Himself in the covert and so escape. John 18:4. Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon him, went forth. It is in the full knowledge of all that was about to happen that Jesus speaks and acts. In this knowledge He ‘went forth,’ not merely out of the garden, or out of the shade of the trees into the moonlight, or out of the circle of the disciples, but (taking up again the ‘went forth’ of John 18:1) to the fulfilment of the Divine purpose. At this instant the kiss of Judas mentioned by the first two Evangelists was given (Matthew 26:49; Mark 14:45).And saith unto them, Whom seek ye? The object in all probability was partly to allow them to take Him, His hour being now come; partly to direct attention to Himself, so that the disciples might escape. John 18:5. They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. The answer may perhaps reveal the light in which Judas had represented Jesus to the Roman authorities,—‘of Nazareth,’ a Galilean, prone to revolt; or it may be that the Evangelist beholds in it one of those unconscious prophecies of the enemies of Jesus of which we have so many examples in this Gospel. In chap. John 1:45, ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ is one of the three great aspects in which we are led to expect that we shall behold the Redeemer.Jesus saith unto them, I am he. Before the effect produced by the reply is related, a parenthetical clause is introduced.And Judas also, which betrayed him, was standing with them. What is the object of this clause? Not to explain what afterwards happened, as if Judas had been the first to fall, and so to produce a confusion which made his companions also fall; not merely to awaken indirectly a deeper feeling of abhorrence for the traitor who thus dared to present himself before his victim, and that, too, as we learn from the other Evangelists, with a kiss; least of all in order to connect this Gospel with the earlier ones, its author feeling that as he had not told the story of the kiss of Judas it would be well for him at least to indicate the place where it had been given. The explanation is to be found in chap. John 13:27. We have before us Judas possessed by Satan. The powers of evil are concentrated in him; and to bring him thus prominently forward as sharing the fate of others illustrates in the most striking; manner the victory of Jesus even in this hour of apparent defeat. Not man only but Satan shall fall prostrate before the Divine Son; and, if the latter is taken by His enemies, it is not because of their power but because He freely surrenders Himself into their hands (chap. John 10:18). John 18:6. When therefore he said unto them, I am he, they went backward and fell to the ground. It is the Divine majesty and innocence of Jesus that produced the effect. Like the buyers and sellers in the temple, the history of whose terror at the presence of the Redeemer is vouched for by the testimony of the earlier gospels as much as by that of the fourth, they are overwhelmed with awe, and fall before Him (comp. on John 2:16). As soon as they recover, Jesus repeats His question. John 18:7. Again therefore he asked them, Whom seek ye? Their reply is in the same terms as before.And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. The moment is come when Jesus is to deliver Himself up, and His sole concern now is for the safety of His disciples. John 18:8. Jesus answered, I told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way. And then the Evangelist tells us of the illustration which he beheld in this of the meaning of certain words of Jesus uttered not long before. John 18:9. That the word might be fulfilled, which he spake, Those which thou hast given me, I lost not one of them. The words thus referred to are those of chap. John 17:12. There they primarily apply to spiritual and eternal safety; here to what is, in the first instance at least, temporal deliverance.It is impossible to imagine that the Evangelist did not understand this: but the powers of the world and of evil are so identified in his eyes that oppression by, or deliverance from, the one is oppression by, or deliverance from, the other. The temporal is the shadow of the eternal, and the principles working out upon man’s stage here stretch into the long hereafter. In addition to this, however, it is to be noticed that the temporal deliverance thus afforded was really a means to secure the spiritual safety of the disciples. Seized by the Roman guard, they would in all probability have denied their Master even more faithlessly than Peter was so soon to do. John 18:10. Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. And the servant’s name was Malchus. It is possible that the position of ‘therefore’ in the original, between ‘Simon’ and ‘Peter,’ may be designed to call attention to the import of the apostle’s name. It is not Simon only who does the act about to be mentioned, but Simon who is ‘Peter,’ the rock, the bold and determined one. The ‘servant’ is not one of the ‘officers’ formerly mentioned, but the high priest’s own attendant, who may have borne his master’s message to the ‘officers.’ His name was Malchus, and the mention of this fact, as well as of the minute circumstance that the ear cut off was the right ear, illustrates the personal knowledge possessed by John of what he describes. The earlier Evangelists, who all mention the incident, do not give the servant’s name (Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50). As the great object of John in this passage is to illustrate the perfect submission of Jesus to the will of His heavenly Father in the ‘hour’ now come, nothing is said of the healing of the ear. Luke alone tells us of it (chap. Luke 22:51). John 18:11. Jesus therefore said unto Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath given me, should I not drink it? The aid of all violence is disclaimed. Jesus speaks not of ‘thy’ sword but of ‘the’ sword, and thus shows that He can Himself resort to no measure of outward self-defence. It is His Father’s will that He should suffer and die, and to that will He unhesitatingly resigns Himself. The particular form in which the submission is expressed reminds us of the prayer in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39), and the same form of expression occurs at Matthew 20:22. It appears to have been frequent on the lips of the Son of man. Jesus is now of His own accord at the disposal of His enemies. His words have put a stop to all further steps for His defence. We have in this passage the appearance of Jesus before Annas and Caiaphas, together with the three denials of the Apostle peter. The difficulties of the passage, both in itself and in its relation to the earlier Gospels, are unquestionably great. Our first aim must be to understand the narrative as it is here presented to us, without regard to any other narratives that we possess. John 18:13. And led him to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas which was high priest of that year. The word ‘first’ is worthy of notice. It may be used only with reference to the narrative that follows; but it is also possible that we have here another instance, similar to that which we have already met in chap. John 3:24, of the clear and decided manner in which the writer of the Fourth Gospel corrects impressions drawn from the incomplete statements of the earlier Gospels. In the latter we read only of a hearing before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, and no mention is made of Annas. That Jesus was taken before Annas ‘first’ is the statement of John, and the very distinctness with which it is made is no small evidence that we are dealing with real history. John 18:14. Now Caiaphas was he who had given counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. The introduction of these words obviously indicates that the reason why Jesus was taken to Annas first is not to be found in the mere fact of his relationship to Caiaphas, but that it is to be sought also in that character of the latter which, it was hoped, would influence the former. By the reference made to chap. John 11:50 we are reminded that, in his hostility to Jesus, Caiaphas had lost self-control, and had become a mere instrument in the hands of higher powers who were urging him onward to fill up the measure of his guilt. Either, therefore, the Jews thought that the hostility to Jesus raging in his breast must have already influenced his whole family circle (comp. chaps. John 6:71, John 13:26), or they hoped that Annas, if not as yet so deeply implicated in the plot as his son-in-law, might now be persuaded to throw himself heartily into their plans. It was at the same time of the utmost importance to secure the co-operation of Annas, whose influence, as we learn from Josephus, was very great in Jerusalem. Before this powerful man then Jesus stands, bound, submissive, knowing the fate that is before Him. Resting upon this as its background, we have now what the Evangelist, as we shall yet more clearly see, is greatly concerned to describe, the faithlessness of Peter. John 18:15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Although not certain, it is upon the whole most probable that the ‘other disciple’ thus unnamed is John himself. He and Peter may have fled at first with the others; but, if so, they had immediately returned. The name given to Simon is again important. We have already seen at John 18:9 the manner in which the Evangelist brings out the force of ‘Peter.’ Of that force we must not here lose sight. Simon is still ‘the rock,’ notwithstanding what he is about to do. It is the very fact indeed that he is ‘Peter’ which shows how terrible is the moment, and how deep the stab inflicted upon Jesus. But so far is John from wishing to depreciate his fellow-apostle that he regards him, even in the midst of his greatest defection, as the lion of the apostolic band, the man to whom Jesus had given the name Peter in order to indicate his boldness, the man with whom he had himself stood side by side, in years at the time he wrote long gone by, fronting undismayed the very judges who made him tremble now. At the door opening into the high priest’s ‘court’ Peter is stopped. It is indeed only for a few moments, but they are full of weight for the understanding of the narrative. During them Jesus passes through. The two apostles do not pass through at the same instant: John alone finds immediate admittance; and we are justified in saying that, before Peter has well begun his parley at the door, Jesus will be out of sight. Had it not been for an accidental circumstance the two apostles would not have been admitted at all. This circumstance is next related.And that disciple was known unto the high priest, and he went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. Reserving until we come to the close of Joh 18:37 any inquiry into the question whether the ‘high priest’ here spoken of was Annas or Caiaphas, we remark only that it is unnecessary to ask by what means John was known to him. There is no improbability in the circumstance, especially when we remember that the relatives of the Apostle were persons in easy circumstances (Mark 1:20). Thus Known, he finds no difficulty in obtaining entrance into the court. John 18:16. But Peter stood at the door without. Peter is stopped at the door; and, while he stands there, Jesus is lost to his view. The other disciple therefore, which was known unto the high priest, went forth and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. The circumstance thus related is in the highest degree natural, and it is related in the most simple manner. John 18:17. The damsel therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. The maid knew that John was one of the disciples of Jesus, and the interest taken by him in Peter leads her to suppose that the latter must also be one of them. She asks the question, and the first denial takes place. As Peter enters the court, he says, ‘I am not.’ A little incident is now mentioned which, slight as it seems, must be carefully attended to. John 18:18. And the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of charcoal; for it was cold, and they were warning themselves; and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. These ‘servants’ and ‘officers,’ it must be remembered, are those who had so recently laid hold of Jesus, and who were the instruments of His sufferings. They had made a fire of charcoal, a circumstance in itself exceedingly natural in the cold of that spring night; and at it they stood and warmed themselves. ‘Peter’ also ‘with them’ was standing and warming himself. Such seems at first to be the sole meaning of the words: but the clause ‘for it was cold,’ reminding us of chap. John 10:22 and chap. John 13:30, forces upon us the impression that the Evangelist has something more in view than the simple fact apparent to the first glance at the words employed by him. The fact is historical. We know that even from the other Gospels. But it is more than historical. To the symbolic eye of John it has a deeper meaning. In this night of cold he sees Peter associating himself with the enemies of Jesus, perhaps consulting his own comfort while his Master suffers, at all events putting himself in a position where the faithlessness that had already led to his first denial must gain strength; and he thus prepares us to expect that the sin of which he has been already guilty may, probably will, be followed by a still greater fall. Whether this idea is brought out also by the ‘fire of charcoal’ is more difficult to say. It seems not unlikely that it is, for the word is not used by the other Evangelists; ‘coals of charcoal’ are in the Old Testament one of the symbols of Divine judgment (Psalms 18:13; Psalms 120:4; Psalms 140:10); and this symbolic meaning may be extended to chap. John 21:9, the only other passage of the New Testament where we find the word. Apart from this, however, there is enough to show that John 18:18 is not simply historical. The peculiar spirit of the Evangelist appears in it, and we have thus the less occasion for surprise if we meet in the narrative other traces of the same spirit. John 18:19. The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples and of his teaching. Again reserving for the moment any inquiry as to who the ‘high priest’ here spoken of was, and also as to the special character of the investigation itself, we remark only that the object of the narrative is to direct our attention mainly to Jesus. The Evangelist would place Him before us in the dignity and calmness with which He bore His sufferings, as well as in the consciousness of that perfect innocence through which He was able to confront, and really to defeat, His enemies in what seemed the very height of their power. To this, accordingly, he immediately proceeds. John 18:20-21. Jesus answered him, I have spoken boldly to the world: I ever taught in synagogue and in the temple-courts, where all the Jews assemble, and in secret I spake nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which have heard me what I have said unto them: behold, these know the things that I said. The answer is dignified, self-possessed, and calm. Jesus simply makes His appeal to the frank openness of His whole past teaching. He is willing to cast Himself even on the testimony of His enemies. They know what He has spoken, and He has no need to fear if they tell the truth. At the same time the words are intended to rebuke the hypocrisy of those who pretended a wish to know more about His teaching, when in truth they sought only a pretext for accusation. The mention of ‘the world’ and of ‘all’ the Jews lends great force to what is said. John 18:22. And when he had said these things, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? When we remember that the ‘court’ in which the examination was going on could not be large, it seems probable that this ‘officer’ said to have been ‘standing by’ was one of those referred to in John 18:18 as the officers who ‘stood’ by the fire. If so, the circumstance is important, as showing that Peter must have been in the immediate vicinity of Jesus at the moment when the blow was given. Under no circumstances indeed can he have been far off; and the fact is to be kept in view, for it constitutes one of the points of distinction between his first and his subsequent denials. The blow was a rude, perhaps a cruel one. It was also wholly unprovoked, for in the answer of Jesus there had been no want of courtesy. Yet it failed to disturb in the least degree the equanimity of the Sufferer, or to provoke Him out of His spirit of submission to His Heavenly Father’s will. John 18:23. Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? ‘Bear witness’ here is certainly not equivalent to ‘prove by bearing testimony in a regular manner,’ an injunction which would have been out of place. It is simply the solemn word demanded by the circumstances of the moment. Jesus is where He is by Divine appointment; and everything relating to His present state bears impress of the solemnity of His position.—It is precisely in John’s manner that no answer to these words is recorded. The picture of submission is complete. Mere historical detail, such as might satisfy curiosity, is of subordinate interest to the Evangelist. The fact, however, that this is the case is worthy of notice. It helps to throw light upon that structure of the narrative as a whole which we have not yet examined. John 18:24. Annas therefore sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. The difficulty connected with these words will be best explained when we have completed the consideration of the three following verses. In the meanwhile it is enough to observe that in the original Annas is so introduced to our notice as to lead us directly back to the ‘Annas’ of John 18:13. John 18:25. And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. The remarkable taking up again in these words of the fact already mentioned in John 18:18 cannot fail to arrest attention. As far as mere history is concerned, the words are unnecessary. Nor does there seem to be any explanation of their presence here but that they are designed to elucidate the idea of the scene about to be described. Peter is no longer only near the door; he is within the court. He is no longer only in the cold; he is warming himself at the charcoal fire. He is no longer only with John; he is along with the servants and officers of the Jews. Everything corresponds to that more determined, that double, denial of our Lord now to be described.They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied and said, I am not. We are not told who asked the question. The general pronoun ‘they’ is used. In the narratives of the earlier Evangelists we find that, according to Matthew 26:71, this denial was drawn forth by ‘another maid;’ according to Mark 14:69 by ‘the maid,’ probably the maid of the porch; according to Luke 22:58 by ‘another man.’ In John we have what seems the solution of these apparent discrepancies. It was not one person only that thus spoke to Peter. The remark was made by many,—in the excitement of the moment by many at the same time; and Peter (as is even implied in Mark 14:70) repeated his answer to one after another. The ‘they’ thus suggests what was the true course of events. The second denial, as in Matthew 26:72, was in boldness and recklessness an advance upon the first. At John 18:17 only the word ‘saith’ is used; now ‘denied and said.’ John 18:26. One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? It is natural to ask why mention is made of the relationship between the servant who asks this question and the other servant who had suffered through Peter’s hasty zeal. The probable answer is, that the circumstance is not merely historical, but that it aids in developing the idea which the Evangelist has in view. It heightens the effect. This man would ask his question with far more bitterness than the others (comp. the expression of Luke when he says in chap. Luke 22:59, ‘he confidently affirmed’). He had been personally aggrieved by the injury inflicted on his kinsman. His question too is much more pointed,—not whether Peter is one of the disciples, but whether his own eyes had not seen him but a little before upon a spot which he could name. John 18:27. Again therefore Peter denied. Nothing is said of the adjurations mentioned by the first two EvangelistsAnd immediately the cock crew. All else recorded in the earlier Gospels is omitted.We are now in a position to look back upon the whole narrative from John 18:12 to the present point, with the view of endeavouring to meet the difficulties presented when we compare it with the narratives of the first three Evangelists. As to those connected with the three denials of Peter, it seems unnecessary to add much to what has been already said on John 18:25. We may only notice that a use of the pronoun ‘they’ exactly similar to its use in that verse meets us in Matthew 26:73 and Mark 14:70 when compared with Luke 22:59 and John 18:26. In these passages the third denial is in question, and in the first two Evangelists it is drawn forth by ‘them that stood by, in the last two by a single person. The solution depends upon the same principle as that of which we have spoken with regard to the second denial in John. Not one only but many of the eager and excited spectators would ask the question, and of that number Luke and John might easily single out the person peculiarly prominent. All three denials took place in the court of the high priest’s house, and within the range of both the light and the heat of the fire that had been kindled there,—the first, immediately after Peter had been brought into the court; the second, when he had retired into the opening of the porch but was still within hearing of remarks made around the fire (Matthew 26:71);[1] the third, when he was again more fully within the court.[1] The first impression produced by this verse is that the word ‘there’ in it relates to the interior of the porch. But it is absolutely impossible to think that many would be standing in such a place. They may have been around it, even within it, where it opened into the ‘court:’ in its deeper recesses they certainly would not be. In this point of view great interest and importance attach to an alternative reading of Mat 26:71, which is very probably the true reading.—not ‘and saith unto them.’ There this fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.’ but ‘and saith unto them, There this fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.’From the denials of Peter we pass to the nature of the trial of Jesus here recorded and to the judge before whom it took place. Is the trial described by John the same as that of which an account is given us by Matthew (chap. Matthew 26:57-68)? or is it a preliminary examination, having the nature of a precognition, and instituted for the purpose of laying a foundation for the more formal trial before the Sanhedrin? The impression produced by the narrative is that it was the latter; that it is a record of the proceedings taken before Annas ‘first,’ and that at it therefore Annas presided. Yet two difficulties stand in the way of this interpretation,—the first, that Caiaphas, not Annas, appears to be the high priest so repeatedly mentioned in John 18:15-22; the second, that in Matthew’s Gospel the first denial of Peter is related after the public trial is finished, while here, on the supposition of which we speak, it will be distinctly stated to have taken place before that trial began. As to the first of these, it is at least possible that Annas may be ‘the high priest’ of John 18:15-22. Though he had been deposed by the Roman authorities, the office was, according to the provision of the Old Testament, for life; and a Jew like John might well speak of him as still the rightful possessor of the title (comp. Luke 3:2). But if this solution is not very probable, there is another which fairly meets the case. Annas and Caiaphas may have occupied apartments in the same house surrounding the ‘court’ of our narrative. The structure of higher-class houses in Palestine, the relationship of the persons themselves, and the customs of the East, lead not unnaturally to such a view; and it was very early entertained. But if so, though Jesus was really taken to Annas, Caiaphas would in all probability be present at the examination; and, thus present, his more youthful years and the passionateness of his rage against Jesus would lead him to act the prominent part which is assigned to him. The second difficulty is still more easily met. We have to bear in mind the peculiar structure of the first Gospel, and the tendency of its author (of which we had a marked illustration in considering the supper at Bethany in chap. 12) to group his particulars according to their substance, rather than in strict chronological arrangement. Such may well be his object in chap. Matthew 26:69-75, where the three denials are obviously brought into the closest proximity to each other. We seem even to be furnished with a hint to this effect by the words of Mat 26:69, ‘Now Peter sat without in the porch.’ It is not at all likely that, at the close of the trial, amidst the confusion and bustle of the moment, and when the enemies of Jesus were hurrying Him away, after having so far accomplished their object, a person of Peter’s impetuous disposition would continue sitting in the porch. There is indeed another difficulty, connected with John 18:24 of our passage; where, after Caiaphas has taken the part of which we have spoken, Annas is said to have ‘sent’ Jesus to him. This difficulty cannot be overcome by the rendering of the Authorised Version, ‘had sent;’ and the particle connecting the verse with those preceding it is undoubtedly not ‘now’ but ‘therefore.’ Yet we may well suppose that the reference is to the public trial which was yet to take place before Caiaphas as high priest by law: in this capacity, and not in the more private one in which he had been acting at the investigation before Annas, he is now to have Jesus sent to him. If to these considerations we add the fact that we are ignorant of many of those details which would throw light upon the customs of the time, we shall, while not denying that some difficulty still remains, be able to rest with perfect confidence in the general faithfulness of the narrative.One word more may be permitted in regard to the mode in which the three denials of Peter are presented to us by John. It will be observed that they are given in two groups, and that between the two there is advance; the effect is heightened as we proceed. Thus, in the first group there is only one denial: in the second there are two. The first takes place at a moment when Jesus has passed out of Peter’s sight: the second and third at a moment when Jesus is under Peter’s eye,—bound, yet patient and submissive. The first is made when Peter is as yet with John: the second and third when he has associated himself with the enemies of Jesus. At the moment of the first Peter is in the ‘cold;’ at that of the second and third he has seated himself at the fire of charcoal. The first is expressed by ‘Peter saith:’ the second and third are much more emphatic, ‘he denied and said,’ ‘he denied again.’ So many particulars warrant the inference that here, as in various other passages of his Gospel, John sees the historical facts with which he deals presenting themselves in two pictures, both unfolding the same truth, but in a climactic form. From the examination before Caiaphas we are taken to the trial before Pilate. The scene is in every respect one of the most remarkable in the Gospel, alike in its selection of incidents and vividness of description, and in that tragic under-current of thought by which it reveals the humiliation, the condemnation, and the shame of the guilty Jews, while they clamour for judgment upon One whom a heathen would have set free. Again and again, in rejecting their true King, they confess the degradation to which they have reduced themselves, until at last that degradation culminates in words implying the forfeiture of all that had distinguished Judaism, all that of which it had been most proud. The passage contains one of those double pictures which mark the style of John, and the incidents of the two pictures are so arranged that the second exhibits an advance upon the first. John 18:29. Pilate therefore went out unto them, and saith, What accusation bring ye against this man? Pilate was Procurator of Judea under the Roman government; and his character, as described by writers of the time, is that of a skeptical, cold, and cruel man, arbitrary in his acts, and cherishing no feelings but those of contempt for the religion of Israel. He was, however, a Roman judge, and until his passions were excited there is no cause to think that he would not show the usual Roman respect for law. His first question, accordingly, was that of one who would try the prisoner before him with all fairness. John 18:30. They answered and said unto him, If this man were not an evil-doer, we should not have delivered him up unto thee. There is pride in the reply, a lofty sense of their own importance and dignity,—that importance and dignity which they are so soon to sacrifice. The person whom we bring before thee is a malefactor: is it not enough that we say so, and that we deliver him up to thee? John 18:31. Pilate therefore said unto them, Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law. Pilate has already seen enough to satisfy him that no offence against civil order, calling for his interposition, has been committed. He will have nothing to do with merely religious squabbles, and he remits the whole matter to the Jews themselves. Thus the Jews are compelled to declare their purpose, and their self-confessed humiliation begins.The Jews said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. Shortly before this time the Jews had lost the power of putting criminals to death. But the point now is, that they have to confess it. In their answer the Evangelist seems to see a mockery of their high pretensions. The bitter irony of circumstances forces from them an acknowledgment of their shame. But, while they are thus degraded, the Divine purpose proceeds calmly to its accomplishment. John 18:32. That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying by what manner of death he was about to die. The ‘word’ referred to is chap. John 3:14, or still more probably chap. John 12:32. The appeal to Pilate paved the way for the ‘lifting on high’ there spoken of. The Jewish mode of putting to death was stoning. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and could be inflicted by the Roman power alone. Hence, accordingly, the fulfilment of that ‘word’ of Jesus by the very persons who seemed to have Him completely in their hands. So far from its being so, they were in His. John 18:33. Pilate therefore entered again into the palace, and called Jesus, and said unto him. Art thou the King of the Jews? The emphasis of the question is remarkable. The word ‘thou’ stands in the original at the head of the sentence, as if Pilate would say: ‘Thou,—thou so humbled, despised, handed over to me as a malefactor,—art thou the King of the Jews?’ Pilate may not embrace the idea, but he at least thinks the question worthy of being asked. We may notice already that grouping of his materials by which the Evangelist would impress on us the folly as well as the sin of the Jews. Boasting of their superiority to the heathen governor, looking upon him as a ‘sinner’ and reprobate, they yet at this moment fall behind him in spiritual vision. They treat the claim of royal dignity on the part of Jesus as blasphemy. Pilate asks, ‘Can it be true?’ The charge leading to the question, omitted by John as not necessary to his purpose, is given in Luke 23:2. John 18:34. Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell thee concerning me? Many reasons have been suggested to account for this question of Jesus. The real reason seems to be, that the guilt of those now compassing His death may be fixed upon the proper parties. It is to appear that not Pilate before whose bar He stands, but others altogether are the guilty ones. The object is attained, for Pilate’s answer shows that he knew of no harm in Jesus. John 18:35. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me. What hast thou done? Nothing could more strongly express the contempt of the Roman governor for the Jews than these first words in reply, ‘Am I a Jew?’ No words of Jesus had called for a repudiation of Jewish birth, but He had spoken in such a way as might imply that Pilate had been taking counsel with the Jews about His case. Take counsel with them! The very suggestion of such a thing fills the governor’s mind with disgust, and he cries out, ‘Am I a Jew’ What have I to do with so contemptible a race? Thine own people have delivered thee to me. But for them and for their wretched squabbles I care not I make my appeal to thyself. Tell me thyself, what hast thou done?’ All tends to bring out the frightful degradation to which ‘the Jews,’ the very flower of Judaism, have reduced themselves. A Gentile treats them with open scorn, and prefers the words of one brought before him as a malefactor to theirs. John 18:36. Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants strive, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate had hardly comprehended the charge that Jesus made Himself a King. That Jesus really was so is the great point now to be established,—the point to the confession of which Pilate shall ultimately be brought. Jesus, accordingly, without replying directly to die question, ‘What hast thou done?’ turns to this. It is not His chief aim to explain the distinction between a spiritual and a political kingdom, a distinction which the Roman governor would hardly have been able to appreciate. It is to satisfy Pilate that He may be and is a King, although in a sense different from that in which Pilate understood the word. For the same purpose He adds, ‘Then would my servants strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews:’—where the word ‘servants’ (the same as ‘officers’ in John 18:18) does not point to spiritual disciples of the Lord, but to such as would be His attendants and soldiers if He were a monarch of this world. The mark of an earthly kingdom thus selected is precisely to the purpose of our Lord’s argument as we have understood it. Pilate thought that He could not be a King, else His servants would strive to prevent His present humiliation and fate. That is no argument against My royal claims in their true sense, is the reply, for My kingdom is not one that has its origin in this world. In short, the whole argument is not one of self-defence alone; it is intended to lead Pilate to the acknowledgment that the prisoner before him is a King. Thus also the ‘now’ must be understood as the ‘now’ of the Divine counsels, not of merely present time. The period can never come when other words than those before us may be used of the kingdom of Christ. It is never ‘of this world,’ never ‘from hence.’ John 18:37. Pilate therefore said unto him, A king art thou then? It is of importance to notice the difference of construction between the question as put here and at John 18:33. There ‘Thou’ stands in the first place, here the ‘King.’ The difference corresponds exactly to the course of thought which we have endeavoured to trace. In the first passage ‘thou’ is emphatic; ‘thou so poor, so humbled, thou a King?’ In the second ‘King’ is emphatic; ‘a King then, high as that is, art thou?’ In the first the thing is regarded as impossible; in the second the possibility has dawned upon the mind.Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King. It is hardly possible to understand these words as a directly affirmative reply to the question of Pilate, for Pilate had not acknowledged that Jesus was a King. It seems better to understand them in the sense, ‘Thou usest the word king in regard to Me, but not in the right sense’; and then the following words point out what it was that really conferred on Jesus the empire that He claimed.To this end have I been born, and to this end have I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth: every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. The transition here from the thought of kingship to that of ‘witnessing’ is very remarkable. It is to be explained by the consideration that, as ‘the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,’ and as the true glory of His work lay in submission to the demands of self-denying love, so His kingdom consists in witnessing to that eternal truth which is the foundation of all existence, which all were created to own, and in which alone is life. The word ‘witness’ must be taken in a very emphatic sense. Jesus is not only the perfect, He is also the free and willing, Exponent or Revealer of all this truth to men. It is in His entire and voluntary surrender to it that His kingdom lies: His service is really His authority and power. In this respect, too, His dominion is universal over all who will own the truth: bowing to it, they must bow to Him in whom it is contained and by whom it is ‘declared.’ Thus in His witnessing He is King. We cannot fail to notice how the absoluteness of this witnessing is brought out by means of the formula used by Jewish writers, ‘I have been born and am come,’ as well as by the twice repeated ‘to this end.’ For this Jesus had become incarnate: for this He was still standing there. Was not such a witness to ‘the truth’ in all its glorious range of meaning in reality the universal King? John 18:38. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? Not surely the question of one seriously searching after truth, for in that case he would have waited for a reply; nor that of one in despair, which would presuppose a moral depth in Pilate’s character inconsistent with the light in which he comes before us both here and elsewhere; nor of mere frivolity, as if he were treating the whole subject lightly, for in that case he would probably have made fewer efforts to release Jesus; but simply the question of one who, having no correct ideas as to truth, and no conviction even that there was such a thing, found in this frame of mind a hindrance to the faith to which he might otherwise have risen. ‘Were there such a thing as truth,’ he says, ‘then I might believe Thee, but truth is nothing, and therefore Thy kingly position, if in this respect only Thou art a King, need not command my homage.’And when he had said this, he went forth again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no crime. It is a distinct sentence of acquittal; and the point of the whole, as it presented itself to the eye of the Evangelist, seems to be in this, that a Roman governor, a Gentile, declares the innocence and even feels to some extent the true majesty of Him who, though King of the Jews, is rejected and doomed to death by that blinded and guilty people. This guilt of theirs, however, has to be brought out more fully. Another opportunity of retracing their steps has to be offered them, and to be cast away. John 18:39. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover; will ye therefore that I release unto you the Sing of the Jews? The origin of the custom thus alluded to is unknown, although it is generally supposed with no small measure of probability that, as connected with the Passover, it had been introduced as a symbolical expression of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt. Pilate’s object in making the proposal and in styling Jesus the King of the Jews is neither ‘unwise mocking bitterness,’ nor ‘abortive cunning.’ He had been impressed by the majesty of Jesus, and was satisfied of His innocence. But he had no depth of feeling in the matter, and his sense of justice was hardly a wakened by it. Any irony in his words therefore has reference to the Jews and not to Jesus. Surely the poverty, the humiliation, the sufferings of the latter make Him a fit King for the former. As he really cares not what becomes of Him, but sees no reason to detain Him, he will make an effort to let Him go.One subordinate circumstance connected with the words now before us must be noticed. They supply an argument for the fact that the Passover had begun, and that John cannot be understood in other passages to mean that it was still to be celebrated, on the evening of the day following the night in which we at present find ourselves. Even were it true, as urged by some, that the phrase ‘at the Passover’ might have been used of the 14th as well as the 15th Nisan, it is to be observed that, on the supposition of variance between John and his predecessors, the 14th, according to the ordinary method of reckoning, was not yet come, because daylight of, the 14th had not yet broken. But if so, we must either accept the supposition that ‘at’ or rather ‘in’ the Passover could be applied to the night between the 13th and the 14th (for Pilate is speaking of the present moment), or we must reject the idea that this last is the night in which we are now standing. The former supposition, besides being in a high degree improbable, is destitute of all proof; and the only theory consistent with the facts is that which proceeds upon the perfect harmony of all the Evangelists, placing us, at the instant before us, in the night between the 14th and the 15th. It may be worth while to add that those who understand the words of chap. John 19:14, ‘the preparation of the Passover,’ as meaning the day previous to it, have no right to say that when the words ‘at the Passover’ occur here, we are substantially at the same point of time. Surely A.M. cannot be said to be ‘at the Passover,’ and 6 A.M. to be ‘the preparation of the Passover.’ John 18:40. They cried out therefore again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. The word ‘again’ is here peculiarly worthy of notice. No previous cry of the Jews had been mentioned by the Evangelist; and, had his story been constructed merely to illustrate an idea, he certainly would not have spoken of a second cry when he had said nothing of a first. The word can only be a historical reminiscence in the writer’s own mind. He knew that the Jews had cried out before, although he had not thought it necessary to mention it. Now, therefore, when a cry was to be spoken of, which he remembers was a second one, an indication that it was so comes naturally from his pen, ‘They cried out therefore again.’ The cry was, ‘Not this man but Barabbas;’ and the guilty nature of the cry is immediately intensified by a brief but emphatic statement, designed far more to bring out this guilt than to make us acquainted with a fact of history.Now Barabbas was a robber. A robber! and yet they preferred him to the holy Jesus, to the Only-Begotten of the Father, to their King! The dreadful tragedy is still continued; and that it is so in the same line of thought and with the same object as before, is evident from the parallelism between chap. John 18:33-40 and chap. John 19:1-16. The subject is the humiliation of Jesus, the half-hearted efforts of Pilate to release Him, and the determined hostility and cruelty of the Jews. John 19:2-3. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and placed it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, and they came unto him and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they gave him blows with their hands. All is in mockery of His royal claims: first the crown of thorns, secondly the purple robe, thirdly the coming to Him with mock obeisance, fourthly the ‘Hail, King of the Jews,’ fifthly the blows with their hands. We include this last in the same series as the acts preceding it, for the Evangelist, by his peculiar language, appears to mean more than that Jesus was struck. The blows are the mock presents that the subjects bring. They approach Jesus with lowliness and with a ‘Hail;’ and then, as if laying their offerings at His feet, they strike Him. The picture of humiliation and suffering is drawn in striking colours, and its advance upon that of chap. 18 must be obvious to every reader. A similar advance appears in the next two verses. John 19:4-5. And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may perceive that I find no crime in him. Jesus therefore came forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And he saith unto them, Behold, the man! The difference between the situation here and that at chap. John 18:39 does not lie so much in the actual words in which Pilate proclaims the innocence of Jesus, although it is possible that the change of order is not a matter of entire indifference. It lies rather in the fact that on the former occasion he left Jesus in the palace, and came out alone to the Jews with his verdict of acquittal; while here he leads Jesus forth, exhibiting such a bearing towards Him that the Jews may themselves perceive that he considers Him to be innocent. It is further evident from the words of Joh 19:8, ‘he was the more afraid,’ that a mysterious awe had already taken possession of his soul, an awe increased no doubt by the message of his wife (Matthew 27:19) which had just before reached him. In his words ‘Behold, the man!’ we have a clear trace of the sympathy and pity existing in his breast. He speaks of the ‘man,’ not of the ‘king.’ It is the human sufferer to whom he draws attention, one whose sufferings and whole aspect would have melted any heart not dehumanised by personal envy or that fierce spirit of revenge which has marked ecclesiastical fanaticism in every age. So far, however, as he expected to touch the hearts of the Jews by the spectacle presented to them, he is doomed to be disappointed. John 19:6. When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify! Crucify! The advance from what is stated at chap. John 18:40 to the present point is at once perceptible. Then the Jews refused to have Jesus released to them, and cried out for Barabbas. Now their cry reaches its culmination, ‘Crucify! Crucify!’Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him; for I find no crime in him. The words do not seem to contain any serious authorisation on the part of Pilate to the Jews to crucify Jesus. The latter at least did not understand them in that sense, or they would probably have at once availed themselves of the permission given. The emphatic ‘yourselves’ guides us to the true interpretation. There is in the words partly scorn of the Jews, partly the resolution of Pilate to free himself from all responsibility in the guilty deed which he began to see could hardly be avoided. It is as if he would say,‘Is He to be crucified? then it shall be by yourselves, and not by me.’ The Jews, accordingly, are sensible that they dare not avail themselves of the permission. They must adduce fresh reasons for the sentence of condemnation which they desire. John 19:7. The Jews answered him. We have a law, and by the law he ought to die, because he made himself Son of God. The ‘We’ is emphatic. ‘Thou, Pilate, mayest pronounce Him innocent; and He may be innocent of all such crimes as are wont to be tried at thy bar. But We have a law, and that law denounces death to persons like Him; for He made Himself Son of God.’ The law referred to is Leviticus 24:16, and the crime is that Jesus represented Himself to be what He really was. Such was the guilt of the Jews. Not upon false pretences, but upon the greatest of all falsehoods, the misinterpretation of the truth,—in the thickest of all darkness, the light itself made darkness,—they hurried Jesus to His doom. The effect upon Pilate of this charge they had not anticipated. John 19:8-9. When Pilate therefore heard this word, he was the more afraid; and he went again into the palace, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? The remarkable expression by which the Evangelist designates the language of the Jews deserves our notice,—‘this word.’ It is not a mere saying that the Jews have uttered. It is a ‘word.’ The Divine is in it. At the very time when they are pursuing the Lord of glory to His death, they are unconsciously impelled by a Divine power to ascribe to Him the glory that is His due. We are not indeed to suppose that Pilate felt this. But the strange awe—the sense of mystery—that had come over him before is deepened in his mind. He must renew his investigation with all seriousness; and for this purpose he goes again into the palace, taking Jesus with him, and asks Him, ‘Whence art thou?’ The question has certainly no reference to the place where Jesus had been born, or from which He had come to Jerusalem. It is a deeper origin that is asked after. Art Thou from this world, or from another? a man, or from the gods?But Jesus gave him no answer. The question had not been asked in the spirit to which an answer was never refused. Pilate had no sense either of sin or need. Even had he been answered and received the answer as true, he would only have bestowed freedom upon One who sought nothing for Himself: he would not have ‘believed.’ That this was the state of his mind is clearly indicated in the words next spoken by him. John 19:10. Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and that I have power to crucify thee? There is no trace of spiritual feeling in these words; nothing but the sense of offended dignity, that to one in his position, and possessed of his power, a poor prisoner should decline to reply. Hence the position of ‘to me,’ at the head of the sentence, and hence the twice repeated ‘power,’ to emphasize the authority which he possessed. The mention of ‘release’ comes first, as the consideration most likely to tell upon one in the danger in which Jesus stood. To this remark of Pilate an answer is given. John 19:11. Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power at all against me, except it had been given thee from above; for this cause he that delivered me up unto thee hath greater sin. These words call attention to the fact that the source whence Pilate derived his power,—‘from above,’—was the same as that whence Jesus came. In using his power, therefore, against the Son of God, he was really fighting against God. ‘For this cause,’ also, he that delivered Jesus up to him (not Judas or Caiaphas only, but whosoever shared in the deed) had ‘greater sin.’ Why ‘greater’? Partly, perhaps, because the delivering up was the first step in the process of invoking against God the power of God; mainly, because the sin thus committed was, on the part of those who were guilty of it, a sin against greater light than in Pilate’s case. The Jews professed to know (and ought to have known) God better than the heathen judge. They ought to have known better than he the true nature of that source ‘from above,’ from which they derived their power. Therefore their sin, a sin against God, was in them ‘greater’ than in him. In this reply Jesus had done more than speak as an innocent man. He had assumed a position of superiority alike to His accusers and His judge. The effect produced upon Pilate was proportionally great. John 19:12. Upon this Pilate sought to release him. The verb ‘sought’ in the original implies that Pilate now made repeated attempts, not recorded, to effect with consent of the Jews the release of his prisoner. The attempts were vain.But the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Cæsar’s friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar. The term ‘Cæsar’s friend’ had been, since the time of Augustus, conferred by the emperor upon legates and prefects as an honourable distinction. It is not improbable that the hope of obtaining it might even now be floating before Pilate’s eyes. The argument, although not deliberately reserved for this moment, but dictated by the quick insight of excited passion, was thus fitted to tell most powerfully upon him. How it did tell the sequel shows. We shall err, however, if we imagine that the only object of John in mentioning the circumstance is to point out the consideration to which Pilate yielded. He has another object far more nearly at heart,—to exhibit the woeful, the self-confessed, degradation to which the proud Jewish people, by their opposition to Jesus, had reduced themselves. Something similar had been already noted by him at John 11:48, but that fell far short of what is exhibited here. In order to effect their guilty end, they by whom the friendship of Cæsar was regarded as degradation and not honour, appeal to the desire for it as a noble ambition; they who would fain have trampled the authority of Cæsar under foot as the source of the oppression from which they suffered, and of the loss of all the ancient glories of their nation, represent the effort to maintain it as one that loyalty ought to make. With what clearness does the Evangelist see these wretched ‘Jews,’ in the very act of accomplishing their ends, plunging themselves into the greatest depths of ignominy and shame! The effect of the appeal is not lost upon Pilate. John 19:13. When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. The decisive moment is now come; and, according to the frequent method of our Evangelist, the way is prepared for it by the mention of several particulars. First, we have the place. It was not in the palace, but at a spot called in the Aramaic tongue Gabbatha, and in the Greek the Pavement. The Greek name was probably given because the floor was laid down in the mosaic work common in those days in places of importance, such as theatres and halls of justice, and before altars of the gods. It literally means inlaid with stones. The Aramaic word Gabbatha signifies a hill or elevated spot of ground, so that we are to think of a spot in the open air where a tribunal was erected on a rising ground, the top of which was laid with tesselated pavement. The time is next noted. John 19:14. And it was Preparation-day of the passover; it was about the sixth hour. It is not to be denied that the difficulties connected with each of these two clauses are very great; and we have again to regret, as at chap. John 18:28, that in a commentary such as this it is impossible to do justice to the question. We shall endeavour to indicate as clearly as our space will permit the solution that we propose. 1. It is urged that the first clause means, ‘It was the preparation of the Passover,’ that is, the day before it. Difficulties are thus removed at the cost of making John contradict the earlier Evangelists as to the night when the Last Supper was instituted, and the day when Jesus was crucified. Apart from all consideration of the new difficulty thus created, we observe—(1) That the interpretation thus offered makes the Evangelist contradict himself (comp. what has been said on chap. John 18:39; and bear in mind that Pilate at the moment there spoken of released Barabbas, Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:25). The Passover was therefore then begun. To speak now of the day preceding it is impossible. (2) The translation ‘the preparation’ cannot be accepted. There is no article in the original. The Greek term must be rendered either ‘a preparation,’ or it must be taken in its well-known sense of ‘Friday.’ (3) It has never been shown that the day before the Passover was called ‘The preparation of the Passover.’ It has been conjectured that it was, because it is believed that the day before the Sabbath was called ‘The preparation of the Sabbath.’ No such name as this last has been pointed out. It did not—we may venture to say that, without a different mode of connecting the two words, it could not—exist. The whole foundation upon which rests the idea of a day called ‘the preparation of the Passover’ is removed. 2. A second solution is offered. By ‘preparation’ we are to understand Friday; by ‘the Passover’ the Paschal feast; by the whole expression, ‘It was Friday of the Paschal feast.’ There is much in this to be accepted, for it appears from Josephus that the seven days festival was often designated ‘the Passover,’ and there can be no doubt as to the rendering ‘Friday.’ The difficulties, if nothing more can be said, are—(1) To see why the words ‘of the Paschal feast’ should be added; they are unnecessary; and they do not occur at John 19:31, although the day there spoken of is the same as that before us here. (2) That it is not easy to exclude from the original the thought of the ‘Paschal lamb.’ That is the proper rendering of the Greek, and the rendering which lies closest to the whole conception and drift alike of the chapters with which we are now dealing and of the special verses in which mention of ‘the Passover’ is made. Notwithstanding these difficulties, we accept this rendering as in part at least the meaning of the Evangelist. The difficulties will vanish when we consider that it is not all his meaning. For, in truth, he seems to be led to his choice of the particular form of expression which he employs by the tendency that we have so frequently had occasion to observe in him,—the tendency to see things in the doubles presented by symbols and their realities. Both the leading words of the clause before us are susceptible of this double meaning; and it is because they are so that we find them here. Thus—(1) The former word is to be taken in its double sense, ‘a preparation’ or ‘Friday.’ (2) The words rendered ‘the Passover,’ or as it might be simply ‘the Pasche,’ are to be taken in their double sense, ‘the Paschal lamb’ or ‘the Paschal feast or week.’ At the time when John wrote, if not also much earlier, both senses were in use in the Christian Church. Exactly then as in chap. John 3:8 John has in view the double meaning of the Greek word for spirit or wind, so here he has in view the double meaning of these expressions. The day now dawning, and the events now occurring, were ‘a preparation of the Paschal lamb’—yet not of the lamb of the Jewish feast, but of the true Paschal Lamb, Jesus Himself,—of the Lamb now on His way to be sacrificed for the life of His people. It was also ‘Friday of the Pasche.’ Both these meanings are prominent to the eye of the Evangelist; and as, with the ready appreciation of symbolism possessed by the symbolic mind, he sets that one of his deepest thoughts can be expressed by words which shall at the same time express an outward incident of the scene, he chooses his language for the sake of the richer meaning to which he is thus able to give utterance. The view now taken derives confirmation from the fact that at John 19:31 of this chapter, where the word ‘a preparation’ or ‘Friday’ is again used, the addition ‘of the Passover’ is dropped. Why is this? Because by the time we come to that verse the true Paschal Lamb has been slain: it is no longer possible, therefore, to speak of a preparation of Jesus. If, on the other hand, the word denotes the weekly day of preparation (‘Friday’), it is clear that in John 19:31 any explanatory addition would be superfluous. The particular view to be taken of chap. John 19:28-37 also lend confirmation to what has been said.The second clause of the words with which we now deal is much more easily explained than the first: ‘and it was about the sixth hour.’ If this hour be according to Jewish modes of reckoning (noon), we are in direct conflict with Mark 15:25, ‘and it was the third hour, and they crucified Him.’ There, at 9 A.M., the crucifixion takes place. Here, at noon, the sentence is not yet pronounced. The main elements of the solution are to be found in what has been already said with regard to the mode of reckoning time employed in this Gospel. ‘The sixth hour’ is thus 6 a.m., an hour supplying us, as nearly as it is possible for us to imagine, with the space of time needed for the events already past that night, as well as with that needed for things still to be done before the crucifixion at 9 A.M. To these considerations has to be added the fact, that Pilate now for the first time took his formal place upon the judgment seat, and pronounced sentence with the suitable solemnities of law. But by Roman law this could not be done before 6 A.M.; and it is much more likely that Pilate would embrace the earliest opportunity of ridding himself of a disagreeable case than that he would carry on the process until noon.Both the place and the time for the last step in the trial of Jesus have now been mentioned. Pilate is on his judgment seat, on a spot elevated above the people. The true Lamb of God is before him ready for the sacrifice. The awful ‘hour is come.’And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! The words are not spoken sarcastically of Jesus, but contemptuously of the Jews. Pilate had no motive for being sarcastic with regard to the former. He had been impressed by the spectacle of meekness and innocence which Jesus presented. He would have set Him free had he possessed sufficient earnestness and depth of moral character to carry into effect what he knew to be right. We cannot, therefore, suppose that he has any wish to treat Jesus with contempt. But all the more that this was the case, and that his own conscience was reproving him for his weakness, would his contempt be increased for those who were urging him to act unjustly. His secret displeasure with himself would seek satisfaction in his indignation and disgust with them. He had shown his contempt for the Jews from the first (comp. John 19:35), and now, with that contempt raised to its highest point, he says, ‘Behold, your King.’ It is possible also that in these words the Evangelist sees one of those unconscious prophecies or Divine declarations concerning Jesus of which we have had repeated illustrations in this Gospel. John 19:15. They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Instinct tells them that the last moment when they may accomplish their object is arrived: and, roused to the utmost pitch of fury by the words of Pilate, they cry out, with a quick repetition of words corresponding to their feelings, Let him be hurried off to crucifixion. But Pilate will still further provoke them, still further pour out his contempt upon them.Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? Then follow those words evidently so full of meaning to the Evangelist.The chief priests answered, We have no king but Cæsar. The chief priests, the heads of the Theocracy of Israel, give the answer, which thus comes upon us with a more terrible force than it could otherwise have done. What an answer is it! It is the utterance of self-condemnation, the renouncing of the chief honour of the chosen people, the casting away of what had most distinguished them in the past, of what they hoped most from in the future, ‘We have no king but Cæsar.’ God is rejected; Messianic hope is trampled under foot. In the moment of securing the death of their true King, ‘the Jews,’ by the mouth of their leaders and representatives, plunge themselves into the lowest depths of guilt and shame. John 19:16 a. Then therefore delivered he him up unto them to be crucified. The tragedy has reached its climax; and in this single sentence the rest of the direful story may be told.John 19:16 b. They therefore received Jesus. ‘They,’ not the soldiers, but the chief priests of Joh 19:15 and the Jews of Joh 19:14. The verb is that of chap. John 1:11, ‘His own accepted him not.’ Now they did ‘receive’ Him, but only to hurry Him to a cruel death. It will be observed how much this peculiar force of the verb is brought out by the true reading of the verse, which omits ‘and led him away.’ John 19:17. And bearing the cross for himself he went forth unto the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha. It is a trace of the accuracy of John both in observing and relating facts, that he is the only Evangelist who mentions the circumstance. Nor is there any contradiction betwixt this statement and that of the three earlier Gospels which tells us that they compelled Simon of Cyrene to bear the cross after Jesus. Jesus had borne it at first, but had afterwards been compelled through fatigue to resign it. On ‘went forth’ comp. on chap. John 18:1. The place was called Golgotha, ‘the place of a skull,’ probably as being a small round hillock. The most interesting point to be noticed is the manner in which John dwells upon the meaning of the name. The ‘place of a skull’ is the emblem to him of the sad transaction about to be completed there. The Evangelist adds, John 19:18. Where they crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. On the lingering torture of death by crucifixion it is unnecessary to dwell. We learn from the earlier Gospels that the two crucified along with Jesus were robbers (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27). To this death they too must have been doomed by the Roman power, and as we find the Roman governor writing the inscription and Roman soldiers taking part in the crucifixion and dividing the spoils (comp. John 19:23), it is reasonable to think that it was also a Roman, not a Jewish, arrangement by which the two robbers were suspended on either side of Jesus. If so, the object must have been still more to bring out that idea of His royalty with which Pilate to the last mocked the Jews. Not only, however, did he mock them thus. Following the custom of the time, by which an inscription describing the crime for which a malefactor suffered was nailed to the cross, he ordered this to be done now, and he himself dictated the words. John 19:19. And Pilate also wrote a title, and put it on the cross; and there was written, JESUS OF THE KING OF THE JEWS. The object, as before, was to do despite to the Jews, not to Jesus. To the last moment their terrible crime must, under the overruling providence of God, be brought home to them. John 19:20. This title then read many of the Jews, for the place of the city where Jesus was crucified was nigh. The language in which this proximity of Golgotha to the city is spoken of is in a high degree remarkable: not ‘the place was nigh to the city,’ but ‘the place of the city was nigh.’ We are not to imagine that by these words the Evangelist means to say that the place of the crucifixion was within the city. He knew well, as every one knew, that it was ‘without the gate.’ It is the power of the idea, not perverting the fact but leading to a special view of it, that meets us here, as so often elsewhere. The place outside the city, but really belonging to the city, is viewed only in this latter aspect, as ‘the place of the city,’ because a closer connection is thus established between the crime committed there and the guilty city of Jerusalem.And it was written in Hebrew and Latin and Greek, the three great languages of the then known world. John 19:21. The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews, but, That man said, I am King of the Jews. The offence taken might have been, and probably was, expected by Pilate; but the mode in which it is described is again highly worthy of our notice. This is the only occasion on which we meet with the expression ‘the chief priests of the Jews;’ and as it occurs in such close connection with the words ‘the King of the Jews,’ we can hardly doubt that the latter words determined the form of the phrase before us. On the one side we see the King of the Jews defeated, yet victorious; suspended on the cross, yet proclaimed to be what He is in all the great languages of the world; set before us as universal King. On the other side we see the chief priests of the Jews victorious, yet defeated; their object apparently accomplished, yet its accomplishment turned to their own shame, and their Victim’s glory.—Their request was denied in the most curt and contemptuous language. John 19:22. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. It is impossible to mistake the feeling of the Evangelist that in all this the finger of God is to be traced. Those who refuse to ‘believe’ shall yet be compelled to own that Jesus is King. This paragraph details some of the events of the crucifixion, but not in strict historical sequence to John 19:21-22. The conference with Pilate there alluded to following as it did the reading of the inscription spoken of in John 19:20, must have been later than the moment when the division of the raiment of Jesus by the soldiers began. We can hardly doubt that this latter would begin as soon as the cross was erected and Jesus nailed to it. John 19:24. They said therefore to one another. Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be. Both in the dividing and in the casting of lots the Evangelist sees Scripture fulfilled.That the scripture might be fulfilled, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture they cast lots. The quotation is from Psalms 22:18, and is accurately reproduced from the Septuagint. These things therefore the soldiers did. The words may either be intended to emphasize the presence of God in the scene, as He made the Roman soldiers fulfil His Scripture; or may simply arise out of the intense interest with which John narrates each particular of these eventful hours.—Another scene is now presented to us. John 19:25. But there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. In Matthew 27:55 we are told of ‘many women beholding from afar.’ But as there is nothing to say that the moment was the same as that now before us, the supposed contradiction between ‘by the cross’ and ‘from afar’ disappears. If the third of the women here mentioned be the same as the second, we shall have two sisters of the same name in one family; for ‘sister’ cannot mean cousin. The high improbability of this leads to the supposition that we have here four women, in two groups of two each. This view is confirmed by the fact that the lists of apostles are in like manner given us in groups of two, and by what does not seem to have been urged as an argument upon the point, that the four women seem designedly placed in contrast with the four soldiers. (Not that the Evangelist makes the number in order to suit his purpose; but that out of the ‘many’ spoken of by Matthew he selects four for its sake. It is the same habit as that of which we have seen so much,—the selection of particulars to illustrate the historical idea which he is desirous to unfold.) On the supposition that four women are mentioned, it appears from the earlier Gospels that the second, here unnamed, was Salome, John’s own mother. Whether Clopas may be identified with Cleopas (Luke 24:18) it is impossible to decide. John 19:26-27. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom be loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold, thy son. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother; and from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home. The act thus recorded has been variously interpreted; by some as in its main purpose an act of filial care for the mother whose soul was now about to be pierced by the sword spoken of in the prophetic word of Simeon (Luke 2:35); by others as a formal renunciation of her, that He may surrender Himself wholly to the will of His heavenly Father. It is in the first of these two lights that we must chiefly regard it. Then we can best explain the words of Joh 19:27, which are evidently the Evangelist’s commentary upon what had just passed; and the renunciation spoken of had really taken place at chap. John 2:4. John 19:28. After this. Jesus knowing that all things are now finished, that the scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst. It is a question whether the words ‘that the Scripture might be accomplished’ are to be connected with what precedes or with what follows. In favour of the former connection it may be said—(1) It is John’s practice to point out the fulfilment of Scripture after, not before, the event fulfilling it. (2) It is his usual practice to notice the fulfilment of Scripture in what is done to Jesus, rather than in what is done by Him to fulfil it. (3) The use of the word ‘now’ seems to show that we have already reached a complete accomplishment of Scripture. It would thus appear that it is the intention of the Evangelist to present to us a word spoken by Jesus at a moment when He knew that Scripture had been already fulfilled. He is in the position of One whose work is done, and for whom nothing remains but to depart. The strong counter-argument is that everywhere else in this Gospel (see chap. John 2:22) ‘the scripture’ denotes some special passage. As, however, we cannot doubt that John regarded the utterance here recorded as fulfilling Psalms 69:21 (see chap. John 2:17), the difference between the two interpretations is less than it at first appears.—That thirst was a great part of the agony of the cross we know; nor in all probability should we think of more, were it not the manner of John to relate minor incidents, not for themselves alone, but for the sake of the deeper meaning which he always sees to be involved in them. This manner of the Evangelist, therefore, compels us to ask whether there may not be a deeper meaning in this cry? Let us turn to chap. John 4:7. There, immediately after mention of ‘the sixth hour,’ Jesus says to the woman of Samaria, ‘Give me to drink.’ Here, in close contiguity with another ‘sixth hour’ (John 19:14), He says, ‘I thirst.’ But we have already seen in the language of chap. John 4:7 the longing of the Redeemer for the fruits of that work which He was then accomplishing in toil and weariness; and we are thus led to think of something of the same kind here. It was not merely to temper suffering that Jesus cried, but it was for refreshment to the body symbolizing a deeper refreshment to the soul.—The request thus made was answered. John 19:29. There was set there a vessel full of vinegar: they put therefore a sponge full of the vinegar upon hyssop, and brought it to his mouth. It is possible that the vinegar here referred to may have been the mixture of vinegar and water used by the Roman soldiers to quench their thirst; or it may even have been a vessel of vinegar itself, of which large quantities were used at the Passover. The ‘hyssop’ cannot be equivalent to the ‘reed’ of Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36, for the hyssop plant was of too low and bushy a habit to supply a reed. It is simply a small bunch of hyssop, which was most probably attached to the end of a reed. A piece of sponge soaked in vinegar was fastened to the hyssop end of the rod, and the draught was in this way conveyed to the lips of Jesus. 89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d49484452000000d30000035c08020000004a6b0d1e000000017352474200aece1ce900000009 70485973000012740000127401de661f780000ffb549444154785eecfd79dcc45f5dd7ffffd4f68c25d3b2347337b3341305 59c4322b334516d972494104ccdd645f3f089ab925a808b8822282829666e5021f36c5ca724dc3d4365341d4f67ef5bdc303 8fef66e69a79cf725dd75cd735ef3fe636f39ef33ee7bccfeb795efb39e72dfeeffffdbfffbfd3751a810b1f81b7bcf0164f 0d9e46e08d237042de090797330227e45dceb89f5a3d21ef8481cb198113f22e67dc4fad9e9077c2c0e58cc009799733eea7 564fc83b61e07246e084bccb19f753ab3705794235ffffdfbefef7fffedfffe7fffc9f05dabb5999823a7dffbeeffbbe9531 1e37d5700affec337fdee2260c5fef085b6ff9966f09317dfeeedffdbb1706eebffff7fffe166ff1163ff7733ff76eeff66e 0afcaedff5bbdef33ddf53b1effaaeef72675a38d8bdd55bbd95aaf619fd9bfcec8d183840013b40f9cffff93fffb37ff6cf fcf47d81ea0349eff11eef112ea1cae5fe3bbff33b2f148e7b2e33ce9b8ca46ddffd46f0bc50e27aeff77e6f03f47b7ecfef f9922ff992bff257fe0a0ee7679fcafcfb7fffef3ff4433ff4052f78c1fbbccffbc4ccfef49ffed3fefd888ff88885617d87 7778878ffdd88ffde37ffc8fe38bdb8ef8a97c23702390876fe179bff00bbff097fff25ffe437fe80ffdd7fffa5f7fefeffd bd108699e16da1072effdedffb7bdff00ddf70b7bbddedcbbffccb01eedffc9b7ff3d7feda5f53b27fa78851db677cc6673c f8c10ffefdbffff79f90b4db08dc08691b577bc31bde0064bff11bbf0188ffe37ffc8fc73dee7164ee507331b97ffb6fffed fffa5fff2bfe076a3ffdd33f1db0e06c6170d5431dc43b771bf4d35346e046200f92008b0cfd4b7fe92ffdc13ff80769725f f9955ff9f99ffff9ee1b02e0eb4ab1fbf11ffff19ffff99fff8ffff13f3efff9cfff9ffff37f821dbee813f30b9119b6effb beef1b4c0f72a50c0cada056863deea79e8c9f3a4331a81b5757d7bc11c8c3db1015e77ba7777a27dc0e8650eecffed93f8b 69811a42c2d030577fe5577ee5e94f7ffa3ff927ffe435af794d58a41dfec00ffcc0ab5ffdea9ff8899ff8fb7fffef7ff117 7ff1577cc557d0f30e68d80e5eab932ebdfdc7fff81f7ff7777f77ec96d1fd17ffe25fd48d7ff80fffa1bffed5bffa57a6d0 5ffdab7ff5477ee4470e88fe834ca1f995dc08e44d3d291818aef6855ff885f7bad7bd6ebdf556a4cddb8284eff22eeff2df fedb7f03cd7ffa4fffe9dffdbb7f7708e23ff6c7fe186322e3f7ae77bd2bd3040efec01ff803877248e167e60048e95bacee 6bbee66b3ef9933ff9118f78c4e77eeee7eade339ff9ccd7bffef588fa399ff339bafa755ff7757afb8bbff88b26c97c4a1f 5bc91b813c5c04682867f7bbdffd72d4b918109ff4499ff480073ce01ffda37ff41ffec37f70e73ef7b90f7618177ca3f1f5 166f9138f3979bc0e10ecdafc70165d935b31b75d58cabfdd88ffdd85fffeb7f1d637331715842baf1bddffbbd98df577dd5 57811a80fef93fffe7f5a139e08e7f776bf1189eba29c843307079fbb77ffbe73def791ffee11f8ed2297024d7631ef3980f fbb00ffbf44fff7460c2ccf2e4a5f605b2b77ddbb74d58277c51dd052e0774a940fcaffeeaaf9a0c43e34c07d51c3e175080 1e28018e9c6d32f83c14fa2f1e8b370279635873e951d430123e91d4f354756a1c11fcd297be94c0ad3c1ee3935d42ea2983 e4cb46ee85114c0f7520aefc27ffe49fd4c92c9e4349fc0b7b91d1d0cd421e26114b636a7cf6677ff6977ee9977ee2277e22 2062607426c28eab6f44d59016d4ee7ef7bbd3fc8c979f184c16e8c5d349ebac8a777ff777d7a51cddbafafeeffffe571779 37c2933ce579e42cc6c66cfce55ffee59ff9999f41bf9ffaa99fa2637dd3377dd3bff817ff82c8c3ea325ab34b94ff988ff9 98eefcedbffdb7991ac4eec13d79da929dc03b7d16a615206d297f7fe12ffc052e717d7eaff77aafeff88eef300d0ede998b 9957370e79a8cb3791ba964b82c7d82776f8999ff9999c290379dd84bc1cceae3ff127fec4377ee33732750b6c1cf0da88bc 046b36b899c0307abff77b3ffc2f2e7ec09e5c5855374bda1a5611b30c5824f4857324e30315795b148033e21514dc77f3b6 b7bd2d922b0091ffe93ffd272eb4031a1653663c55da6a51eb455f9a0399d5d89e182039abff5942d3b84bdee60b43cf3e0d dd38e47ddaa77dda831ef4a0b7799bb7c938fd2fffe5bf0c4b56dc0215514e9c03c9fff01ffec34cdd0ffcc00fe4cb804537 95ec739f115f7e36e840f630540b66e06a03462976acec4ff8844fa07a2a8fd595a6d55f3a9c49748966d056c372e041dcaa ed8b2f9caf0ef8befddbbf9d8705c18692848a281a8f41427c85ffe5cbbeeccbc4333eeee33eae074144f6cac1bb0d645aff a11ffaa111903025603d1edc058277b8c31d9efbdce7328c62c6d81b7b9c912e1ee38eecaf66cec1bb774e155e193d6f441a 1069643745b32192368e51ea5a1737ece77ddee7a9f6277ff227335adde1d58345ff52e1a32ed6f23ddff33de88df6a4335b 24d9b7d056b22f808e4484fa9c477ada4f5555c348d0d210dcb36fb255139acd0adf99b44f7ad29384fb626c9e053251967f f00ffe81ee8d4ab465b610c479b975e9988d8f2bc3f30c77eeb7fc1a2e3430e8b93c665e7983135223f15884406df81feb32 5215272868c1c278c6339e818a3ae013f2ce72deea98c2708c2f4a6666af043b4f85ec62b2eaf733f958b7bd022b0798c61d fda1cf7941c520f2dbbeeddbfedc9ffb73f98d758cc3d90c013ba2dfb31acdc8d0d0139ff8444e227cdacd2377b85c319e27 ccf5b4a73d0d44fee81ffda3f7bce73def7def7bbfdddbbddd0e9666f0151e501582fdadbff5b7581232f6701db44448c901 ca40c3431ef2907ff7effe1d75d04d8f70c4ac7464a034daffcb7ff92f390813e2602458823379d01d31e2a040c594e71267 0dc41afad11ffd51e6ea7476e197bfeff7fd3e0cec59cf7a56a1bff4cb7ffdafff35e9ffbad7bd2ed48e1a324af44d319f32 71c4060fae92ce9ce1738a1d3bf21279c637354b92c8739ef31c648b0931026491c4a532148a896d1c71c456d227af6cfe39 51019f3daee67ffecfffb9466fb9e516b9a28a018116311ee85466598a41de477ff44753b900370e1787c602d58645890ec7 473dfe77fecedf0150ed0614c5c08ea2a664e8cc94a6897abbba9490e583641e49e25226918db3f2817fcbb77c4b418e21dc e5517fd1177dd10e73720e680e52e6d8a56d3ad9cb5ef632e9493ca83ff8833f982e15d9d87a6942c3398748917cfd9526f4 a99ffaa949dea83b202e3c95aafef55ffff5a89b4ea6a4f0ee50d116eae708240487a7a399c00fa233af78c52bc0ae3b5525 4c870b267fddc4c35ef9ca57f2ef0cfb203b57ac0c8e3d9214d6c9873dec61af7ded6b1b93422c3481673ffbd96a7347739e f2ac2f9c47472e6d8f1d79461c6d5efce217133a64eb2ffdd22f0d92a31c995b8158632eb1390e2de414c69081b75c185b12 5bfbd66ffd5684d7840a13cdbff55bbf2554ef67ce8b852b59bca002ca7ffee66ffe66ec13f74ac90b228ac17473066ec868 1a1bae3958a992ca487b6e3e90b0b4824ff9944fc9bee9caf3029a20eb75e4537192130210c9229103b691f16f9a9ee7fbff 7149dba0e38a1978f5c4a2efec50b667133adea08c58564b62f11ba12dc2ced013c7224b1b870d923832b01f0bd2e264c382 891186b9947ad75834b492a23ccc7ff36ffe4dc560051a7400c8f4272c52463145f77946745e196e395aa6f2dc3732edd2e4 b245ea39209613e0d3f7614d0f2b44dff424b1ae4259836a034d2a01254f8b5555736759451b47e9fc0a1c1dcf8bc1600324 948b4783366de0986c749abff137fe06efaee148e3465a5a8ec1258bd1cf834c8435d1cf318ec9262bcd1ef9c847ba893643 d285b9384aacc545ce226d885c490c21b5fecae21667bbfded6faf0696a9e90107eeb3578272df15d67faa1b6cb9a8652c92 2a578cc513c814f66fb371c0cefd9a4b82fbd7b474190d9f1ff2211f027fc64a24fa6855bde3425ed28d8be1bef7bd2f1ee6 e2489306ccf1619469e5180f6bb10cdef804abd0e0fe993ff3671470c77df6efc6991ab6c829c878f8c31f1e5cce7a8ace64 599a7fd78407202f232074524c511da0c588818ccb97814c586bb4f5e4e4af3e28a35abcd0b3660efe5d1ffc2509d9a70a3f eaa33e8a3e4a80ce7c29c5d8433e096b327d1a82db58c34516382ee421096ab1f2102fbf4377a43399c792d48d239c09db67 eda2e2affddaaf192fe0087648f5d4a73e353f057e89f0af7ad5ab12e219b30d6ef66cb5d19fee78c73b2ab030eef118ceb9 a73ce529e95b43e4ada450c072794a430a6705fbee936d94b102eede2e4be8233ff223f1daf407fe9a516dc5b88e3977f042 755227ce8245fd4c354c04e707d004056058d91789aa396d1d979e97f24ef11a2235e28d6080bc4e6e0e8481c2cffaaccf8a f39183a4a19fbe539ba86e9c117e26377d1276ca2bdc929fe9b8c4c630240f2efcc5eba62acc698e9e1427c37a9735aab869 b10d5f12b818ad4bf71ef8c007fef00fffb08ef1f399454d806c11f2da94b058d3540c552b299a3eea1112d6d031c2f03cb6 173d92f86eea1ea1b5f1564f78c213e620f462caa4cbbff55bbf35f55f9e7a16ab61054421075c41b608e5dd521d4c8ecb8a daae24b1227ca987c6375f9795b33ffbb33f4b8a853cf25a5a651c6b9906d8c36d6e731b04f3c8f435d9347205726aac91c5 3d126298a8fc23d34aeabf3baaa2d2d5012d32d5fbcec3acff80f59bbff99bc39fe7be3b5c8c24b559a1f5d8ff4a2a28e92f 7a88dc690e1a6aeebbbeebbb3efef18f3750eecfecffc5d077daca51202f51886d0cadf9833ff883297968f6411ff4418c00 6a1f7d993f96bf8343eb8ffc913f4201f7c99fc70ac1303efee33f1ebc9817e8c757c240c1e1d466e8492ba649f37e1976d1 06f1b87c09e844763486f50ff8800ff0734d025c121cab861e9c15cf1bda5ba33c4461b073990f25787a5f1e60ee1b35241c 5d7916eb437cae1a92f5f1fed05cb1c0eaa70edce94e77c2268d866999a0f06076f111f2bca390b6c6a8b1663da4c3d1ea10 1ee090734154194452896c62c4e18bd237dc4955f72c9d6cb85edda17b51fb28521b99965827b6b1804e32fa76b7bb5d4953 2bb902cce939d6cb9d665658848b4bd107d62b855eb084d35c362ad7ae7a4613a96b0b2d16c9683a05f79c29ec59e2b8308c 0d5f44656ccaa180cecbb32a2877845e95a3405e2e0ce8b9fffdefdf2436b8c3c746d1663952c6c5c88d3ba321e93646130d 2ca1e0c482428ed9c819d9a8d8eecf99f43ac0c9826b4e9d67660255698d9ee7a9f810758d2f6d2a13974d9629b07cd72b58 312b469c371bc5bc82a465acab90ce80e5bb3c1e10b96cbcb51a1efde847cbaa8ad327c7d355480cbec3f5b6d1c58bda374a 83350374611d325e64d0f77ffff7138bc6280b311f1bdb333d09255a113d3a9c8bb5fb0a7b30e788eb4ffda93f25d4164099 873ee7e40bd9f202db9b36c1a6ce8d77d65024d17ce27938df90d46731c83c41494c65728c7b7777ecd2c77512e0bc32b8c0 5ff52bc0c4b6db468e3dba2c6793c086bfbc38ad9788a05f16e1983a1dc90da16753f7c4f35653304163e93cc22786586734 3603cd681d72871991deb3c03c6025a3b8f1453f368a9895c26ae6ce2083364a5b28a72072194ebbb811799e72e152b85122 724d43cd8a0c266aab07b9c71910d043444aadf3783344b7618e399553f0ce77be737a6a8a602e1b12c0abe9b36206aa08af 0980cd93b3bd05578018f47ad17f61fc65a1a1a3e0798da6e136d18db5ef327ca47ec050865b9d568c250152fde407810c13 dd1d4158962f5aa25cd922b14ccfda26023d364efa243ed6320c4c4d6c445eec967a17d007875e26675e3d62917c94615f2e 16f3c8a7142c9b0a50cec6cba6cf05c112aeca21480949a6f79d1b853ac1368a8992bc74bb215b8d586ea98daf7ff1f83b0a e465dc35b28df830e27c1f34f02f2fdd70f4d3c0f08c618d5ab6c88c5d1e41e21280360e3d2aa22eaf04aba54ad052fd1e8f f62b69a39f4043b99cda072b4b2a801393ad6a2bca5258363f5fc6782390dd3adf1a35740c5bae668cb3fd5f8e3662361d99 a388614cc5c1f0b9a7e2e86bf31b25fc35d54a5ff2929750ab8366a05949725499a9cb62151cb00364aacdd3b6e6716504d6 e6d4af72fc891d9a02ea416c2fae2cc521cf882b2d6d3eece28b1c78d41276584e998b67603bb478143ccfb8b7e00561227c 24a1c110a6830c8695b950acdd8579500a39eedff11ddfd1b20916df32c1124c84f8a31ef5a8f5a3837e1a553f37c4e07914 44be1bb43c8be7c9bdb34b4612707dfd19e3b0852d61a5981f9ba0e004b58194548069cf48e7f99370b051311dcd0d761b70 8794d8010d17f9c851200fec8083aa34f54a1c7014542ba99de383173026ea73d9d19069cc121c30424bee6b3eed85cec068 0c98e817ea58d3d5de2853ddc4e046e1e6654bc174588c6979f73c4a19f2027761718e3fe880037591551d85b4952c24bfad a8fc39bdfcd77eedd75a9a8f8382578eeb858662183a4043dfd887ec211c9a66b91e1c6097c9c2801081e594c69b59d04226 a315ff3242a9ade3f531fbfe9dcff936f6f9d80a1c05f258fe861e3fd84abf993f94698abffeebbfce34feeaaffeea959ee1 a2088a9561bffecac1219f40eea0c0f1ca2ce5011d0c921562e1123f1c51cb6144d5b37c49d4a432102fd08c7dc6f05c328a c3ebf94dc54daf78eeff1f85b435bedc22d6c52c7b621355b9f172320f74fad2f69d54311e2c3fd1581938b6e81039c935ae 541e073e6ae6a456c025afacedb9f1b6aa5a10bbbcd9c224d9346565524017a684fea887eb873b2d3f0ef948c1d728474944 d3550e1d6de1766a0b460c67f58b94e4fc539e9e6a4a0065b6ad324c54a0942373eec4bfd4068e02794600c3133ec7451646 23a30f55b8f768546034f42af992760bf0af38a9cd00724f88800945e4a3193e3062d192557bbe0efb313e04b538d002aa64 f5a95637f26e0096fa05f8a71dd31fea015b84a1e0bba8979e0f1bbc92612bf750cebc582389ef153890733b7bc11cc8166d 608494515362eac5bc54789c63e347216dd3b5a941cb2f9a7b168105feadb128b96890d6bf6256a2ab9190da9e082bad0339 6393d20e80899111e3f4940ab9068bb42e341a3e1408767cbfcbdb11abe1c94f7eb27f3981a5d0e9806a83fbb8864b28f3a2 4f37014b3086034f97a4e841ad50183500d7570fde199b3f479a1f47d597c9f30a5d34e9c582f8e287eb618e911b4beb820f 4256aeca4a576a9e6a03cedbdcd6db1e298a80eab94546860b510b94913f76c809021fbe74d3b324662b8f3cf5a217bd48ac e50843f2c701b0337b71c93c8fd011dab2d4a09538a56f44dd8d038717b62043ae1e1d918215ec96930392837086b5f06874 b2591ccbd2217233b5ecac16f3290eee481c63b4791c09dc76c9d8d8db53818511b84c9e87602847750b1658208a42218dbb a48c95d4cada205841d6172eba94b0c1907c5fb6910ba8c75fd580f9d9f99f598a59aa8af38c44f697324223f430b5a5a8a9 0dc36b930a682328dbcdc9bf0ae37cada55d6e316bc95534790e17bf51e8bc4c9e8778f80df616ffc0ed50518aca94c12c13 231315f965c3331b45df13b8793ace0a3d81b232f9de7cda48e5e52f7f392b12267813a95c0325a2ab9a687b805a1743f3bd a56556c1f9d724715fb7a1b6a697fb0979c54594f76a89fbd33546e0329117eb421eb0c07be4f4a268fb65af71ec951134dd 5b6e077266e4d20b314ea12ad8623b2770214f07b0c3a1bac9844b1c63cfd66ae876ee0f51af354d93d1005d64595573f487 1d5ee4ea3e72c9c823c5c84a2cc1223f4a9871e4ca77657c64b136b8088febf8192f018231e8b95dba86d5d2cf2c9895823b 11a9513aa29a79d4204950df529d7cda31b66437dc2890c7b10bbb4d37edaaa1d280fbb4f44bfedc0b5ff842e676981e7dbb ba703960cf2f53cf0b192e8b9c651197eb562c41e4de2e2ae85d5a803256cd48c76078a6110aa73ef4a10f6d20726794dbe2 8bec01dbc8a98127593040a6a432676570a81907cde6f5b85dc38860b17c381bc932ea1425e3261469d0370c0c7ba6264eb7 eaced06e86f814f817a8704744846ae88bfb21d897ab924e72409c2d577599c8d39bd0c693c73e8d66a0e00eae63df242b02 c39965380e8ee2ec08648a05b2de876f4c32b3c460210de6aaa4a3aa55d8b396fb93a76b888d3f0134c908e51ed1ae3b1c87 c326c86b03fafe8dadb69dbc02ade677c9652794a99e4c5d668705881eb1ee500e55c66f1191396b91ce95dec753f925230f 2d73e50f5f7f166828b41153bbca953e9ecaefaf0cc60e9f9534256e51dc2c479d9b3e3b25c777fe676271e035b70b584049 a62e9e07b538286609a02dc369bb3b0d85b0119af345e23b65b46eab56afb89a9dc79c8d4222d3f0da4796f73bf551d0ac23 d744f9b87e9a1523327b3355c04b46de0e5330ff486c0ffd303cf23403796a970cb864cc0e4335850caf4ace02b44f3fc1ae 55e2eb2fb8219a25900aa949a4f3d39e2990372c1e22989c9593a21eb94ff97a00d1e96acd2581da3a9fe0c608b51ec46fd4 75f5909783233689ed8191a02de198d723e2f92b1398a1da4e03dd8f9b0ec75ea6804a3048d8dd487e4ddbb4d4234433b8c4 593d9ee95013926ef0bc12e89941ce1b2285edffc777c34f0994b1465c9327124c8b1ddfc010c815405e5c6ac042669bd87f 00b2a69f67ce5fd47f2aff203f040880ca3655cc425dfc49c680c43805c045a6a75d7c12978c593e451b37c93aa19f65079c c57b026e7ec101d66158b4acdfce07a5a2d4e15a0cfa1204993eeaa7b04a9fa92a1111aea513f28e8edf2743f371147ee081 a3846521e273e04590419e38d840278ab2552964c302c0f9c44bb01f8f94e31e2cc6ea1e157ec1177c0149ba9ef325d659e2 6a93459cad2a05cb2a9091fbd42056f95837ae18bbc45be088fa1cdb5640920b8df30622ef32fd7973605e0e08dc202402d3 d345d8226abc67e5b9d60c88e213351177a19ce5a0112cc669c2ee60937010fb9c32cee51ee25ed2ab58b21c81a98f3e2d04 51b9bfa600f2d36ac8b10c4ccd3c412c0c6638570bcb838a09beebddd17386e88a96392e699b902ad32e0f307f87c53b5092 1ae74e56614c4549de326e0bce0bd27618892a613104b82435cc0927c8444ac8aa848fb704d25869b8a1c62d48ed295d9521 a959c165527990808663818d4ef1cb04ee2fad489fb10a38f0a95c061eddce2e4f62d3e13be572a37e7945b1b5bedb47873c 244cdf42154c8ee97a1661304249bf3c262df5c33c68f1bd2d8894481c81db9c8024cdd8841b2113f73d523442e670cbbd98 ab64f4592d0aae48e5c2b1d44f51e3f161ab0ed4fa92f69916e813dfe54f190a9f0266d171ee7272f1e03e2ee4e14968d329 7809d3f61c59392eee93bcdc75288aafc8996b17bd2e248730a20d38629fca5b7a8327c94c09d9a9ff454de28e41e72c81db 23b13425b31bface4ae54911e45040132c5c09c6943f864e8f2843fa9b48f1bf8ba7f4b1b5785c7a9efdeaf0a162689170fd 7895da544ad574e58e0781d2266860a786944215625a8f7dec63d9194edca3a849d41bc23d0775c9c315ce9b3dbdf29ef8ec aa930a4b61b70d1ed709cfa24aecf9e7cc63bc4dcc6d047f1553f9e0caaaad2aade86d292dc3fb736c28398ffe1c17cfc3e1 504ee608d064fdad7173203cd29295f133b66d1b79bbd018e344ec343f9f6aa3d197b6ee4e79591919182d375b6700f98bb8 c7ba145b465e2aa36b40c4777aa12d13f914497386aaf42df29a15a2514e9f11fcadd132e0d3fcd40f7c5e19b34c7fbd12bb 521c0a85c7853ca39f9181840839a4dbcab7cda3915c86b3693269acc8535388886b117f23800b8b25c4e7731e8630ac400f 96d98914d3a6436a4f755f57b1b7ced79313cf86b01dbb7401160fe7b6cfa9cae871d92b7210eb5b31e896422a06eb191c87 22ed91d7732cc82b26c602c000ec5acc490101c087900843fdcfa49d2e4acdb08873a4ae6514e71981b954b781bf0ed11bfc 26f35381eaf1570a6522b5233dc7e3be93d4f8abd89795b343a1d43ac0015f3db1429b734eb8565a8dc2c9d6eaa108da37bc 79a5a16a568c15a59fb04e3a27ee8f1c3187eade51202fa7095f5dbb112677acd1a2f689784a1ec145c00e63635a8ecde1c6 1084a1e4577e8de15ea90c328be8f398a8647995c6c250421e5e45411cebb7d549445aba9609c2aa05949ef253f4ccee88f2 0c085c6932a6903b4d83705c6683359db658f45ebada26a1ea5167415b6dd13102e5a1487be4f51cc57b1a6e90e28123e072 f62298a027ac7014fb0ba541d0398b638bb1e9b02a2ca8903764e5460510a386ec8c8df45018af02a9611cf8ce03976ae8df e21f5d2a04237ccb5f9ef22f24c5472b50c697e8086b7738ae0bf5f266674b990f72faddb95116c651200f856c6a8e00c816 57406c04f3050bf12ff660550e292642b50c9d94a4f68bf5655960c9db034d0f9ee52ea9ce2c56568be81c9c8d7a98dbc47d 71b661b5f4880add6f93144900d4839a18563966d61a4a768c4cc156f8c29ce3fc680e6a53d25eb3f4da44b0174f7fd83843 ae7a81a390b646bce58f7cb3c047aa8aac0bbd23808b52255a558460a86ed3714fb7131ea09cc1e83469a56254349b372691 cf627ba986a83edd96b4c7315da6497e3b9ff20fc61691d089e7c964269dd56cc3d352a0c755a369a24325c81887392b01fc d5f6ed992f66201d235e78d5b1b5beff4781bca1512109159e91218504a791d38b0674760bd21c9483a9f86bd9c99763c27b 226d876f2f58888c00b92a71d33514cd68251617a45e41fd1c7ef15765a63caf408ba7e8a30b497eeeebbcee795c074a9acf 1252fe3bbff33bf902b59b765807ecda31e7d0c0ab8ecba39858c935c400383c40ce92e4780e0886ad84288e3ad6864d24b0 432238e63405875058c46b25d1b2a8123ced6c314ff9b795447ed21d296d19b325c5502ec7e315d6b176c95003e8f812f7ed 29dc149f832aaa1ed82d9c22e4597f6163aa9222c09bc84e4f4027b5ad3531553ad936647bc472cc93b4bda079853056195a 8d41252ab48a2a7660650c12734452aa4f7b2ac62d3ad1abfef989d344f5d6522cf4dbe340267eef3e4d8b36968e55c63c18 71e210a9eaa481b145e28b312758711c4047388f8bec361fcc841c8149cfa6c442d3c3e3a3577836c3bc20f2b4588ec95c2a 2ad401bb546db4c12f8836e7d6cc5148dba205a9594208b89db01828e4fd62334a0fb10335c2c469dcecbc9e8605226d6e22 f744cc006917446d5258cd56e5001cc998c8cb2182df446f30c2bd2870a2ba53b627eae05a90d10a6060a217b1403fd5d694 582819e3cc92c08f3bc063a14ccfe2eb1c99ded45b8cacc173a3fbe5577c14c81bc31026502bb5c9e58ec44f3271d94b379e ca2ab40e88178653cdfaeda1382e0cb06270a62adc5498156441270f887d7dac909561ea1a6681c2767a7408db428c3fdf0d 1398c51dbbca44c829bd92aafe02ee11b5f308449a6634485561b77a1ee2b381ae7d56c151e8798354836db4782265087932 2acf9aa7e58dcaf8957a29028baf9c553228d3ebf938b86082786790b6a492c41f2c53a3324d9c82b2cc44f3dd50ec64d6e8 616a9fcf9cc62bafd85ed67aef45d0dfe31ef7508fa770623aaefe04b86b6fd8be51102dab2697c888d3fdd180b667f405a3 e867bc6551ebacae46ade426b8b41e62e55bc454845939a8adc7e110b14488841581081924b21607d444b772c72c70b272b7 62b4ec21995a64a5751e623071ace56b98c612177415bf5c70b8a844920b3bfa86f0bccb441ecab54c010d30363b0df0dbf9 2c441bcefc158c7088d22d9739d00e534525c5e8605da3b29aaba4935e6a0256ac1e12495b0653dccbaedf7252009d8a497c ab8a252e5f267cf3a4b8a312e066a0747e1a352eb12bf84ba1cc18ca29982c26733b8af7da4bdbcb445efe7aec476a31cb14 095b85dffdc85f96115aa25f5ced2c7eb615fed44fdf6ff72ac6e640333f303ba39fa95f0cd265b8eba72eb57296a2069d31 dd143ea2d34b2970f7bbdf3d3b3deca6bcfaa20cdd80a8eda78654c561e9dd79315b467e16efdcea358fb9f065ea790dae28 3b3e17a490041a1877c38b71873bdc41ac569a8905d5005a306dff4bd3fc38d4380189ba11b1ad7d1c28c481e07225d09521 a3f559068a2fe98b98564e6c860bbe85c9150c74336b29465b2c64ba017796729bb2c9b652ec207c7dff513ad71a2e1379f1 36c08ac351b6a874bcbe1d1bd76be340d287a4d6e122e263697b79cefacc5c1d6c72c4f53d9bd45be995f5144cb0825beb9a af98d9314df2d31656d462f23a53a39aa0d295cc22d43605ae9eb8dacc5485713b50eb7e268837cd89a3f20c0e9c55423539 0b7f7621ca5373ae543f86ca2ff30d63334f7ad2936c1c66d09359d1694c7a2c071c3978c5ec991d9130150d0eb842acf401 4df4cb0868c7c52c000920c0c44bb2ec6489f12c6c0cdfcd2993ebfb940311a9ca70f464c6625da1673e2dd5a6f36ab6088d 1f877387559173e726b0ba315097a9e7814ea941f13c28145db0e25fc89ce9d739c15197fd818b409ee07aae07b10d994bd6 8c4575f0b2b8952dccb1c2d88421f9f45c1e30c763c2ebb660176b0ed52db0f56cbabc9ee806becb713d2c0cfcb8b5e2dd29 fe2650d61a728fe8b0108b2ff313d907523557d3716eaf7f43e46c64bd4c9e67a0312a908ac9b12bcd7e3a1f5705451b8562 033862dc88082688b9398049624b7e608fbb449cc84df28be2a5b0307cdb2afa3ed298a7222cac336bc6cd4211190d6f1e9a 37b1e4294bab8c7498e43b47607be5ce875d5dca74f554e238efa0fb378ae75d26f2068df3a1a0a83b9c11f6c8e6ecf53dad 4e4c1db612cdd8214d3c782d0b3805085ff49377ee7b110509a7befb92edd953eec8f673015077fc952370d4ac694b81fc35 846939268c50ac348374b90fa73b3347e028909755db623366ac20585b76262299b4f9bd52c2924d67a956a430849198d280 452988601bec790a47c43b87cc4d2f94673abde3bb4cbba1e7f95986fac06b56aa38078f8c620b47cfcf1cf153b1cb97b683 06480b55e423ff2a814b3f63c6b69a81832da99ae591cd98a85a26218052e9f8267c617b12c1944540540345de92d8f24492 dd30c4a85c90b6bc39c391e62f49534a8e329ea5e45137c14e9d734e853ce1ecac11380a9e97b0a3eff381b9e408d1e41098 554b9f8bf07374a0523cd8c879cb0005466db703d32a0135294f9c17986beb6ed83153d99a1236b820708f93ebdf3c4ddff2 2d797994813c86c582d57202d956237014c88b030594f89f7728d32eed7b26f2f2f041860493bcb2a255643739abceb4787c ee2e77b94b0162929dbfa6f14a8e0b820d88d32fed62ebe740a74a7ee9977e49af5465cf9495bae656a37f930b5fa657e5e2 c73d88cbb9ea1c1f1d6025b09707b2dd1441191d531e8205670319bcd2075a820eb238ebd89fefe2dfe5aab778143cef2207 117a38ed46748e22c80b98332fe93936b4cb71c84c19dd833f06b84f7ec49bb9d1e7012975b3900734ad87a5f90da3953257 7435e74e423fdb39f3027b731f3a45f058cabe73c7e4db3b0825721976a9bc3990cae1b39b756cf8800ed2eee55672b39097 d206649d3414d4ec2b95da97bb4e66541ec40cead861ae96e73def79f9772c8a53f2504b2502b19a5d05fa4a8ce86789aebe ebc3caf485cb05d0ceaddf2ce48d610241fe9a769910c9b09d6816060217cf45fb41e6220d9eb5168427efe06ebc9ace5b54 3c8d2a69a149cb8be052af6c29099dc3e3b333bd8fe7c19b8b3c4e635e15cb2bb1408905562592a410293501f8a6fec2980d f27307faec7cb6835cc950160ce92f173a08329f39869cc36b8db09e882fcbe6122916b3a6921ea4dd63a8e486222f5b15c8 e45f15cf90aad959a3bee379b2f786d324ff4efb7707cd83502e1d4e70cf1a3620eb9c0297006058b7e3823e50438b6be3cd bc890769fa182ab9a1c84b85c7d838ae494fea9463cda4064af3a4c3d9066fba621c3722e6ac403baceb38d3a1b35944ab5f f5aa5709fa6948c7ca5418cbbf6905a02f67f63a454d6e28f24cfa52e2d038b697ab59e0844805bb29c83856b8fd78a74164 989f49c62c8361906e65ed06320e9a989fe42eee1ebec68e28d73d7f89e5607b2686bee9a7ec9835ecaa7aea6176f131f0b6 b3fa70b33cc9d351681313b8f10593b39bc9f2de140ba386a8c067b1639b06499991946acd187004cac22433e91d5e21585e 828df45af528be077cd600e07352b064e76b48a2b22d8e687bc30459d94466782e21ef95793eb333175fec86222f6e97319b 53e319cf7806aeb6910061c5b35624c12ba839c8ca2119ddcc14dd58c92810fad589b7d9a0b23d0fac8503ee40ec2f07a3c9 7b8d93b9b9c6bca5aa42ad92166b5ad999ff687e672eb8e40d421e2a662220a14f4b8a6449316f91c71e6a633908ca9d859e 041f9d8c91c11c5192fa0fbb6c02963288f005d6c47053af21673231c8fa043e2166acceea1082353b4313ecdc76b20a46cb 7deb75bc82a56ef9206d002731828670e279173c9d169b43bff66bf285c188b4b66e29f09fb796a991ac4442f42ea4bb7ca1 31ba4ac492059811a0a4c709ca32b278a7a578d1c694dc21a40b5e44aa0cb1e13dd1841cec9cde67cd07afe62f53485e4f7d 56d80a625bac1ecad77d1ef4db42349c47f3175327fab550dc1a47a06131b4448d6ec79741cd02444b9008a9360a3fab57d0 c6f855c32880e46e6281d81586a7e676ffdccde56b491b6f4e7bdfd6847a3ac86fcd40b59e485acd28e3a7b5515b993b1743 88692b3742da8633abfff10fac2826f7e4273fd95aeb8e1ec844f0dde25fd2ed2cf0a1684a210f0bbf2ef15a5a97fa6381dc d17edad86abd29701699f590ba097c63f165ea9d8d1cedb64bf98bcb16d31b3a9c6e63e40e9ed4a8b7c338bd0236a915b5d1 0a7c49c788af5f3cc856b6782390e7cde94f78122986ab719ab4d77b3a56522cc31079d04ca86ae560a15c08830c15bed33b bd93942a66819358909c3b908d02d60f7ad083ac665ab3bbcf59b48760de44952f3b4420465a61ac94da07f4a37e310fd609 c3dcbfb65fb6e8ce5f340ad95f5ec74d12dcf7c0b71b333e0fb0de08e41971a102071b1bc13c0edc168811e6e270dda7ae4d 37bb5818f1e457c4cb28a648a566b993d6e88b78d76e5b2faa1f945508c70bb252cd21323f33a18f61d73da739582aea2dda f291d1f394a73c85ea3944b6ee7198db34c39d13cf3b8f59b4aecef6b2484f6f7f96e09230721fc1b08df6e0e98cf805f650 cc0347c46f6e77bbdbb5155ab24f0dfeb51fb28d69fd1b8d77d0eef1636e1146aece64f9f659fa7eb2de4f7db3b75aae1625 c9e24c6949ac721af8567a4d606586b7c59b9f226f23f5e1a2477f557b3782e7197a1751dba142b95b4b0f91109517ad4db4 47e42a791af890bc2d9ac96b39c919c2ee23f658a8e18e1adab3222d6d37ee122bc5c63a15d277d089dbc5c36a5a662b6bc6 1d9e94d7bdee7551d6b3b99163cc79aad5a0300dd2f182fe3d49db0b9d756850c61b32584e4636bdf4a52f45dac08718fe25 8f98a8367da7c82321723aa662d029f5dc8aa46819697d1f8cad942a9f03d35bb9941b8e3cdb9c23f654a8e94c0a201e295b 99175ab11e5e19bac108f479960a0b8ba270144d25095f5eeeba14cf3e21efff415e639783ad3fe252f9488d605c6a075a8e dafa92548a37c8894a00f1bbb68d41f00a01a84be51a2aa03bd0e074038f8786fa36a83eee8fbf869ab571920538e57586ad 50c2fd90b6f670b15bfc0ffdd00f7527e6976771bcd1182870b475f85def7a57f1153c5b429753552b5c0f771ec38d6fb16d 81a3f0e71164893926a7b08f8b3560297f2e0cf7e75371e5fbaba7ab7af2188b903212b13a11fa41c58454fad09806eed0b4 f835a27df58ccf517366f2f86b2b4a047ad9a0f26252e90617141d991ed1512b8d49af538836dbdc27cf117593d2498b28c3 afa952cfb7ead5b9163e8aaeb43642fc679ca1683d22df04ef9a215ede09ea5c4724787532470d1152a8c8693238dc613b90 6ec7b6f0be94c5f6511d4df0c931260616979b2e994afa02318de191b3ccde143e974524c72361a79dbf040b239da32948d9 928ec11c931bec0bea8ece2541f226b4effbc58c60a2d61a1fa7330ef0599086a849b7c3c2aeda707dfb278b6160b4b1a869 4371e23ae39810bb310ffeed0ead803e6707beb6ef500c1639ff7825f1f5b698392a6ed72b5f0ecf333a4699b5c5ed296ce5 7c58fb659bd986cfd875e95c820fcfa3632d1f2e7a1e08085be8d476b3a389218ecfa351af49b7e3108618b99f9ddf37bd92 98dd11905df0d770553a3b44be16b35d3fb3275ef18a5718cfb6625ef64b9fc75b6c5be725202f1d990ad254062c4369f8Acts 0143ef8517d8c7b0d8762c2eb7bc373532f65f33266b3c325327621dce80004d7e44db2ac8c1813622dbd20d2278b738de05 0cc52520cf30f162c8f868b9756b6db0c0a73ffde9868f34f117a32c3693d1471194c171d670a4597bf68d8b17deb454679f 818bdde64eeb5233fa75e4da3e35afe9bf9a536783d17aadce0bb2c7f98df3ec78963d9180e65fe4712c8d2f4344cf0fb5b9 f461dffd12906780da005e0e59a7c6e740314cdcb06e5a18414d16952faeeab2faa61cf19557800b1687922c94a4614ff862 854452ecb0a35f6d2032360834386c823510cfc144384820c5d8d2869bbd795becf9077c20286fca27ffe5561b4b9ec70bae acf312909785c1e749cfa3df943f52e72c83e0e9103567e5e101ca7440286fcb7a62f0ccd96207bfc409889bc30e1fe8cb1b e57f3e27f3a201c1c97211cbda5a236df5a14831b0ead8340b50d2bc93390c05a141332679eddd6b240f351b0f3baa9760db a6e7959ed4e69b44aded19191946df5016b6eae4459b84caf96179ac59e2a0428627618d6c11cfe67954f5f841f64a1c2bff 85ca13a02b8732a9ddc6ed412d0928eb1d2d773612eb46dc7dd82bfdd48a2fc2cabefb94615aa424b5c48b27109a7b5552c7 3823fbcbbb08251b439b0ce5105086d9a11e02449dbb85f20e0bb585da2e017991364ce42871c71791ef76560c40f81cc9cb a54c764486b3a8ae1e765c5e0f97aa08712ba5ed9c179d38e75abbcaefd06eeee16fe5c8660c02ee0894457292cb39a53b7b 7654ab338c4dbe624aa47a000273f2692818b6b8f5e0ebbed84fcde9b702cd3aaf2763ac7cefb420c2414e4a89d6617748d5 b414777a05cf1e21f22e41da1a26c17b9a1cd7bc9d37857aa4f7d85c165cb8a68c5444c2c38a57262ce6483a21576025a045 c6a886141dcf22b3ac498bf82d6e6039a6bcafd1d874805b718a304dfbc9c499d387b3f88467b9d66085935c137e9a0c2655 4a6ae9efa37e73c666d15e812fa98d4dc7accbcd64c15bc9cfcdb4058f5d668762dddf994f9f2bcfbb1ce411a0a63ede46e6 5a678ad5c953773169735619b261ac1938b4897b757637684eedb55882323294082029c16a003ee0c651ec9f22535c799490 684eb38ca79e35ac9a7bd9cb5e1657ae8c2f9ad0bd7d48a8511ee098d3e061c02777c1cd9cc0e9218c68fccc97de5a48cdfe 93a3e9c6074b6e3e7824784db95a9901257aade1eee70aac8d955f02f28c2688c454cade6e58d1c6518b9244461a528278Ecclesiastes 6f471d4ca7c9be9bbe5b7f6172694e00e7cbd4e3aa7c9a227f583be56c1c9a732a108e2973c4b75ef1a27747b7db46c398c8 3729ad418765170bac0d2b412a80f2a23eb48b7d66c239bdddfc6a2f01793a47a7110d236def76b7bbe15262536639cfa7f1 b5cbc4d4216794e1093110e09ef7bc27b357925ce78e4e5f52193f59a01143947deac75221d73fc99582e544c6f90374f092 de319e44e3f419af22887d89e7b9a877cf7ef6b3c5246c33400f7146c8e886c0ae92eec8bc4f793d780f2fa6c24bb030c68b c59f7c76b94fecd2f91acd354a159626a83a54316294f4a936d8f2a01a68902a81b94412502218e6917d0ae5a09f1c5f7077 29ac42b6ed206a4a61673a9e6561e0a329f53eb3af63d86a2ba2efa79c67d3a62dd2544eb50038d8923d6f3d11663f5e3945 b04d2dbc08fb5455243207b27aac462334dc511b6def12f9f73e18bdcc19d3e0e610f1c9052a6afeac673d6bbdcf36a3619a 5b60e8d5935d221d1cd95085629e990c0ab0e5d29c94c9f88d658e19d7cb469ffaddc489070ed2070af79d35d635343481e0 ab86e113f1a0f8bd3ccd34333f65dde9b902bacaa334f5cc517f5b20cc22610e4b9850a6f367f419fe527325545f5d9e7799 c8337606d41e5e240b87a725a2a82274218760cd80661f508f0608608e2b2b3683afc4f33a8f5e85feb5222b73cf276ee15f 2ec3b8ecb2911b7aacbd1df5bba330f7d81a8b38a849b72122c10b1beb780f1e5d21e95aa7f2db1303ecb287cc344293de59 4f5a3051a3e0a8062a442b1ddf649ebe3971151cb1de621ede7a4d97f6614817f0ecc521cf186593e647e8e23ec877ef5f11 21d230389286653b2e0f41f60115075750a0c02e661979c8eb58d4d8868c3ad56190311ba2aac55d192e0bfaa2e6bab9c077 752f09b8d01fadb7a12c84c98ad31058b484474ff06f3973f7bad7bdbc0e43db6a5c58ac7b5ea18991aa1780e2853ec95055 7133f9ab4b012f2e14463eb0b21b4c82781f47cf05c06b4d131787bc686ff86200b196c73dee71e9617591cccdbc30d75bf0 bcdcf5f4245e31e6610aa2c7b33090a153ce72e27b5c2b7c84f671af15de69921ab6c0455c2411bcd044bcd3f15773881a7f 55de8bb037a749acd86a8ccabfe0ce53c3a7e3fb59b19318b00aed7c6022e18e5957a0e6025c2b3531b9ceaf57b8c979b9e8 d9a7f58bb33082144ec386801be8b9e31def48bfa6be08ddc6de904ad2393b94ba5d36fcf2bb0d1f846222bfa825624bede3 20f417c0a98d3e27a04e60a901a93a6840b2a703a878cbb090b8662eb18556727050ad240d0cf0a9560c94185de6795e844b 921f84d5097943fca999c8f65e585da7e2daa4515c55b567e912d9b6bad7e2cbf8e2a830a6eb3eec726bf340792f77ae28fe 2e0e79d99e88d772bd95d3a5a18f7b2100b0f2bff009b34c33184701651294190a318cb0cbef0a25744782cf4fbc0116010e 5bc24252fc554ba2d5ca0213cadcc6297dce419e8ed113b4925bc44f98e02d328552e99295315a96cd72f0374d6ea02a719c 58287951e7c7c603ea64da5be96d87837d58cea53f7b71d2368a620f6b9462238e4ea93b069d92c4da70168065d53c08edcf 3faec1b17aca67a799595b8a9f61ab61b7432ca87d16b1aa133939054b90f1c81a73750e6d34a742829b4e9616a15afe17b0 0bd09a7036a4d4078a20b5cf64587efdc1e79820395cc0546de4b54ac0ae3541145659ef2234ac5d82624ef78eb9ccc5f13c a3407563d031122502ad1c1494c32d28ce349b1657d3fc083224013ec7af17ceef595fb02ec1254a2121ae709c2f3ac5db92 6b180607849f9d0e8aa2ac01295534aa203bedcc563c4f87b357c48bf9bab5a257d6ce91832ab7a6c97db0d301adf8377361 c1ac096a9407e8f482544c96961c086f0db5fce77046a34867887de68e3966606decdbc5212f22355e8c830ed3c11eb2124c 6e14e25bb1e40c3238cfa659c12b5f237b1353247d4030fd6cfd0b2b90a9d1b33e91333e14bff4785c479201113f6a3b4bcf 1b0520c64619cc88818c12c0b25e531212bebd6fec7674d81df9608cd654d5bc831b8977a50b5c28f20c2bf0b11e2861f950 00116e2c3c33d0c5f2f391a6d26d1cd9e469dad59ccc5bc54a31425d11b6f6e564f9eacfc880d2439de11661a04c91b1d2c2 183d0c67260f352e8f63a18be0e5afe2b03ee56f2a83a5e16dd51f107da1ba91c81cce8dc0c6d7bfd2052e0e79c9112cad6d 8e0847b42147e402b5e40c0e20a0b9ee67db8df9a27071a461490c2b24d222737ba39c65330e0a79900aa8dd588b3c835633 f062e09d359d9b86835756d5a87023cf1b7c94eb044757154b36879c6d03bcc83020d44c63f32ea65ccde5a9ce68053b798a 1ff5511f350ca669e7af34d4163a7f711606623ce1094f20640b7321863bc2dee41ad7b17167f74d450c4698e7193d321beb 7a6850432e0c977fa95033a992544ded4b03f3b8153483bd55e16d6e739b056d6c7dfd85cef40d07a57772ebf0bdb5b9539d cf01ce93dc21915a17a0f3544b52b254fc3439218ff93fbc92748f0b5eeb3e7324f72c7671c833b8ec006448f137b2c2e4e4 0bff166b9427823e3ebc180ae06138a275a3e251052a7a55801822cc97d4a6a1a5ad1f0ea862d8caf5c568b11c166e929a22 3fe597ee70e46ee4a0ebdbc2fc6890e5b78633ca2b2c3679dcb1ebad044f881cafa633da6d634906903c563ec8e966177b12 fba81ebf50e4a134d746b359fc1457700749846eb3464355a2c717fa90e50523f7a9814b4967208b1960938c47550d593c67 70656892ecfad0221a1b6a4b0619e4f7451396ba4db1aefe95a1bc85e6de1c13fcdfff1b37052c19f9e976a5c648966ecaf5 9a724f9efffce78f83efdd2c16975e88197b712939b7dc72cbca58cb9c373de63217a7e7a50925258d6cc62c5dcae88433db c76209a2fb645f117152d802058ba97cef1a8a5139e5830bf29fcd617b900143d88c7883efe95e58919ca821c76bc227ee18 f894d43d5bd25243cf52fc8b3ab4a6c9da116ea3185b7296ce57d3532864ec7b448856aa01b19bce9081928dec7b6ea3d4c1 6346d2b67dbb389e8712cd750430ca21c92ccfd2245968e2448cbca0d2b8dd67fc4298efaea920c64ea6962fd21252737852 55b91466d6c88e11d590a04a975a3370a962563d321dce2ae615b2dc1d582a9497a1ad157bf23193f3d42c3f1b2bc51a3987 21bbd78cf79b1b3e690554c614c16d497be4e52f8ee71988cc852131c533b85bd186578f5fcdb837c4d060a2cb207207c132 fab24bd2c4314b4f0d1ef0e217bfd82673a545852a9f4334bbd9e3d5c6252b25532669610077aa36edb3be654a9b0671291d 28844a19c59fdc1938888bc7ce39c9e90f59ee896c9294929a972439bbc0f3fa59df7c618e48da33d984b3e9003ac91c81bf 98f4912369dbee5d28f2963b47bec41e164409f4a08794dd10a98055fe580ea530fd6cfa08a0481d500f754ada15e50f0846 5b48ae807fb32e29f5a2029c7390a1aaf259a61dd3b4477cc268b80f49ca689d5a198c7aa48c5495606c6dd399107793a668 a313fd5900dcb614baaee52f4eda2e8f60aa4f3adfc2bfc9440923e32f2c0a0af347a4a48f4780831324ad9c51222573fc05 195668332944e4b4e5712627e9d67139c4e8b214cb585692ee58df86c365250814968e0aca609d1b1cec2ce5146ec6ede6e8 00d7155bebdfeb329197032c5b75a197dd891d0ef3a2c00602a7548d47404a4438f7af1c13b92a99878af1da48cc0408528f 87c297f6301021150e665973e504b5347a756626bbc3d1a8ce85b616faa91bfa23a01c9fcbf548d503ee14836b66161c7092 5c26f29298a95fcb3c2ff376202c2e5879d7d44ef4b38dcf952f1e9feaa606fa2266e98b8be12cb9c8cfbcc716e1c207012a 5d8a740eeb222b7992d556c66fd273cd888b376479a8d6b32c240650952ceb7607a4dc55afea92917790e1c3c9b8f4a6d62e 2c626c0e8d60b706a9402c4ac65e16486064a4e7f90bfed80d964266d30c065c8adefa1ef244e29a4d2186ad2c54d95cd39e 1ce405af6525976c611c644cb1251091f8240e9ba0f4890bca52563f1c24d387b9e0a69f042ee54cc00068cad197ddc44c1e 5d8254cede699a314513b6dc4f0473da8172625a3d6dbe966704a697b39886beb89e891e644c8ebf92ebc0f38c32daf38765 960210278b7cbe626e49e1003184b59f842fc71b6d8f8e986751cc547e4aa8024417e10b790b3e9afcdeda72524098a63b8a 328bb7ea49a85a865d2a639935c70f8b0be8e175e079e5358182e55ef4b6fc7fe1e3ac350a39e16287cc61abc5e294a977b6 62e14bf33837cdd43be8a6fdd192ddbc3c5860f5f0db0973713142ea598eb721dc57daf21740e9636be23af0bc127429f894 7ddf13a0eb639de12c5c323b44e8638a6024a42b282ca0620952c506cdc4b8b287304259e9d93aa006ac1cbfee9793d795c9 9ca65834ecd65b6fd5433b973968a032c786868beccf75e079fb8cd78008512b02617962800023ecb3d5bbc393ecbe287e6a 9ca0968caf642b0b1a77f45d722bf78d55b102c19c79d92b144a8ec39680b4f2ad00890c316c729fce5fe9676f3af2108f79 010ae5c0e1762ddd852dbcd35f2979b12e7ccb7a5ec25d46b1c47d37f31a0ef7219e976de1c19c917e2a5f8a6b41b00c6a58 a4624a60b9d2e8d9a7f327e4fd0eaa8291a03003568ecc88320f9e87ff0988510aa1331fa44fee9b6120b385f977f868e035 25b2259ed02627c02ed0ea874e368d2db378fe2cc5dd877857fad913f216c99749eb8898e50572c3c81d2a5a01c0f2eaace2 ee88513f8bbbb8c9ec95f4a58cec57e235c6097cbedb4166d9857ea5c1b455e74fc85b1caeac01a6abecc005c75baebb769b ecb161db8ad25a75a13c4f357dce2ec7720546ae54fb8e559b47b8b271bb4ce9ada8759d0adf2ce4e5dac0ba7238977c0046 04689644a4f5ddd23851b59594ce5fd35f9896d0b07c05b06b4363492ba5d548e78430313adb5e493e6daf0c8d4a681041a9 adf93c2f57e5f0506ef5ec71e2f566210f0d4a0b4078ba9a90439ebf91bde72fe028615399a94b6525fd149694af1e806b55 87981b8b95e7cf2a13ae96f6d11e6a5fd9ff03b8f3311197d51c731b5b9548fb411ff441f31f3fc2929b07f7083bbd7397e0 c945c772a125d865d2968b90019b138eedd9e612ebdb02cd046e9192be78a49d50068edde746119acb0ade58ed72a359d0d2 bdda0b90f52354b8f3381cc383d71c7985748b71196edb5875842e26475df3d7c89f232b0384043e042e3f7e8e344c76b7c5 67be68f5546d4e16ade0826cdbbccd591e79a1cfaa3f3fb37aac0ef6a01af89f05e818ddd682e8b9161d50284e18433d0624 6ddb876b8ebc91332c6c20c0657b833140a97a966270024b3f2ec7c9bf482ec3c597c105e78c69523b6531c0019fdc5229a2 cc64fb0a24c1472e0c6f0bb97cd67e503a265b5b6ff52d6089d48929b34b6ac5b36c9a6c941d38e89c373aef32d71c79ad66 c530e84653bd0dce6c41c7758767b83fb2a30d3786c738c0575a23379300c3da553e91aa5aeb4b3a79119214c8a631077858 fc84245bb1acac7f342de7cae20cd82a41da128dde425ca4bd03d730ce993dbfac627347f6b2fab767bbe864db8a367544Ecclesiastes 300167488eeb0c6f70392c0ab040a980be6745da0b1bb3b134736acfaeec1254c98816e1706282bd79425e2b89029cc09a14 4058fcdaaffd5af5773c7d2c3936d6ba499fb656c1cfd21a2dd18d590aee99125cd6e68ce5a1c14e014b4205eba895572eed fe9af33ca1088b39103e900181702ad2127fc816516d5ae5fc898c59bc046953e795775f3600a03054456cdd3f4ba9f2acb4 031bcaca791682eba40adf3136a0915ed056b563f992f2944e8b1a7da1bd492fb5c1684bd64952b1104d6b0ee88be6f99e8f 5acc4d7995b3304c126c5bcffda5180fe29e13f5221f7fe35e2717d9de05b745317268ce142e220a8e008048eccdca1daf6f 8b3ee010b140cb966a7702aaa0aaf5634934eb79d76c75eaa500486e0bdec30e20d9614e2b36cdf09485bad677861b9f630e 58da288c6175085e6829b8fc03992c9626e986a593806845b07dcdf4b3fa4d151ac20b5ef002dfd94912518bb2c4adcd104b d32f7878f769ee7af2bcfc23e2fab63549f12a5a0a527ec207615719386096a2a558fed8afd306ce64e234b78fbb0e260af6 afbf8000437dec631fcb76595f1262ecdb6c43820cde4d15bfd11389c3a9bc1dd694cfa0294121cd6f6325c753e0a6202f7d 2b8fb1d11feb7a0a632446852264b7db11b693eb73d1055c9a2277f190da6be8576d1b5dd055ab1bb8699e97f598d0135c8d 082ee93f37a4ef960f6390bcd378e4f42c97e341d8593db911c8cb3726c045c0e1769cba38c7487f729f1ba5c58e86a965e1 d4b2ce966de086177023731a46cc46375b9647bee88d8561945788102f11d0a5572225cc762ea11c2b57cbbd723d9197c168 07345a3f92a0b194774bbe7d9f4363cf2a6f878339aceb62b80ba8b57d6fe7b94d2f3b84c8a056e0acd4ff8be9e1b6ad5c4f e415254b074a1fc2c922ccf2da9c85214b28cb774a73df7640cfa9bc2eb13fe873bc330b4de0793212bc20767e4ead9f47b5 9b15dbf368f5bceb2c363ad81bd64580fa99905a7fc5e7c8b574a923b94c1b26b32d6396fb23056bce8c3a921719ddb89e3c 6f9f512e3f8f9e67770bf1abcc8505f5cecf9113b04f5b5b3d3b32ec2d75e35fb4a5788f73a65055cdb48dec7cabe6cebbf0 09798b234cc2b6219a2d2fb83c0091145b881024fbe44771049e378546fdcc235e712a5d39106332641a638a270be3c26871 2e0de5e028ccca8b2bc75d6a67eedc71f957fa09742edc3f970ebda952bb3a775ac6c863181caea4d1391e9ff3ebde0e355f 4f3d6f8781188fc44e5ac04ba271e3d1ae386fa7d6069551e2b1288292d34d08540201203bfc73bee4e9adfe50e26632dd92 72ab27e758d0c27112a7cb4c6983a27c2b595157316fe084bccd288512a975d246a678426c0156de3550e8e0abaef21286e0 83334a989d373a7981e0668aca85e10a1158b309a9ece239c853b320ca954b0b5833b827e46d465ec10ce275aac2bb995109 4fd3e00154d9c06f8a519106db5509f34b63b14b81fde09d5660139676b1e59f9ba39f6595afb46d37bfc0519638216f3359 12beedd35de9f2401def915eefbb32a59a624ba50a5712621cacda5e7a0a8f032613976e76348d92802808961f7104f7dc4f 5e2b2c81e06ae504ac1fd913f236236fb904a8810bf342a817f2c082260737b29be00f4b9320b3b15eb0538f8d97d5a03689 80960b0991b5fe03340becca9721ac6519f2215f83c345c7b09c90b711212b0ae4c5e0f3fbc00ffcc00e11003e5b853a6814 92fce500998df57a8a9ee7ecf1f442bbea7a4436407c11946dc426d55496a88c1ba90c73dce01b1b3d9e0227e46da6457628 21384c81d293084a5a1a94141db1de0217b4fd85fcf53561b7fc853ec524a4c078d60582ec6890b5324312801cfa97bce425 968b0f315d54e66a65a3ac1fd993277933f2a004f87c12a6a374ae13c2515695d53ad2fb128ef1bf343c9f6eca62f7ec3494 57e23b5b4442283cc99d914a08797964f2d895c33232b536f7f2aa9538f1bccd141be94c01c267497858942c76fe11f818e7 1184b091a537e05822824f98c31ac956c23adf9ee4670b7cca98ea33163b33d0bcf9058eb2c409799bc992110a67b22fe364 25fcc59f2462b9af400bd84a780e880afb2b3c95b815aac4452cff69fd847543781e901578cd2d9c903d216f336dae778991 2eb58c865207a8ff63042c026acd22b48dd002cc01136cc9bca7c359ad4d3abbc34b0276d7c93f3c1f09279e376bacf2212f 6c151f57c3e178da462d36feceecc0db703e400c76714a8295fdeb3ebc72913047e276b33a71bd0a9d90b7999e495be8b1ac 3039389eb1ae2ce56fdc11a510d24dcf638a4ab50a823e991182196de0ec5f6e3f49f9d3ac93cd5db946254eb6ed16c4e45d 933735c51984953637dc280428692b7b2acf8b88994f1c8e841540ebe03f4f59f3cb3f7cb5f2d7b718a919454fc89b3148bf 5d04e65a5938d85ea6abcff6e02e7924cb232bd5fa70df9911bc74853a304201098bbac1ae7aa650ae2935f4d794bf6ed1d1 ab50f484bc2da8848d59e8cafd3b00e18ba0990d909d5c0549d3a51ba1c7f919af7ad5abeca502a03087f9d936800bd0ca59 b92ab5adda5068ff00b6f0f0cbb4327c8bfe5da9a227e46d412e1ccb860416818f67b0315ccd5e05f7bef7bd21c662f2a900 f59d937918b9e50188cfdae1403e73a90655d5d9bb052aac91b373ca744fb42dba78758ade500b63980579864b6aea4bb2af 3043f7873484066adc5438429262f6dd913a2ad964bafa2ba77116494e96fcc34aa6fc6169ed71cbb1d296783ea11383948a c7e1d79e0757074bdbf5f4dabed8c66140e30eab50b23c259fec80bbdded6e563cdcef7ef7b3cc9b70546040cd17f09a220f bc2c0257150c51e6a6fb4b948a92ae16bef39ed8694a92a9e514a4ad7c3b6647e7842b33324cfd05a0b1bd8d2f72450bdc50 698bcc1c2212ece420d9aaac28161dce217a9da286dff84b5836ad2bde5300b753e6a3770294674e5e9d20ecf2410603165a e443e14696c95c5a1464cb71d7844f3f0b60e455565868a4ddf546c0f78a22ecac6edf2ce4254cd1d21688168fb519f23def 794fe023e9da5011a7c95102041246deedddde2dc6e3a9565170148fa8839f7609c2ab7c01d9766f5939d6ee13b2713e7d60 7638ec2aecaac1b3a139e54f3d3648f0799d92531686e566212f4abbc8384e5db093dac90898e61b83453e117cc881660c82 3cc9e31c4716e85872a670bb04b97c4fb09e35cb952467b14cb902763f06ace5642afaa5a415cbcc7c96ea7c5d79decdd2f3 ca3a71d982a99d7b6866d2e0c6dab04093fe3790441ada63a53333dc9ca6a4178d7dfff77f7fbe155b2293b96b64220cc9c9 733081cd2816221f3da57e9d115eb396dbcf9262ae99901daf73239037356063240e5a493292b9180cbb61ec8d0719f2840b 4be08b943fe79849857ad4a31ed5d92cd4b5317c41d6d69f98a8b004a58dbbae3de02b3338e83038b29ab3764bfb8ba7da18 0a8be5e72b46e7d9e982a3eb87bf1b81bc109031eb7b6e3377ec5de7d8bb5b6eb905d31a0e115b20cad9cc8b6bfba6fcbda9 5ff635f339656c0361b1522ccabe130ce4b10ea346d30287c74ed3b963c6620bf9798e27d56e65c675fd0037dee846e87928 2de42a49dd3a45f106fe33ba1d569780cba2ccf2708762c7d951286c81f0f067476c3b12b765678076c94091a2d21d38f3ac 037a42b94a04cafc3b343639f42aa9695295bd026d5c390a8c78da3506dc8d431ea90a7cb1ba045c57e66a2c2da805c18a2d 387281496a3be4d95c7b20cf175292e93090e790700cac67398ab9ebd2d8563ae7b248f233d7a59b00bb374a9e1bf29ece93 e5bc18fe91d4acc468cebc41725f52ff97e307b61605bea1117abcdc13cad9ef4ce5b7788bd2dcbb13ab2b9231e03efd9260 4dd5bb39b0bb29c8c3bd2c4fb42bfc9ed38c98868fa9e2df31dd0ba6002b78cf866ec2e33782e7e13aa255161466e4e61c89 bab1b7f8dc59f4ce4bc7a5eca00b3c92229850ee117ebeceba18f2d79d9b9c783773dadc08e4a5baf1a5d9b8095ca6f1d092 d19755ba85e1b35b3c654e944cf91e1f6b2c30bcf692efaac01a7ff24cc25cfb62370279b12810a1fb43069e3490c1c2608a b636e72c6253ec38f6dee11dde611410fc00d6dc25e3a8befe958d0c9747b5d3ed7182f80621cff288bc211dc493d8951620 43b8b4cd650a6579709ad0f08ae4963a65533dd86d45458b17c7b33ffee33f9eb9709cf43e9e5edd940102147bdd7582542a 1a3cf1dc8a37802337f25958c10bc79ad9528e5d2df0f197efd8db74d92251bb3232763c243f929edc084f3228c08740c534 426fa9e2affddaaf752787f04290b44451a0b4b3274d4e3c836d912f1a8289da40e6b21ad2ae78519487e5d33ffdd3078e69 96026b4742eca3eac68d401e54717f4858973f971296f7d8e7885e84a485ad67235582956ee74b692ccb249442bc803c8854 bf4c02ccf5a8487e249db911d236a789f43b599965d1c1442602ce675598453d9653606939501668e3f1a2ae5b49d28e8d9c 6e027424243f926edc089e973131821312cd7d072339704c87e42c94c8dc9404bf1cc2824ed155f137f15646aeaa96770558 e67960add834b07624243f926edc08e4ad1feb965e031cacb03998c083ed818ec88798042f74899c96682c6b84ea1fc893c6 cce15c9d3828e4a9f348887d54ddb811d276cd880723102939455afc0866307beda3ed3c16ac31ae39763c5e5321e3435542 6aa1f97ae7d8ed03e513f2de98ce8ecf418ca4ce1ffdd11f1d06845450275e14de60d27ec4477c84eca98cd93523ce64c129 dbc2d625757e1ff25ce3676f04f272e0e5072e7fce8e8b4f7ad2931c256a1f77999e2c504b5c85d7a68e15d1d87cc2529e9c 5a81f9c1817a043378f816b61e5373f55ba291d69857ef1aa7b3ef392b6e849e070123fcc03fc7cd61ab000271a47f0efff0 7434e5095b7221335e49013718ca68701895a5dd25bf0c53c362b63ccc16f8e4a0f113a0e5d6dfcc4dca36e2f246f0bc310a acda0ff9900fe1da2d7a0b5bceb09375b73257c55629166f4bec1b1b802a2ff22b6905236ca5e3a8997b19c27c966a9a6b9a 809e26f36d24c68d2a702390571e94553f5c77a421addf1dbb260216143ee8410f5a88bd8600e27264123800c8226d4b151d e8d351b9d539b0f2633ff663eed8bf277b25e4c5fc6e149ee6bfec4d91b640208b9d323750257fbd0086b5fe1c756bf28125 4759b4017c2380e1290aa2aac653cab0518486c7525c01b75b6fbd35f8cea7c7cd297923785e0cacbcf3488b1551d79814e0 0276c0b1c662c5e75815cbb18d294a84805ff9ca5762abe326459044be5109ee5b4d9b1b813ce4872deb61077a12af8945ff aecf0c6561643d8c918d934d5185a73ef8c10f9ec257d8e364d8aec1e28d401e783163ad3d5bef8a3b6b98d8ad19b6a300cc d9a560fd14e7ac29236b2b4e70730adf08e421a7856760b79becb3f63b013d80cbdaed70bd35406987f8695ed6cd41d59c37 bd11c81be9e949d5b857e667fa5f88ec9c4ff901edfa33864f01c92c7986bb298199bdb2727c5bd5c1d5ac0c23fa1a6f373b 075e2769fb46903dfad18f1e7b849590e2b2ca1f4aacc7e664b10723771d3ff3c22a1e48ed78cf392cb37c2a29307b12e6Daniel 3f7e231491164fc00d9787106d82b2587e6ccf5f985cfe64e814e190cc174c9579dff77d5ffb3be599cb3a1e492bcb39f455 c56ae6700e3d25680dff5f5f5a0812946bb79970ed01f73b92e426bc6aabfc21894f8eb3c3f7562e8600f7152016dd6ca762 3929f8dc10b8185ef1b7a1e7292ff8b1320fa5cc5359556360db83b678b17a00d1a762a514d450e1bb85cdd4ae37696e849e b72d0921c31e3cc327d29916431d541b880c8eb85039f87efcc77ffc3084e149a418c40b7bb86293e565f9820d8be9957070 a394c213f2166199412ae40a5eb1258708909eaddea8f49abdb3618b740e97096b9faf7ef5ab6d02448f7cea539f2ab75422 8232008a714aa3b2f84d46164e79a382bc27e42d222fb96ccd18898957f9ee4ed1dea18781573c6c999b12e8b62d1b2c4dd8 0d886ded68f3328063cae0a6144d20c34a55ab7ef5dcfef6b7f7c88df23c9f90b7089ef08451393b7464da15d89de39c6bc9 0f6049758139c6b22ff6c47ddce31e27d5c59104eeb057643b8fdab46869d2b62ac1552f7f42de0a0ac6d2e404e4fff3d352 0c2b2d5ae99d714a0aaf64511cc8fe25581de50373d2eba5c37cfbb77f3b6c0ddb19fbf4ef231ff9c80c614db47be4b2a57c d5e1b5a6ff27e4add0f312b8bccace57c9210270d6f5d86954e9b101ed4a16c8116dbb8cc73ce6310edb90c96ce764e25585 d9d7d59c296d3f64f02d873450ee16dcbba2e83c21ef4cc241c3c77eecc7e243b95a64c34b6c892db5267c65fa93c51cf649 e634613d3ce2118fa0f69dd500e1ab865c2ab1cf13cfbba2b3e877ba9d7f78cf68bdc71dd20219b2de039f1dba297039e19c 53b0d2140523fc8c47f0b18f7dac0e299c1f7bd8b9a39752ea83afcb9e1867992c579e1867bcc0f5e479c88ceb2c2cd2d981 84163e8a6774460f20ca760946e5f3ad0c39b8cf86708a4199a4aefcc33ac3a56ce59144e8d113b1bbd682e4e73bc53076a0 d1713d62270067b5db4d7b9f6ea5def183909b60510233b6b73ec7187aa64bbb6381f13c8c533884c13b7ac51c99632feff3 1647fbec95e1790500d2c193a4634d6bbaf990b0dcb68e4ce1b9e8d49efe72b5b9b62f61682349323921a9c477ba9d0725ad b863a5cf5935b4ea67f4b6d41873c0390536892752e3c4053018bf2d0a8983eecfa437bed4f114b832c843bf629ded5a177a 32338317a1e67207c3cb8474584f5151a730129a1661f82b92cf89164049cb791c2b159254e51065b07bd9cb5e56c87f9990 8a156af36fd683322d60d38d1056005768446d6fccd09f9c7e7b3cc838ef9e5c19e4f190d9df9357cc91dad660a76ce11956 31ba293c20ea4014c6a88c9ab34db84594e1dd20fe204f8227112c488aea5b450b2ca1bdc31dee00466d80fc711ff7713259 34b1b29258574875e9a1ddd32462e90c6f4b60f5a0621c2e0a8c30aeef374af21e05f2923225830ceee23b8d5eb61c17aec5 354f7ffad34bfaf8caaffc4a4a7a4cc599ec9dcfc9088030a4edac4474150c8debbcf0852ff4c5fd928ad5f68637bc413d23 8564e3e4065f9eb938659ee462b853810b4cadcce8b89fe4a92f4c0d6fe14b8b7ce97c8ad98acf77f0755fffb1c3f69b5faf 416eece7d52a7014c843b0d7bce635f69aa04541064ca492cbaf84925ffff55f1774bacb5dee12697373e4f1b7ca50260804 205efc03451ffad0870af0f396f5f376b7bbdd383d166d6c55814d4212499742b691606586b20fe255ca63ab0bb6adfee827 00e9526ee1d7bdee754c13f381e6f79ce73ca78cacfaafcf00dad6dee643d279a6f6b9b1b757a5c051200f9d8830f9e5c0f7 d11ffdd12f7ad18b627ec866c36b0b0afd1ceb582152e118182888418db10e46999022f4c50614c675d4ccec901ed2518b80 ee848caffeeaaf9ee3c8800cfb1088faaf21aa7a6e7bdbdb12a9beb86c4eca28d67f938761414f18d6833e3b4e9c5f7a0afa 4ed13d49db8b9e368861f57f0a107a3cf1894fb4771336c0bfea6c59fa591e2f17b4d9979d1b0c91f296d95011bdd3d3ddfc feeffffeb891fd001c0d1f0e5cb44017111c38348427c1e2b28053499b6efbe2ca16c1e43887d71c5fdb5489a5e9f37dee73 1f0f5aa54b49488c16f38db191bce3cc0c8f64f326af2f7ae867b4e7d5f29f67c9cd31ce66d47a1ce79e792567c87ee7777e 275bc1773420a79c314ca58bb1b999973f1845cbe497ef16ba26e098907240101e75ed1c604fed288acc124f045e952f49c4 45045b48bbecc8486a8f81e6a361d300904d305478d6980eb7889e889ef5530844e437033995c005672f7ff9cbdd54c67de8 3419eae71c825d7c994447ba7216d241aea390b6f133a94476584763b02b319d269e47eda52f7de99ab7f5a00d03d058445f 79e295016b273c6e8b9e325e58a3f881ef281d646384cbd21602c0510dd604b16a3fe9933ec917a63111b946292c5754b598 aeab1972af7bdd6b743b464b79804b882f695ec7ee7bdffb2ef7e120a43d6025f81c638ed272c013662e73055084cc566832 453014225241e4e10f7ff858a7d3fe76e61f070a9c293f36cb41c5e4756ede9816a6884b7ddaa77d5afcc60e1598a8b8960a adcd29671d178c7d46a4a2a8005a2267564b2107f5b34872bfada46893274e9626a03fe6406a8047fccb9fec8dcc07777443 73d406eeee2ca10302e5b055791de732d08c9944d6b74b9be84d7dae5c8932b3f54be679452da3319aa50fe93adb13c2f2bd d1d361ce9ab1288afcc9aff1866e160988930535063229199a839151f320530337d516f9ee73888fc42e4cb37cb5a8f56ffb b66f33d1b900c94759ec36402616cf1ad6d16e508678b0d32b9dc9bfed5d184fec24a07793cdae18881fbf55c13097189b86 c793eabd1ad5b326e115405eec2d4b13b66257f59b98e37d2dad5ce81de3e177552015cd59ed5309e5fbeb5ffffaa9e63bdd 3b4c791bedb025d99e0e259383ae3cc3b6156583d9c4ae8c325cb224c08ed2597f9adc50023d738655e14ffee44f56b2defa e93871060a35d44d2a0426edfb431ef2107c17288f5cdad29b73fd04383fd16b8de231678894b94c9e97ebd87c2216093e59 43842c9616fbf16ed87bc48b33019fbf90b018fc784305dc694fe3d81836e30eb54f255642606f108cde204bc0b148d81906 31802a93634f4f5efbdad752bc04d91a5965e0061ccd01deec31d1332056aadb10ec6883290f063b204339fdc1e339bd3b10 81fdab9235075fcd24e139151b61493d6f532c9a34c7aa9161750da2ecdcfa65222f86e7137b830c3420d1b037413037f19e 98a2cbcb7b61e9be4e90628274a0c578e774298c4a946c14060b4c8bdc54f8b77eebb7c412c05a1999045ccd99cc2129890f d390ed27de16aa62873c20a4ad7a80c9d0ebaa6563e9372b9d206ac34dd3e4583984bbf45286b6f268e9119f2c1b2aa914Acts 63d6f012a6e909c55dec4b69f48c52f2614fb67799c88bdf5805c87b42ba51b0a00d167de74341c2a9deedbb3d9d3a4971e1 9d8d51c72e324a42a1cbd070e70a9da51a83ddc0d354471912df86c6b64436d09862ac4e2bcf78c633f44d3f61e56bbee66b 648352fb0cbdef88b1ec9151d22b7013e2df1406115bfa38591fa99a2a1a12e5eb2cab9d19c6053c68109ade3a6fb6c8b5b6 a6c49757bce2155e1023df5343bd64e4e1735c0c682013494401b7034422ef294f790aea0e8f6e3426f26869f6fa8c052658 8d455824c23cab18d1207e403b745f9d7141e7fbf8c26298ea7641df457126948186e295833a741a5f4f5912cb2896e61422 7ddee94e77eac0d2e54bebadba4018afa680cd43ebbf1ec25c71337ade516d641b8cf4d3b6bbe6067bce77636baae73af0dd 7be9b317a431934e2bcf659d3f252e1379d35915b1f109cbb42c5fa09091aa053652aac6426ba024c5a4ae6051ec12dedd50 d2e38a1170e4a3589c51c37208c75b6eb945144b3df29402e2b0cb1a718b71dc015c335bb16a73e909d8c95a184df4452544 ea54e28f113797102954d567d68f99809c704f58c7fc563e3b9f6c072fe98d20cca0713f3df399cf147d361575928f09e0f2 2a243404127d523ff6ecc365226fb9eb6182864eb07ec1177c819f940c8abff9d79b33acc84d0e67f0020bce0b0334eaa139 15cf756163d892622092fe07ac22660b8d2697dd2464fddbceb59531dc65c36b77b87b360e37a472c19047ce9de200c742c0 9d8ce6911987fd6dace4520a784daf5feabfeffce7c62dc756fd4933319f0fd2bde3429e172389b00def86545ede27fac147 629189c0f59a2722389aa67c6fd2caf17f623a06096434337f11b21cc8eee043c41c8f283c6553d3b4ca1e2873095fbccd6d 6e634fedd2968adb26c707103de511e2c62702acb43080ec633ee663e08f5640e2e78fd004ce413cad47b0b6b49b98d3079f 1d5b5f4a6cee18ff1e6489c9327af4304ea6cf5a37e6f2863a8b7a20cf8b73498ef1cffeadabc506e783f2b89037faed7dd0 29658e0a0843416abae70d984af1c05a286788413417a717bc92369c683016e991818f75c6c14128ab93449eba45a493f0f4 9633572b5012d4c27d15a605ea0f1b48a3cb036d6228bc9b0ee4c1d2956bc82000818409bd6227e597d662fd994fe3ad4a1a 2517f3df2ca58cfa3eec3c8dd6079f523aa83a368b115bc2e013c72ba7e259ad1f6372447d45039254ca892c29938c4703c2 da41b18ba384b48d4ec902c5909c1522c218506088e026a361ce17912ba353944ce59c88c3401b339b3141db33be6a33e8c2 acb2b658cd3862e34e800a8af8b272a08733722b7a575887b14cb6b0d7a474da704d67f85f74c3f6e23c1afc4ac8ac24d70f d7da0e4d6c7cc47b11b806d6db91007cef799dc68392bd75c96bc29cc1ef185f2a2caf672eb08d4dbc99839edfec99d98395 c528b62cd9845d766292686a0fd28241847180fd50e986c636add0b30c318819e97dfd1b0fe39416486d58d39ae59fc22e37 af60bf699d4b39899cfa58e1a2ae31c585fe63a5ec89f904f0780a802f58089689cd84fb586fec9fa8e55944721cbd16b502 a63ab01b7f5de8767950e44639419469ee7d37cd76334d61db717cfaa77fbad7a73a63f90da0aba16830e175bee574a4d296 c56af4297ce93446df8b9186538a9a91b25a98ae08163497412c6c8085b036364e03cd717f50ceb428d446c514f6458c741a 5f5234ab87e9edfb566acd9a0ea4b96b88d9a85a2c4761bb4b35d97cf2846739515e473d5088216d25e0d6f421395e00dd60 32ef0493609a0f2f214bdc37cd34ea930ee32613846f7f3edaa61d3852e4312af552d6bb373428fc1a64ebfdef7fffa9f3b6 1059130e015622af14f6392915214c9c4d9de9d70551defaaddf9ad94bb26066ec5c3d715128f3bc6c04f49c02d5035bf8b7 b768553943dba7999058cf6d496118152aef5f736f4e131bcb409586849b73a17b772e74f3564cd27d58e4c9caaa2d6127af 1e2e68efacddc6e1589087f0d971d99b6c581eb8984d6288b94ad99aea79eec7f3fbb26670935f0a509b1ef08007045377d0 3867756967aac2752858636db6dde23d22b759a857588f755c6eb39b7ece01f44692d7f95e44fde557a7adbb707a9321a608 fd531752af202e27bf261b73b4d5cf6120cf0936244cb808985f0d29ab966fcfaca3d5a466f0b9d035b59b28e05a67bc8f91 d7f3295fd8f8e24781bcbc1843a865330a5271888c17b0de8c6e3b923d37bed8ffc3d8df64ae120d404349cf296ff828c514 c4916a9b9ba6e89901b57323a31253599ed39e75ff50922e0cc57598eaed2befbb8e796b93c1f766ceca4b4c6f61ee29dc64 4b159b03888a79233be813f7baa4758a0ad777f5bb5ef0821730b6fca59832023cf8223782bf3457e8723e5db6283abfd26d 4b36bf459668cd42a58ecef60eb0c2f731a8de79dab9fab6bd1261b062d61aac46b961a250936b71c1347a5295fdd8fa5c0b d822de428b4d12c3bd6d4f5696d7135a141e9330e598c453db3792bcc30835b7866f0d593c2a6713b0cf303057ebdee7f4b3 d79766c151ef8ba7683bbe0ce08a83276a7586a865cf8a704ad556869e90a931a7a1ca5c664ef2e8654c8eadd0bcf7dd97a9 1bc91de3ab588a760f2a80592e339e0a4ce75f50a30bbb9fa5362e80cb59df549e39700af366956ab5f0c80eb62d53715885 54377665d92e0c7c0c98314b9d8a29bacf9962c14af963b5ce20a5422830060723c72cfbe9c53984e382cafbe24e91e5952f 9b1f9b7aa3dd3047e703299f1d2fed8ed7379865e9253dc493eac37c43fb28789e31321604cd142e692a4c0dee625252da9c d79bb299ecbe05b8e483505b127c0caeef18de02ec0228e7dc40fc4ce41db6982cf96c679f82d1d815efa3ef60e7d32a93b6 e9a8512fa8cf7c962e2897635196c3c099025eb338acfb58a6a7bc3ea726970de1981c3feb1552e97870d4efd3e60a698dd3 03cc1bcc705faee1e8c3fc91390ae4f56e44ed383ac790b943b64a36e14f972540ff30d7a7d0c472585b82a453060676c6cb f88ea36cfd6b8c72552c1b229aa6f9ad57a4e68fe66e25a9eab1b42c7197505e5dc2cfc4e240b3092685847a601e667d53c2 f09e3c326157190bdb304b80c85896a9e0f54d45ce679c1544724f9ed5d5f8623a06514015f61442b8861749cd497ff57030 61d2a30ff347e02890e705627b4f7ef293a956713b3f7d32af0cbdf1a5f351328674f3aaf40cf46052658e2508186236e0f1 9d17668c2faa249ba6c231a12c34226e96549a3f6aea19b933f39f3aaba40ee05ec468497b05cdf039f11ba66b3a46f327df 35e4150876b9e365cdabe6aaf274c402af46d2bcedd592d72ef7d75b69a54255793316f228beb53ea6ae9f8a5190ccf3ce0e a90ff347e3289037baeb4d5efce21793aa98fcd0a91bb211bd207c0d1fc24ba3401bcf1a6e85bb8035274565ce1a88609a58 01beaccbf9a3168eb71ae835956bdd4b919ba616292643c2fcc1ff707a3f171e340e2b8d1ec5045db8dfb8c12158c881e0e6 07863c0345cee6fee41e6a7fe6f92f9b27bf00ae809ec009bd082bc50e79794c83f52ead3399eb6e8fcdeff7562533189bd9 3ad68601d540e9e1690b7fa026811901f00352a040d358c1ca1dca13417b633a2cb4decb02992fb47576342d6a2a5f66f656 5b6d9bb25c1e55a80d9ad82a8096530981135b3a4f9286b0299fd69c028c1b8ec681fb343f7f110e8c095f688abae10bbe45 f1a0fb7b4a3d0c5276ab67731fd696ef798f171a1aaf8604a4fff39ef73c638e376b375ed0f48b523b64b91e856d3b93de15 4bdb9010d526c6595e336b488b770131e785aa122b331f1fc50cba4671e8656ae1521172876a750cbb22b6744c6cc0741237 5be6acf45db2785891297906845dac63da850f4cd4777e10819fb298749e8ed8816c6af614e429a3fe1a3d8beb2bc9c58395 727ba9d6530761f65b88986dc9737ee50d2e25c66cc6eadb8c6ce605281c9e469047344e39f3c165dec97e5cc924063977a8 392303da6442e02294f795fe4b1293601df5379d38bdd3cfc0ae640b1c5d4a58d14511177e60069c3210667ab0ccb42226a1 b916209fd5617f510d4bdf3a4bd0eff0b2c7853cef56d244360170240ec617ae01aef324a651a06d082ebddffbbd5f8af9c6 f7578c7395461c4f6a1ca3dc608773d40ff092e3be12796ec6f336764681ded4975a4f78d1f3a86560976fa87a1a041a024b 4b4e4d167d4fd13d18a11e010e0a22594f4b013e8955540216181fb558b31727a6e921868b8b8a8acc55ce74f8d66ffdd638 df591d5673511f0f1ed009705cc8f3f2de30fc0936183b1397d1eed365570a7b0f08e0265394c4f098844c84c4ee466223ad c7adf0907091e2ec1195c895421b218470bfb11ea185372550ae8861e8d84cf28c195536eff08c7002e7f848011dc8939e44 5cc2961727fbb40e6a3eb94b24dcab417203f5cedbf137b5ad024df7694f7b1a155925fcd5ede6e10533604b8129eab5e6ad 253b62bd92a69826007a963ab871d0160a1c979e8718740ed61357aae1c89e42061a8c51364c76a8e8d026371596ecde8e38 be4f6dfeb34621db4279ad184d83de1e1a8d26199465b0518f813cc8a02c2eeb46e9f8732e3db1649abcc3965c895aefd5c6 7b0b50c0a76148c784f5a46f316e80ac896466a6ecc2ae97f26a8a1105520c8957ad605ab20aeced3c0df98892797d8c9087 afb7384b31553f66d9de0c5b994deb07e1b8909732c135f0c33ffcc3060233234f29f2de213e078bc6777816c80b719e3865 5e83cc43641beeab50356efa59f828bc6ad15f0acb0ae189507223ecea8c4ab0104c68617c4d86348139e0cbb27659b78157 e9b60c5689115e70415e1b078874334b82a1c08b6913667c3a31addb595aeab4780c9f03175e0f312eff1a194307be66575b 16715d25acc3dcb4c36e0e84298383b6906fc19af6485b1b1626a9c3f3a1795cc80b585e86a6e24d30159199e5f8585a9d62 523ee9dab41f18355e06c8cbd3b55be30816c6b41c3e778854f567ff87390a90efec3563974b760e5c12586a105c9140b5f0 48b6ad021b1d0d6ab0203c4c689a02d7f606e216cbe28f1ce067e125a69fc5f207bb4d38780bec1070edceebbd9417f048e3 4cbc02229b4c0650ac5de4861746b22d741a43b69acc34b14a857354f59a4a9adbbe707c8e46c3ab89d799d072a534d7b696 f3c7f0e89057d7c35f83bbf032869244131c336b39361b853822be05b21ffcc11f4c414cfe1a59ee599a1c3f16de996517f2 9aa3912d4937137635e773f8cfa60fe2792163a35705f4999c2263dc6c1952ba57927d1afdb45a162bfd0fd0296721632ae8 bd02074a9c583ab7c53b6372a63fa89060ad4c2a477323f6e6330b577f8a9ebb93db454990a2615b07ed7e62c70b3a5b8b69 e267c5680b8c958ceb99c3785c16c654a1eefd33f7069b61db0ae608a99967e21c0d8d921dac283f5e61db2f30f7227ffe7a 89cd0c916819e6ba148812231039d335983ca57a2f8f32469b25be9100fa636531b3a09458fd6c75a379b22cf1295b543ad5 0e37fba8bf512264c95f61460e3ce4678712dfcc2677c274b147856b4b3dd0d62c52c010b9892fd29bbd5788ec2d3c651853 007455da95b68aa143b362a99b99441bdf7a14382ee4a572b9bc86efe91fde3ff59927dd6cf692e40ec962ec9a7fe24e24a9 b9ae9831e2ab83cb5cc4c950cfb66e349c0d3362e88bd59f6e1e2f5c7fa523ae1ce8b8d19ca9ef71ec443d11af3a7b76b90f 35e7335dd629a6bf43c237e53037af12acfa40a49a0324437ec7a674fc0916f136e295bb20c9ebf559c15449e10dc3683b18 62bdd0b9a77c81da7214f8920856dcd14d6cd8667049644d18bd78c4ccebb890b7dce95ecca7d3040470bca1b1a38e50e94c 507862c419a6a2e0d43546317375d45346315211c46dd4b0d0847f693f5419b25b555216e6206fcde096c13a15856b0a0b54 d001468bbda96b4d1fa087405cbffcc24bd18f979d3eeee3fd262af470a773d018903c380c17a3c7d0a634eb00c6261539ce e7b2f0365e6b189b2425ee4f879a5a79ad90d74cb5fc84e088f919506a32355cfe0519d4aed9ede283244c8d29a5857dc6f0 2544fa77085c7704e6c1059441d03656fecdc49e3977178af5ec1cb7762c4af65789b1d9198c5c917e9647cbc096fb009d38 5061d9e559a442bb0d19134aa111639032d801252fa3019443904de3e630783524b5d81d668734e36c23c25a7fa8d4ba37d6 5bd06275cc689bed9ec202f1bfe8a2cf7338fdefb0eaddc6f7c29e0a375c036df691e0189a8abf0c1699c2bc3789cdcb84ec e89e92a6a631323478e4b4db895798eeecd0f68072b36dbe7d99899e85a1c8f73167f6c7bf114c0419b1d3f779dd68abfc26 cc88c4eb42fdca709a2cbc4b65f228d961b2ccd04c877696f152be172533143057e0df9bf20fb823ab8ff3d94ffd61ed72f5 c1377dcecee6c3f6323335c1a1c3c9afa4fa3bd5c317591a33df7abcce5b3de1094fb83018edd0501a3107b2f7a785189771 31b8c4251d9e4166d90060d8add3563c2b5ec40a332e048a407b0737c6630c1caee9ec1e434fd38f5759e84afd4a6d5a2334 15c61596553d2a545eba6a587fa5779a3c9807fe9469c242e2ce1cfadf7cee9b9a18b63859eabcd73419b8ac395cf48a7da6 7b95f4afc2928dd96d1ee1282833175f64a050978b58e812a3d868532e21986ec763a0e7fe35027991e88801748e37b43139 985725b2a5bf6f1af02dfe6fdc877e3d7d32052ef3b6a697891da7a48ef8044d34e097ea4183deca0fdf4d6279a6346ea38c 479253e9d7678da3a7848f816cf965d180f2bec6ab92544daf4f37cfc4a6c852bf128bddc9393caa1a2c3033a2575ee08bee 90863aa61b150b5e6969b1316382e78d9eeb0f54950e88c30d6609559d18a30fde489996bee37944b9811281e464500fb72b 9fcb5924388bd8074349b45c19cadc02684b4587844dce4e2f779a94498d953c26a34f7e32742a43a0c4577495369dbda60c 3e6785a5fb912a10af615a4ab675cbf2ab0585351a8fe63cce18c7571834baa4bc9b0ede40697fa5f6c5bdd4c3df41c1cf64 ae39ee242ccdbf0bb033f8919fb2db9c6cb89a3fbeb4966fba33739cd59de27241b9c210a6753f35c492a3ff192edf031c87 3681a364405f438273475e8c7d2531f641de9ecfea8f5ee5e2423c9a0ae3977a47f4f07c16dec0f9c86bc6daa31ef52885d9 74bdc59a77412746c96e8a20620b0f96f42a73899d9486a787881d5046cd14793aaeecdff2ea5c3c4a8c534a2dedb09d2aa7 43a42afc89e20b4f33b980a6d5a3576c7f781ac2ddc4902f530aa3fee4e2ae2db38e17860f35d4b2917720d3be3c2fad42ff ecb9642b6aee09c3e4e76e54d9e105d63f829088c1c9473b843c63477d06387ec11e449e91cf0da049a521c4cfaa1c79c077 637ccce31937494f468c4f360dad4b2b1931a4bc2f4a720c49980bee83ddda474b97208339df4a2588ef740a217f96386d0c ff0347ff52d43051666f06c49cb5c99905168224dcd10e0f36262e5a759330a99227b9abdcd5268c39502eccb6d7be7a9ed1 8ca553208c97debb8aa5cc5736b7edf4b6e50d2bdb8d7488b590742d9309190631f78121668eb8890f917d0a9cf50a146d8e 31b52df76479bd6dc948a96b068a4bac78b1c7333f05d054287820fcbf80664f51fecc0dc53a7ecd83a49b9b43f82a938bb8 89b4463d5deead678d0003429d790694414a3b9b6702734be1708d43da7662249d4116a05e0d9ff35674d997e715aac3f086 ed8d90e6b497d9aa1fe75ad86009e6ca018943931483c0fe6a1d97a1b49943ba23f5fc2cc5b17e9af483d8eb7b9e762fc5a8 80de5025a74f29235700fe96354b774099f39217bdad173c48ce76865b57264b98d0edf9b6b067b348580f9c2f7ec6983901 b07f0a49f6c4743260ae9a4b07c5ead864ed3fb403f9f6e5798652c33a642cbc3fd7116e21604f671754c6c6e3d5f52c2b24 b36087be8e4ad433a45253d060b58f7b9ab89ba40f4d255aa68cd34b682443648c3e2863f4493d524cf057e5b0c861b666a3 1015d2d653cf175e64f0bc6428c05980e353dca513c34c80b66bae572ea63457454ae7a8d0e33969e3d3bd5706844b0c03ef e404492fccba0f492b7b75d668c7b6834ee70b57838b9922cee6668d2ad088f5882e093af3b3b8192fdc96a0fb22af7e705b a41793fa4443c2578ab69f2390ec5ff323d638c7d775d69b208f4689008cd6fbe3afce104b9bf699b334b8373b6b8eab93d4 c33916aa4dd1519e77de5ff0849f1122b48576315bd90d4fe5175c2e30908779601bf22ec12e729a9f9430d64cbd75c7a021 3693b6618c7bf96202e3730a308968fdc12e1d34203687e9793c1a5b65d9acc107ea981bfa934a37b5a67baa4eea49f171aa a7d8c6b6801be5f795b6a3a2f8508ea2741aafd196d99531a66ee6c4dab9bb1ee46515d2b6839dd40141717ee03462f57340 8057ca4ab658aabd31a58e48945a068a32cd0dc56808061dff6b239fdd84c87835d58a83b11bd4a903eab7d7a24ff1b14148 3fc12ee74e9ffdc538807e73583499f38c1bc5302a9cf7406d4aa6e4ec3392d367e14c3fcd0dcd79f1b185cab44c42368e4b acd9e8729fd6b70381978fe58c267d2fc73a166d49a6bfccf2f87fc781bac085dacef7cd8b965cd8f66adc79db2d082019d3 cd5d6e3a7dd01d2123401496f0850181a2ed789caba2b50ecb606a0184fbd0dc8e7df1cb350eb9993d4f7337324d061de696 c305cbe075c5c30253f324b82791f3a52926ee82550ba95163b25154d568e4d798d99ff5c5ea8cd9c20980fd0bc1193d17d6 2ba4d1b33a46feca0615bea31aee3944db214ff35952f112970c059a6f14f5c90be053b02b74d2ac7931885d1a3416851220 b21bcf4b99e8bceeb8544dd073b9c7b2a9d52c938a374b300a2d497c7f81a3a87cff2e371d82d549c127615b60110876d05d a6d46d4c86c1e827f64c8f1c1bc1b8934a5ac70697d51f73a9c99c7ded5faf29d027c26635067b93c24acf9b5ab8fbe3afb7 ce58d11caa69a8bc7977922a8c330a6b5dda13f4dbc91463013a5694f077f7aac097bed2f019563d36767206f51515f16d9a 93cf92baa8474cb31dc007ee79354d7d0c206b54eb2ae48fd5078d02376f70feb3c6515be57da099082f2b6481eda5e4b994 37ac50ab935c6eb9f5cf22a74a36ea7964228e5b82fe6072b1b4a9d09836d17d14e5d4184b342270125601c3981ba87af456 c4797fd82dd7a0e6744ab4bbf39defdc9e2ffc3ec66a4f6e575bdbf13c44a5aa771a53b06ba4fc2c79a6bc8f26440cdc4861 249c9c043110002eba7aabf0317fc854d89e3152c76cbe345a57618b6efc658e8a7e0a3ef2a1a4c089274a63c1893b2472b9 397d289ecbb055b2e334138e6bbae7bdc2fd7285b49f44a14a70dcccd50067f244ceb3de7a3847781c7138e28285d1587997 1c58f9c31b765f3a5aed3c2ef5b7125ea3706f64f8fc7a918334b71dcf23b98c8886bd7f62228637a42d56273ca5802fa1d3 5fc62e210bb2c27ff615c4b77a6a07e6870c3c38ede919f9d523ea6a3bf38ee48a7e002a04ded8a511e20df9bda703a70637 e55152c24c68e056b2cde1e29a2b479916216053cd0b05ca01f66c203315c97abc3683743dcd9a3fb84b639bfc1567b3a807 c2f694fe3bc3c50ab732cd38aa883bc3bba79cdd85e7693bd81947c3ca619687cc2887c5d4fcd4851ae02060d319471a2143 cf173199caaf99fd6b8649e58c0661228ca118b6c29d888cc7d07fcbf1d413d48adf780404517419e83127aa3a88602a7ee2 cd4d8935dd1335f7ef42ccb43e67c20fc62928ccc26557d17d37d25e9db6600b7f3a9c2640b54d7a6c7cfc9c0ab01713eb3c ed876278baba This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/schaff/ John 19:30. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished; and he bowed his head, and delivered up his spirit. It is not said that Jesus took much of the vinegar, and the probability is that He did not. When He had taken it He exclaimed, ‘It is finished.’ The word is the same as in John 19:28, but now He utters what there He ‘knew.’ It is the shout of victory, not the cry of satisfaction that suffering is at an end. Having said this, ‘He bowed His head’ (which had been previously erect), and ‘delivered up His spirit.’ The verb used for ‘delivered up’ is peculiarly important. The choice of the word leaves no doubt as to the meaning of the Evangelist. However true it is that by the cruelty of man the death upon the cross was brought about as by its natural cause, there was something deeper and more solemn in it of which we must take account. It was His own free will to die. There is in Him an ever-present life and power and choice in which He, even at the very last moment, offers Himself as a sacrifice (Hebrews 9:14). He tells us Himself of His life, ‘No one taketh it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again’ (chap. John 10:18); and these words have now their illustration. Compare the language of His dying cry, recorded by Luke (chap. Luke 23:46): ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.’ We forbear to enter further upon the physical cause of the death thus recorded. It is impossible not to feel that the speculations which have been indulged in on this subject have done more to shock Christian feeling than to satisfy a legitimate spirit of inquiry. Jesus is now dead, and this paragraph relates the events immediately following, before His body was removed from the cross. John 19:32. The soldiers therefore came and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. The bodies had been suspended on the cross with Jesus in the midst. It is natural to suppose that the soldiers, approaching from two opposite sides, would proceed in the order thus mentioned: each would strike his blow on one malefactor’s body; then they would come to Jesus. John 19:33-34. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs; but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came forth blood and water. The explanation of the fact here recorded has always been felt to be attended with peculiar difficulty. The idea that Jesus was not dead, but that death was produced by the spear-wound, must at once be set aside. It is inconsistent with the distinct language of the Evangelist, which states the fact,—and not merely what the soldier thought,—that Jesus was ‘dead already.’ It is inconsistent with what we have been previously told, that Jesus had ‘delivered up’ His spirit into the hands of His Father. And it is not less inconsistent with the symbolism of the passage, which would have been inadmissible had not John believed that death was past. But the impossibility that blood and water should issue from the side of a person already dead is urged on physiological grounds. It might be possible to adopt the explanation of some eminent commentators, that we have here a unique appearance based upon a unique situation. If it be a general truth that the moment death comes corruption begins, and if, notwithstanding, Jesus ‘saw no corruption,’ we are prepared to expect that the phenomena accompanying His death will transcend our experience; and it may well be that we have such phenomena before us here. Before we resort, however, to such an explanation, we ought to ask whether, when we take all the circumstances into account, it is really necessary. We remark therefore that—(1) There is nothing to prevent our assuming that the spear- wound was inflicted the instant after death. The Evangelist does not convey the slightest hint to us that any interval elapsed between the two events, and the nature of death by crucifixion is such as to call us to think of the latest possible moment as that of death. ‘Pilate marvelled if He were already dead’ (Mark 15:44). (2) In conformity with the opinion of all expositors, the region of the heart must be looked upon as that penetrated by the spear. (3) The ‘blood and water’ derive all their importance from that symbolical meaning which they have in the eyes of John. The circumstance which more than any other has led inquirers astray in judging of what we have here before us is, that they have supposed it to be the aim of the Evangelist to establish the fact that Jesus was really put to death. But, as we shall see on John 19:35, this is certainly not the point before him. The fact now spoken of has no connection whatever with proof that death had taken place; and it is mentioned solely for the sake of the deeper meaning which it involves. (4) These things being so, it is obviously a matter of no moment what the quantity of ‘blood and water’ that issued from the wound may have been. The smallest quantity will suffice; and will suggest the truth intended as well as the largest.But it has never been proved that such a small quantity might not issue from a wound thus inflicted. The wound would be a large one; the iron point of the spear, we may be sure, was both heavy and rough; and if the instant after death the pericardium and heart were pierced, there is no difficulty in supposing such an effusion of blood and of water, or serum, as could not fail to attract the attention of the beholder, and suggest to his mind lessons of deep spiritual significance. If this be so, the literal interpretation of the passage may be retained. What the water and blood symbolized to John must be learned from the general tenor of his writings. The ‘blood’ brings to mind the sacrifice for the world’s sin (chap. John 1:29), the life laid down for the life of the world (chaps, John 6:51, John 10:15), the cleansing of and by atonement (1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 5:9). The ‘water’ recalls the teaching of chaps, John 3:5, John 7:38, John 13:8; John 13:10; and symbolizes the abiding gift of the Spirit of holiness. Thus in His death Jesus is presented as the Source of Life, in all its purity and spiritual power. That this section of the Gospel stands in closest connection with 1 John 5:6 seems to us beyond doubt: what is the exact nature of the relation between the passages is a question which belongs to the exposition of the Epistle, and cannot be investigated here. John 19:35. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe. It is of himself that the Evangelist speaks: compare 1 John 1:1-3. The witness that he bears is ‘true.’ The word differs from that which is used in the second member of this verse and in John 21:24 (‘We know that his witness is true’). It designates the testimony as genuine and real. Not only is it truthful, but it is all that testimony can be: the witness will not deceive, but—more than this—in regard to the matter which he here attests he cannot have been deceived or mistaken. See the notes on chaps, John 4:37, John 8:16. The object of this solemn testimony is that they may ‘believe;’ not simply may believe the facts, but may rest in a true and settled faith upon Him of whom these wonders can be related. The significance belonging to the facts thus solemnly commemorated is now further illustrated (John 19:36-37): they are the fulfilment of the Divine counsels expressed in Scripture. John 19:36-37. For these things came to pass, that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not he crushed; and again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. The passages referred to in the first of these quotations seem to be Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12, rather than Psalms 34:20. It is probable, however, that the last of these is founded upon the first two. Great importance was attached by the Jews to the precept that no bone of the Paschal Lamb should be broken. God’s counsel, typified in this, is now fulfilled in the true Paschal Lamb (see chap. John 1:29).In the second passage referred to (Zechariah 12:10), the Evangelist sets aside what is universally allowed to be the false translation of the Septuagint, and translates from the Hebrew. It is not impossible that in this passage also there may be a distant allusion to the rites of the Pass-over; for the bitterness of the ‘mourning’ alluded to seems to be founded on the mourning of Egypt for its first-born. But, whether this be so or not, it will not be denied that the allusion in the Prophet to Him who is to come as the manifestation of God to His people is distinct. The true reading of the passage in Zechariah is, ‘They shall look on Me whom they pierced,’ where the word ‘Me’ is to be explained by the fact that the Sender is identified with the Sent, the Lord with His prophet. It is worthy of notice that the words translated ‘pierced’ in John 19:34; John 19:37 are different, from which we may conclude that the Evangelist does not rest in the mere detail of the piercing, .but dwells upon the wider thought, that Israel rejected and crucified its Lord. Such, however, had been God’s counsel; and thus spoken, not only by the law but by the Prophets (comp. chap. John 1:45), this counsel is now fulfilled in Jesus.One remark more may be permitted on the peculiar light in which the whole of this remarkable scene seems to present itself to the eye of the Evangelist. Jesus is obviously here, as indeed He has been throughout the Gospel, the true Paschal Lamb (chaps, John 1:29; John 1:6). Yet He is that Lamb looked at not simply in the moment of dying, but as, in dying (in that dying which has been going on throughout His whole suffering life and only culminates now), the true substance of His people’s Paschal feast, their nourishment, their life. The conduct of the Jews to Jesus as He hangs upon the cross thus assumes the form of an inverted, a contorted, Passover. They had that morning lost their legal Passover,—had lost even the shadow; because they rejected and despised the substance. ‘Yet,’ says the Evangelist, ‘they found a Passover. Let us follow them to the cross. There let us see the righteous dealings, the deserved irony, of the Almighty, as He makes their cruel mockings of the true Paschal Lamb shape themselves into a Passover of judgment, of added sin and deepened shame.’ If the passage be looked at in this light—the only light, as it seems to us, which at once explains the general structure of the section and the peculiar expressions employed—it will be found to be full of the most important consequences alike for the biblical critic and for the dogmatic theologian. The paragraph before us records the committal of the body of Jesus to the tomb. John 19:39. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. The quantity of spices thus brought by Nicodemus is certainly remarkable; and hence some have shrunk from taking the words in their literal sense, holding that ‘a hundred pound’ (especially as here qualified by ‘about’) may be an expression merely denoting a great quantity. Others, following the suggestion of 2 Chronicles 16:14, have supposed that, when part of the mixture of spices had been spread on the linen cloths in which the body was to be wrapped, the remainder was destined for ‘a burning.’ Whether this be accepted or not, the passage referred to is interesting as bringing before us the burial of a King. The distinct identification of this Nicodemus with the ruler who came to Jesus by night (chap. 3) is undoubtedly significant. The humiliation of the King of Israel (chap. John 3:3, John 12:13), so far from discouraging, does but strengthen the once weak faith of the true disciple; and in contrast with (and—may we not add—in expression of shame and penitence for) timorous hesitation, we read of the lavish offering of a love open and avowed. The declaration of chap. John 12:32 begins to receive its fulfilment. John 19:40. They took therefore the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, even as the manner of the Jews is to prepare for burial. It is hardly possible to suppose that the fact mentioned in the last clause is without a purpose. The words ‘even as’ would of themselves seem to Indicate as much as this. Let us remember then the importance which was attached by all to a splendid burial (comp. Luke 16:22); let us bear in mind that by ‘the Jews’ we are here to understand not the nation, but lather that portion of the nation which best exemplified its narrowness and bigotry, and which included its more respectable class; lastly, let us think of the worldly circumstances of Joseph, and in all probability of Nicodemus; and we shall feel that the Evangelist desires to call our attention to the striking fact, that, notwithstanding the ignominious death to which Jesus had been put, and though the rage of His enemies appeared to have so completely triumphed, there were yet those who prepared for Him as honoured and as costly a burial as could await any ‘Jew.’ That the word ‘burial’ is used to describe the wrapping of the body in the linen cloths may arise from the Evangelist’s desire to mention a circumstance which brings strongly into relief the condition in which these cloths were afterwards found (John 20:7). The body having thus been prepared for burial, the actual entombment alone remains to be spoken of. John 19:41. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. Nothing further is told by John of the garden and of the sepulchre thus referred to. We learn only from the other Evangelists that they belonged to Joseph, and that the sepulchre, as is common round Jerusalem, was hewn in the rock. It is not easy to say whether the Evangelist, in referring to the particulars he mentions, may have desired to prepare the way for the reality of the resurrection. They certainly tend to do so, because they help to show that, when the grave was found empty, none but Jesus could have risen from it. It seems more probable, however, that they are mentioned with the view of bringing out the honour paid to Jesus in His death. He was laid, not in the place of common burial, but in a garden, and in a new sepulchre, where no one had been laid before Him. Finally, we are informed why they laid Jesus there in the condition in which He was. John 19:42. There therefore, because of the Preparation-day of the Jews (because the sepulchre was nigh at hand), laid they Jesus. These words can hardly mean that Jesus was laid in this tomb simply as a matter of convenience, owing to the nearness of the Sabbath. The meaning must rather be that, owing to this nearness, the embalming had been more readily left in that unfinished state of which we read in the other Evangelists. The proximity of the tomb to the city has little bearing on the former, it has a distinct bearing on the latter point. It is unnecessary to say more on the question of ‘the Preparation-day of the Jews.’ There is only one simple and natural meaning of the words. It was now Friday afternoon; the Sabbath was at hand; the hours of that part of the Friday devoted to preparation for the Sabbath had set in. It was desirable, therefore, that the work of embalming the body should for the present be brought to a close. The reader cannot fail to be struck with the touching pathos lent to the whole sentence by making it close with the words ‘laid they Jesus.’ The victory of Jesus over His enemies, in the midst of apparent defeat, is still the subject before us. The preceding chapter had closed with the statement that He was laid in the tomb: when the narrative of chap. 20 begins, the tomb is empty. The great event of the Resurrection had already taken place. The victory of Jesus over the world and death had been consummated, for at the very instant when their attack was fiercest He had escaped their hands. The question may indeed be asked, whether chap. 20, as containing an account of the risen Saviour, ought not to constitute a separate section of the Gospel. But the reply is easy. The death and resurrection of Jesus always accompany one another. They are complementary parts of one whole, each impossible without the other. It must be distinctly kept in view that the leading thought of the Fourth Gospel is not that of defeat in suffering followed by victory, but of triumph through and over suffering.The first paragraph of chap. 20, extending to the close of Joh 20:10, may best be described as Preparation for the risen Saviour. John 20:2. She runneth therefore and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. That the Lord is risen does not enter into her thoughts: she can but imagine that enemies have stolen away the body so precious alike in her eyes and in those of her fellow-disciples, and she hastens to tell the tale to those who would feel with her most deeply and would be most able to help in the sad extremity. The statement of Mary produces its immediate effect upon the disciples. John 20:3. Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they came towards the sepulchre. The word rendered ‘went forth’ is so often used in this Gospel in regard to the most solemn events in the life of Jesus, as implying a Divine mission, the accomplishment of a Divine purpose, that we may well doubt whether the Evangelist does not here employ the word in the same pregnant sense. It is possible also that there is design in the manner in which the names of the two apostles are introduced: not ‘Peter and the other disciple went forth,’ but ‘Peter went forth, and the other disciple.’ The other examples of this construction in the Fourth Gospel tend to show that here John intends to set forth Peter as the main person in the narrative: thus the whole ground is cut away from those who hold that the design of this section is to bring ‘the other disciple’ into peculiar prominence. John 20:4. And they ran both together, and the other disciple did outran Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. It is extremely probable that John was the younger and thus also the more active of the two. The same supposition throws light on the next verse. John 20:5. And stooping down, and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet went he not in. A feeling of awe and mystery in all probability possessed him. He was afraid to enter. It was not so with Peter. John 20:6-7. Simon Peter therefore also cometh following him; and he went into the sepulchre, and beholdeth the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that was upon his head not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled together in a place by itself. Peter, ever bold and daring, is less overcome by awe than his companion. He goes into the sepulchre, and when within sees not only that the linen cloths are lying there, but also, what John had not observed (John 20:5), that the covering placed upon the head of Jesus had been carefully (for this idea is clearly implied in the word) rolled up, and laid in a place by itself,—in all likelihood where the head had lain, try the mention of these circumstances, the Evangelist appears to indicate the calm and orderly manner in which Jesus had left the sepulchre. They were inconsistent with the idea, either of a hasty flight, or of a violent removal of the body: and it is probable that John would hint at the dawning consciousness of this in Peter’s mind by changing the verb ‘seeth,’ used in his own case, into ‘beholdeth’ in the case of his companion. The effect produced upon John by Peter’s entrance into the sepulchre was what might have been expected. He takes courage, and also enters. John 20:8. Then went in therefore the other disciple also, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed. It is certainly not a belief of the statement of Mary that is expressed in this last word. As John stood gazing on the signs which bore their silent witness that the body of Jesus had not been taken away by violent hands, the truth revealed itself to him,—that Jesus had of Himself left the tomb. But even more than this is probably intended by the word ‘believed.’ To receive the truth of the Resurrection was to be led to a deeper and more real faith in Jesus Himself. The uncertainties, doubts, and difficulties occasioned by the events of the days just passed disappeared from John’s mind. He ‘believed’ in Jesus as being what He truly was, the Son of God, the Saviour of man. The words which follow are the reflection of the Evangelist upon the ignorance manifested by himself and by Peter as to the meaning of the prophetic word. Certainly the disciples’ belief in a risen Saviour was not the result of any assured conviction that the Resurrection was foretold in Scripture. John 20:9. For not even yet knew they the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. The connection between this and the preceding verse is readily perceived:—‘He saw and believed,’—sight was needed to evoke this faith,—for not even yet had they learnt that thus it was ‘written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead’ (Luke 24:46). It may perhaps be doubted whether self-reproach is to be found in this statement,—to the extent, at least, that is commonly supposed. The words seem rather to flow from the conviction which has so strong a hold of the Evangelist, that only in the presence of actual experience do the power and meaning of the Divine Word come forth. The fact was needed in order to illustrate and explain the scripture; and then that faith which has been resting on the inward perception of the glory of Jesus receives confirmation from the discovery that the truth received was long ago made known by God as a part of His own counsel. As in all other places (unless chap. John 19:28 be an exception, see note there) John uses ‘the scripture’ in the sense of a particular passage of Scripture (see chap. John 2:22), we are here led to think of Psa 16:10 as probably being before his mind. It will be remembered that this was ‘the scripture’ to which Peter first made appeal as a prophecy of the Resurrection of our Lord (Acts 2:27). John 20:10. The disciples therefore went away again unto their own home. We are not told why or in what frame of mind they thus returned to their own homes. One thing is clear: they believed that Jesus was risen, and that it was vain to search for Him in the tomb. The paragraph now before us presents an advance upon that last considered. There we had only preparation for the risen Jesus; here we have Jesus risen. There all was negative: Jesus was not in the tomb, and the inference was that He was risen. Here all is positive. The risen One appears to Mary, proclaiming Himself, and sends a message to His disciples. John 20:12. And beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. In each of the accounts of the Resurrection an angelic appearance is recorded,—in every case an appearance to the women who came to the tomb: by Peter and John no angels had been seen (John 20:5-6). The ‘white’ garments are the symbol of purity and glory; see the references in the margin, and also Revelation 3:4-5; Revelation 6:11; Revelation 19:14, etc. That one of the angels was ‘at the head’ and the other ‘at the feet’ where the body of Jesus had lain,’ is to be regarded as expressive of the fact that the body was wholly under the guardianship of Heaven. This is not the place to enter upon any discussion of the general credibility of the angelic appearances recorded in Scripture. They are too often and too circumstantially spoken of to permit us to resolve them into mere figures of speech: nor can we have any difficulty in believing that in the great universe of God there should be such an order of beings as that described by the term ‘angels.’ If, however, they may exist, their manifestation of themselves must be regarded as also possible; and the manner of the manifestation—their appearing to some and not to others, their appearing suddenly and then as suddenly disappearing—is to be looked at as dependent upon laws of which we can say nothing, because we have ourselves no practical experience of them. John 20:13. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. Mary’s reply betrays neither consternation nor even surprise: as has been well said, her excitement is such that the wonderful ceases to be wonderful to her. Her words are exactly the same as those spoken by her in John 20:2, except that, as she is now expressing simply her own feelings and not those of companions, the utterance becomes more tender: thus for ‘the Lord’ and ‘we know’ we here read ‘my Lord,’ ‘I know.’ She thus comes before us as more fully prepared for receiving a manifestation of the risen Saviour; and that no answer of the angels is recorded may be regarded as a token on the part of the Evangelist that to such a faith Jesus will reveal Himself directly, and without the interposition of any other. John 20:14. When she had thus said, she turned herself back; and she beholdeth Jesus standing, and perceived not that it was Jesus. Mary has answered the inquiry of the angels; and, satisfied that the Lord is not in the sepulchre, she turns round to see if information regarding Him can be obtained from any other source. Could we think that the morning was still dark, it might be possible to trace Mary’s non-recognition of Jesus to that cause: but, if light was already dawning when she came first to the sepulchre, day must by this time have fully broken. That she did not know Jesus must, therefore, have proceeded from some other cause. This could not be the outward glory of His appearance, or she would not have supposed Him to be the gardener (John 20:15). Nor does it seem desirable to resort to the explanation offered by many, that glorified corporeity has the power of making itself visible or invisible,. or of assuming different forms of manifestation at its pleasure. Much may be attributed to Mary’s total want of preparation for the fact. The idea that Jesus had risen from the grave had not yet dawned upon her: the form now in her presence could not be His: no supposition lay so near as that it was the gardener who had drawn near. More, however, must be said; and the key to the solution of the difficulty is to be found in Luke 24:16 (see also chap. John 21:4). Her ‘eyes were holden’ that she should not discern her Lord. She was not yet ready for any such recognition as might correspond to the new stage of existence upon which He had entered. She would have seen the human friend,—Jesus as He had been, not as He now was. Some further training, therefore, is still needed, and then the glorious revelation shall be given. John 20:15. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? The object of the questions seems to be, to recall Mary to herself and to awaken more deliberate thought. She is confounded by all that has happened, overwhelmed by her emotions, and hence unable to judge justly of what she is to see. The questioning and answering bring her back to calmness and self-possession.She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou didst bear him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. So much is Mary absorbed in her own thoughts, and so completely is her mind filled with one great subject, that she imagines that every one must at once enter into her feelings. Accordingly she does not even mention the name of Jesus, but asks whether the gardener has borne ‘Him’ away. She seeks but to learn where He is, that (for no recollection of woman’s weakness presents itself to hinder the thought) she may take Him to another tomb. As she speaks, her faith and love are drawn forth in increasing measure, and the moment is at hand when they shall be satisfied. John 20:16. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. That single word completes her present training. Nor is this wonderful. She is calmer now: the intervening conversation has produced this effect. Then again we cannot doubt that there would be more of the old tenderness of Jesus in the pronunciation of her name than in the words as yet spoken to her. The very mark, indeed, of the relation between Jesus and His people, when that relation is conceived of in its most tender form, is that ‘He calleth His own sheep by name’ (chap. John 10:3). We are not to imagine that it is only the sound of the voice that is now recognised by Mary, by the name, by the tone in which the name is uttered, a whole flood of recollections is brought up. All the deepest and most solemn impressions that had been produced upon her by her former intercourse with Jesus are re-awakened in power. She recalls not merely what was most human but what was most Divine in Him. Yet it would seem, from the epithet that she immediately applies to our Lord, that she thinks of Him as standing to her in some at least of the old relations. It is not strange that it should be so: any experience that she had had of resurrections through the power of Christ had been of resurrections to the former conditions of life. But now she is prepared for more, and therefore she shall be taught to know Jesus fully.She turneth herself, and saith unto Him in Hebrew, Rabboni, which is to say, Teacher. The title thus used by Mary is probably the provincial form Rabban or Rabbi, and it is found in the New Testament only here, and in the Gospel of Mark (chap. Mark 10:51), noted, as is well known, for its use of expressions from the common tongue. It means properly ‘My Master,’ and is thus expressive of love and devotedness as well as of respect and reverence. As Mary uttered the word, she must have endeavoured to fall down at the feet of her Lord, embracing them (comp. Matthew 28:9). John 20:17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. Many different interpretations have been given of these words, some coarse, others either requiring the introduction into the text of thoughts that are not there, or too far-fetched and mystical.The meaning has been made more difficult by a want of sufficient attention to the force of the words ‘Touch me not;’ for these words do not express the touch of a moment only, but a touch that continues for a time. They are equivalent to ‘Keep not thy touch upon me,’ ‘Handle me not,’ ‘Cling not to me.’ Mary would have held her Lord fast with the grasp of earthly friendship and love. She needed to be taught that the season for such bodily touching of the Word of Life was past. But, as it passed, the disciples were not to be left desolate: the season for another touching—deeper, because spiritual—began. Jesus would return to His Father, and would send forth His Spirit to dwell with His disciples. Then they should see Him, hear Him, handle Him, touch Him, in the only way in which He can now be seen and heard and handled and touched. In a true and living faith they shall embrace Him with a touch never more to be withdrawn or interrupted. Hence the important word ‘brethren.’ Those to whom the message is sent are more than disciples; they are ‘brethren’ of their Lord. His Father is their Father, and His God their God. They are entering upon a state of spiritual fellowship with the Father similar to His own; and that fellowship is to be the distinguishing characteristic of their new condition. Thus the message sent by Mary to the ‘brethren’ of the Lord is not a mere message that He has risen from the grave. The thought of His resurrection is rather embraced only as a part of a new and permanent state of things which has come in. Even here, however, it is important to observe that the distinction between our Lord and His disciples is still carefully preserved. Jesus does not say ‘Our Father,’ but ‘My Father and your Father;’ so that the significance of ‘brethren’ lies in this, that the word is used in the very verse which proclaims so clearly the difference between Him and them.—The words ‘the Father,’ in the first part of the Lord’s address to Mary, ought not to pass unnoticed. The reader may compare what has been said on chap. John 8:27. He will then see that the expression ‘the Father’ here combines in one thought all that is implied in the four designations that follow—‘My Father,’ ‘Your Father,’ ‘My God,’ ‘Your God.’—‘I ascend’ is not to be understood (as some have maintained) of an immediate ascension, inconsistent alike with the forty days of Act 1:3 and with the subsequent narratives of this very Gospel. Yet neither are we to understand it as if it meant ‘I will ascend’ at some future day. The use of the present is to be explained by the consideration that the Resurrection of our Lord was really the beginning of His Ascension. At that point earth ceased to be the Saviour’s home as it had been; and He Himself was no longer in it what He had been. Thus it might be said by Him, ‘I ascend.’ ‘My ascent is begun, and shall be soon completed: then shall I enter into My glory, and the Spirit shall be bestowed in all His fulness.’The contrast between the relation in which Jesus places Himself to Mary in this verse, and to Thomas in John 20:27 (comp. Luke 24:39), has often been dwelt upon as if it afforded evidence of the untrustworthy nature of the whole narrative before us. Yet a moment’s consideration will satisfy any one that the difference in our Lord’s object on these two occasions necessarily involved a difference in His treatment of those whom He would lead to a full knowledge of Himself. Thomas has to be convinced that He who stands before him is indeed his Lord and Master risen from the grave. Mary believes that Jesus is risen, but needs further intimation as to His present state. To have treated the latter in the same manner as the former would have been to make Mary stop short of the very point to which Jesus would conduct her. To have treated the former as the latter would have been to unfold to Thomas the mystery of the resurrection state of Jesus, while he had not yet accepted the fact that the resurrection had taken place. John 20:18. Mary Magdalene cometh, bringing word to the disciples, I have seen the Lord, and that he said these things unto her. Mary has now recognized her Lord. We have seen her longing, with weeping eyes and breaking heart, for the Friend whom she had loved on earth. She was prepared for more, and more was given. Her Master was revealed to her, not as the human Friend alone, but in all that awakened at the same time her reverence and awe, in all that reminded her of the Divine in Him. Thus she was ready for another step, and she was led that step forward. She saw before her the risen and glorified Lord; and she could look forward to the future, inviting at the same time the disciples to join her in the prospect, as a future in which He who is for ever with the Father should be for ever, by His Spirit, with her and them, weeping changed into joy, and defeat into victory). With a message of this kind she goes to the disciples, and they are prepared for what is now to follow.The relation between the appearance of Jesus to Mary and that to the women spoken of in Matthew 28:9, can hardly be discussed here. The question belongs to the First Gospel, involving, as it does, considerations connected with the general structure of that Gospel upon which we are not able here to enter. It may be enough to say that we cannot regard the two appearances as identical: they differ in almost every circumstance. Mary Magdalene has carried to the disciples the tidings with which she was charged. We have now the first appearance to them of the Risen Lord. John 20:20. And when he had said this, he showed unto them both his hands and his side. If the words of Luk 24:40 are genuine, the feet were also shown; but the genuineness of that passage is too doubtful to permit us to argue from it with confidence. In whatever respects the glorified body of Jesus differed from what it had been before His death, there was at least enough of resemblance to make identification not only possible but the necessary result of careful observation; and it is worthy of notice that the very Evangelist who has given us the most striking conception of the change which it had undergone, is the one by whom the identification is also most clearly established. We shall err, however, if we think that the only object which Jesus had in view in showing His hands and His side was identification. He would also connect His present glorification with His past sufferings. Even now, amidst His glory, His people must not forget that His path to it had been the Cross. He is the Lamb that was ‘slain’ (comp. Revelation 5:6; Revelation 5:12).The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord. These words describe the effect of the manifestation upon the disciples (comp. chap. John 16:22). They who thus rejoice when they see Him are prepared for further manifestations of His grace. John 20:21. Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you. The words are exactly the same as before (John 20:19), but they must have gone home with a deeper power to the hearts of the disciples, who now understood more fully the Person from whom they came. They prepare the way for the great commission to be given,—a commission which, amidst all the trials it would bring with it from the world, the disciples are to execute in peace.Even as the Father hath sent me, I also send you. The words ‘even as’ bring out the close correspondence between the mission of Jesus Himself and that upon which He sends His disciples. In both cases it was a mission of self-denying love to men; in both one of labour, suffering, and death, followed by glory; in both we have the thought of willing service imposed by an authority that is supreme. We have already met with words expressing a very similar thought in our Lord’s intercessory prayer: ‘Even as Thou didst send Me into the world, I also sent them into the world’ (chap. John 17:18). But there is one important point of difference, which an English translation fails to exhibit. In chap. 17 the Greek word for ‘sent’ is the same in both members of the sentence; in the verse before us it is otherwise. Here the former clause (‘Even as the Father hath sent Me’) contains the word of chap. John 17:18 (apostello), but in the latter clause (‘I also send you’) the verb is different (pempo). The distinction in meaning seems to be that the second word expresses mission, the first more properly commission. When the first is used, our thoughts turn to a special embassy, and special instructions which the ambassador receives; the second brings into view rather the authority of the sender and the obedience of the sent. Both words, therefore, may be used either of our Lord or of His disciples. Thus in more than twenty verses of this Gospel Jesus applies the second word to Himself (see especially chap. John 4:34, ‘My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me’); whilst in such passages as chap. John 6:29, John 17:3 (John 17:8; John 17:18; John 17:21; John 17:23; John 17:25), we find instead the more expressive word. In chap. John 5:36-37, and again in chap. John 7:28-29, the two are brought together, as they are here; and the appropriateness of each word in its place may readily be seen. In chaps, John 5:37 and John 7:28 our thought must rest chiefly on the Sender; but in chaps, John 5:36 and John 7:29 on the commission which the Father has given to His Son. On the other hand, the word apostello is used by Jesus in regard to His disciples in chap. John 4:38 (‘I sent you to reap’) as well as in chap. John 17:18; and is indeed the word from which the distinctive name of the Twelve, ‘apostles,’ is derived. Various thoughts are suggested here by the marked and sudden transition from one word to the other. It may be said with truth that, as chap. John 17:18 has its primary application to apostles, the word which designates their special office was naturally chosen there; here, on the contrary (see note on John 20:19), the disciples in general are addressed,—the disciples who are the representatives of the whole Church of Christ. Again, the word by which Jesus here expresses the mission of His disciples (pempo), is one which brings into relief their separation from His bodily presence: formerly they were continually at His side, but now they must be dismissed for their labour throughout the world (Matthew 28:19). One other thought it is impossible to overlook. There is peculiar dignity in the avoidance on the part of the Risen Lord of that form of speech which would seem to identify two relations which (however closely they may sometimes be associated) are essentially distinct. No human disciples can really bear the commission of Jesus as Jesus bears that which He has received from the Father (comp. note on John 20:17). By design, therefore, the Lord here, reserving for Himself the higher word, speaks of the disciples as His envoys to the world. The commission which they hold from Him receives separate mention in a later verse (John 20:23). John 20:22. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive the Holy Spirit. Not only did the Risen Lord thus send His disciples on their mission to the world, He gave them also the preparation which should enable them to fulfill their trust. The literal and correct rendering of the original Greek is not ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ but ‘Receive Holy Spirit;’ the difference being, as was pointed out on chap. John 7:39, that by the latter expression we are to understand not the personal Holy Ghost, but His power or influence over the hearts of men. It was in the power of Holy Spirit that Jesus had entered upon His own ministry (Luke 4:1, where the same expression is used as here); with the like preparation shall His Church enter upon the work to which she is called. The gift now bestowed is, therefore, not simply symbolical but real: at that moment the Spirit was given. All this is in perfect harmony with the words of chap. John 7:39, because at this moment the glorification of Jesus has begun (see note on John 20:17). The gift, too, was imparted not to apostles only, but to all the disciples present; it is a gift not for the ministry alone, but for the whole Church of Christ. If so, the interesting question immediately arises, What is the relation of the gift spoken of here to that bestowed at Pentecost? The answer would seem to be that here the gift relates to the inner life of the disciples, there to the more outward equipment for their work; here to the enlightenment and quickening of their own souls, there to preparation for producing an effect on others. Perhaps we may seek an illustration (to be applied, as always, with reserve) from the life of the Saviour Himself. As His public ministry began when the Holy Spirit descended on Him at His baptism, so did His apostles receive their full commission and power on the day of Pentecost. But as before His baptism the Holy Spirit had rested on Him continually, so now, before Pentecost, the same holy influence is bestowed on His disciples, preparing them for the day of final consecration to their work. It has, indeed, often been maintained that we have before us a promise and not a present gift. But such cannot be the meaning of the language which is here used. Even were it granted that the word ‘Receive’ might be understood as an assurance of a future gift, the action which accompanies the word must imply much more than this. ‘He breathed on them:’ this surely was the outward symbol of an actual impartation—of His breathing into them (see Genesis 2:7, where the same word is used) the power and influence of which He spoke. And yet it is true that this gift was both present (actual) and also future (a promise). As present, it brought with it the quickening of spiritual life; as future, it included in itself all that Pentecost gave. The former thought is important in relation to the development of the disciples: the latter in its connection with John 20:23, and especially in its presentation of the Redeemer as Himself the Giver of the Holy Spirit (chap. John 16:26). John 20:23. If ye shall have remitted the sins of any, they have been remitted unto them; if ye retain the sins of any, they have been retained. We regard two points as established from what has been already said. 1. The words of this verse are not addressed to apostles alone. 2. Though conjoined with a present impartation of the Holy Spirit, they belong really to the days when the disciples shall have fully entered on their work as representatives of their Lord and His witnesses in the world. This verse and the last stand in the closest possible connection: only when the Holy Spirit has been received can such a commission as this be executed. Without unduly entering on controverted ground, let us seek to collect the meaning which the words (which we have thought it desirable to render with unusual closeness) must necessarily bear. It is clear that two remissions of sin are spoken of,—two which agree in one. Where Christ’s servants ‘have remitted the sins of any,’ these sins ‘have been remitted unto them,’—remitted absolutely, i.e. remitted by God, for ‘who can forgive sins but God only?’ (Mark 2:7). But as we know that the Divine forgiveness is suspended on certain conditions,—penitence and faith,—it follows that the remission granted by Christ’s disciples must (since it agrees with the Divine remission) be suspended on the same conditions. Either, therefore, the disciples must possess unfailing insight into man’s heart (such as in certain cases was granted to an apostle, see Acts 5:3), or the remission which they proclaim must be conditionally proclaimed. No one can maintain the former alternative. It follows, then, that what our Lord here commits to His disciples, to His Church, is the right authoritatively to declare, in His name, that there is forgiveness for man’s sin, and on what conditions the sin will be forgiven. Nor does there seem to be ground for thinking that we have here a special application by one individual, whether minister or not, to another of the remission (or retention) of sin spoken of. The use of ‘any’ in the plural number appears to be inconsistent with such a view. It is not a direct address by one person to another that is thought of,—‘I declare that thy sins are thus authoritatively remitted or retained.’ It is a proclamation from one collective body to another,—from the Church to the world. The mission of the Church is to announce to the world her own existence in her Lord, as a company of forgiven men, and to invite the world to join her. Let the world comply with the invitation, it shall enjoy forgiveness in the company of the forgiven: let it refuse the invitation, it can only have its sins retained in the company of those who have been ‘judged already’ (comp. chap. John 3:18). Here, as in all else, the Church only witnesses to what her Lord does. But as it is by her life, even more than by words, that she witnesses, so it is by accepting or rejecting her life that her witness is accepted or rejected; and thus it is that by communion with her the blessing is enjoyed, that by separation from her it is forfeited. It ought particularly to be noticed that of the two remissions or retentions of sin spoken of in the words before us, the Divine act, although the last to be mentioned, is the first in thought—‘have been remitted,’ ‘have been retained.’ We have here a second appearance of Jesus to the disciples, distinguished from that coming immediately before, inasmuch as it seems especially intended to set forth the blessedness of those who believe without seeing. John 20:29 evidently forms the climax of the whole, and presents to us the point of view from which we are to look at this narrative in contrast with the preceding one. How fitting was it that thus, at the moment when the Gospel message was about to be carried into all lands, and when faith in an unseen Saviour was the only faith that could be preached, a special blessing should be pronounced on those who should not see but yet should believe! When we regard the paragraph now before us in this light, a remarkable correspondence presents itself between the three appearances of the Risen Saviour in this chapter and the three parts into which the intercessory prayer of chap. 17 divides itself. The first appearance corresponds to the first part of the prayer, for in each we see Jesus Himself. The second corresponds to the second part, for in each we see tests in relation to His immediate disciples. The third again corresponds to the third part, for in each we see Jesus in relation to all who should yet believe in Him. John 20:25. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. Thomas received information from his fellow-apostles of the first manifestation of Himself by Jesus; but he is not satisfied.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. In other words, he will not believe unless he sees. Yet it hardly seems as if the Resurrection of Jesus were the sole object of his incredulity. That is no doubt primarily in view; but we have already seen that the word ‘believe’ must be understood in a fuller and deeper sense at John 20:8, and the same remark applies to its use in John 20:29. It includes therefore belief in Jesus as the glorified Lord, as the Redeemer who has completely accomplished the purpose of His mission, and in whom the highest hopes of Israel are fulfilled. To Thomas the death upon the cross had appeared to crush these hopes for ever. Could he be convinced of the Resurrection they would revive; and he would believe not merely in that miracle as an isolated fact, but in the whole redeeming work of which it was the culmination and the seal. Thus also we are not to imagine that he is content to waver between conviction and doubt. His old love for his Lord—that love which seems to have burned in the breast of no apostle more warmly than in his—still continues. Iris mood has been one of disappointment and sorrow; and the sorrow is deepened in exact proportion to the height of his previous expectations, and to what he knows will be the joyful result if he be able to believe the tidings of the Resurrection. The harsh impression generally made by these words of Thomas is probably in no small measure due to the unfortunate translation ‘thrust,’ which suggests the thought of coarseness and recklessness of speech. But there is no such meaning in the original. The word is indeed the same as that in the previous clause which the translators of the Authorised Version themselves render by ‘put.’ What Thomas desires is certainly more than had been granted to the others. Jesus ‘showed unto them both His hands and His side’ (John 20:20); but Thomas would touch them. Had he been present at the first manifestation, he would probably have been satisfied with the evidence that was enough for his fellow-apostles. At all events he is now ready to believe, if only what seems to him sufficient evidence is given; and his desire is granted. John 20:26. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. The place of assembly was without doubt the same as before; and that the apostles were assembled on the Sunday appears to indicate that they already regarded the host day of the week as a day which the Risen Lord would peculiarly bless.Jesus cometh when the doors had been shat, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace he unto you. All is the same as at John 20:19. John 20:27. Then saith he to Thomas, Beach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach thy hand and put it into my side, and be not unbelieving but believing. Jesus at once speaks without needing to be told of the doubts of Thomas. At the same time he recognises the naturalness of that element of weakness which marked the faith of His disciple, and He will so meet it that it may give place to strength. As before, under the word ‘believing’ we must understand not belief in the Resurrection only, but a full faith in Jesus Himself as the Saviour who has triumphed over all His foes, and has completely accomplished the purposes of His love. John 20:28. Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. He passes at once from the depths of his despondency and hesitation to the most exalted faith. The words are certainly addressed to Jesus; and it is unnecessary to combat the position that they are only an expression of the apostle’s thankfulness to God for what he has seen. They are a triumphant confession of his faith, not simply in the Resurrection, but in Him whom he sees before him in all the Divinity both of His Person and of His work. Yet we are not to imagine that only now for the first time did such thoughts enter his mind. They had been long vaguely entertained, long feebly cherished. Nor can we doubt that they had been gaining strength, when they were suddenly dashed by that death upon the cross with which it seemed impossible to reconcile them. Then came the tidings of the Resurrection, even in themselves most startling, but to Thomas (we may well suppose) more startling than to any of the other apostles. Were they true? He saw in an instant how incalculable would be the consequences. It was this very perception of the greatness of the tidings that led him to reject them. His state of mind had been the same as in chap. John 11:16, where, when Jesus hinted at giving life, he went rather to the opposite extreme, and thought of a death that would involve not only Lazarus but them all. Thus also now. He hears that Jesus is risen, and his first impulse is to say, ‘It cannot be: thick darkness cannot pass at once into such glorious light; the despair which is justified by what has happened cannot at once be transformed into inextinguishable confidence and hope.’ This depth of feeling prepared him for the completeness of the revulsion that now took place. For a week he had been able to meditate on all that he had both seen and heard. We cannot doubt that during that time the sayings of his Lord about His resurrection, as well as His death, would all return to his memory. He would see that what was said to have happened had been foretold; after all it was not to be rejected as impossible. He would think with himself what kind or amount of proof could convince him that the fact was true; and he would be unable to fall upon any harder proof than that which his incredulity had suggested in the moment of its first strength. But, if that proof can be given, then how powerfully would be feel the injustice which by his doubting he had done his Master! With what force would intimations, once dark but now bright in the light of the supposed Resurrection, come home to him! His very highest expectations would seem to him to have been warranted, and more than warranted, by the facts. We need not wonder that, having passed through a week so rich in training power, Thomas, when he did behold the Risen Lord, should have leaped at once from his former unbelief to faith in its highest stage, or that he should have exclaimed to Jesus, ‘My Lord and my God.’ It may even be doubted if, before this confession was made, he found it necessary to put his finger into the print of the nails or his hand into the wounded side. It was enough to ‘see’ (John 20:29).One other remark may be made. Those who study the structure of the Fourth Gospel will hardly fail to trace in the incident thus placed at the close of its narrative the tendency of the Evangelist to return upon his own early steps. He had begun with ‘the Word’ who ‘was God;’ he closes with this highest truth accepted and ratified by those to whom the revelation was given. The last witness borne by one of them in the body of the Gospel narrative is, ‘My Lord and my God! John 20:29. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; happy are they that have not seen and yet have believed. The words are intended for the Church now about to be called out of the world,—for the Church of all ages, which by the very necessity of the case must believe without seeing. What then is the contrast which Jesus has in view? Can it be a contrast between faith which wishes to see the miraculous fact in order to accept it, and faith which accepts the fact on the ground of simple testimony? Such an explanation limits unduly the meaning of the word ‘believe.’ It substitutes one kind of seeing for another (for what does testimony do but place us in the position of the original witnesses?); and, by failing to bring us into direct contact with the Person of Jesus, it lowers the state of mind to which the blessedness of the Gospel is attached. The contrast is of a deeper kind,—between a faith resting entirely upon outward evidence of Divine claims, and a faith rising higher and resting upon that intuitive perception of the Divine in Jesus which is afforded by the consideration of what He is in Himself as the Crucified and Risen Lord. In the ages of the Church which were to follow the ‘going away’ of Jesus, it was needful that faith should rest first upon testimony; but it was not to pause there. It was to rest upon the spiritual apprehension of that to which testimony is borne,—of that which the Lord is in Himself as the embodiment of the Divine, and the unchanging spring of the heavenly power and grace which are manifested in His people. Thus to us, who are separated by many centuries from the time when the Lord was personally present in the world, is the blessed assurance given that, though we have not seen Him, we may love Him; and that, though now we see Him not, we may rejoice in Him with a joy unspeakable and glorified (1 Peter 1:8). We need not envy Thomas or his fellow - apostles. They were blessed in their faith; we may be even more blessed in ours. The more we penetrate through the outward to the inward, through the flesh to the spirit, through communion with the earthly to communion with the heavenly Lord, the more do we learn to know the fulness that is in Him, in whom ‘dwelled all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,’ and in whom we are ‘complete’ (Colossians 2:9-10). John 20:30-31. Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this hook: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name. Almost every word of this statement is of the utmost importance. ‘Many other signs did Jesus:’ hence it is only a selection that has been given in the book. The writer knows much more of a similar character and fitted to make a similar impression, but he has not deemed it necessary to tell it. What he has related are ‘signs,’—not simply miracles of Divine power, but manifestations (now in deed, and now in word) of an inner meaning, illustrating the Divine in Him by whom the deeds are performed or the words spoken. ‘In the presence of His disciples:’ why not in the presence of the world? Had they not been done in public as well as in private, before enemies as well as friends? They had: but it is not upon them as signs which ought to have convinced the unbelieving that the Evangelist has chiefly dwelt. As he recalled them, he once more beheld Jesus in the midst of the little band of His disciples, making manifest His glory to them alone; while they apprehended that glory, forgetful of everything but itself, and the feelings of admiration, wonder, delight, and love which it awakened in their hearts. They thought not of the world at the time; they saw only that all was done for them. So now in the vividness of John’s recollection every ‘sign’ appears exactly as at the moment when it was wrought, full of meaning to disciples; to others,—nay, it is not necessary to mention them at all (comp. chap. John 17:9; 1 John 5:16). ‘But these are written:’ that is, these ‘signs’ are written. The Gospel then is a record of ‘signs,’ and whatever else it contains must be regarded as subordinate to them. ‘That ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:’—words by which we are not to understand that the signs have been written in order that unbelieving readers may be led to acknowledge the claims of Jesus. The word ‘believe’ is not used in the sense of being brought to faith, as if those addressed had not had faith before. They are already believers, disciples, friends. What has been aimed at is not the first formation but the deepening of faith within them (such as that of which we read in chap. John 2:11, where we are told that His disciples ‘believed’ in Him), by which they are led into a truer knowledge of their Lord, as well as into a more intimate communion with Him and, in Him, with the Father. To make his readers rest in faith, so that faith shall not be a mere conclusion of the intellect, but the element and spirit of their lives, is what the writer has proposed to himself. ‘And that, believing, ye may have life:’ not, that, being brought to faith through the record which he gives, they may obtain life in Jesus; but that, as already believing,—in Him as the branch is in the vine,—they may in Him enjoy that spiritual and eternal life which He possesses, and which He makes ever more and more largely the portion of His people, as their faith in Him deepens, and their fellowship with Him increases. Finally, ‘in His name:’ not merely naming His name or confessing Him before men,—but in His Name, in Himself as revealed, made known as what He is,—the revelation of the Father, and possessed of all the glorious qualities belonging to the Son.Such is the meaning of these words when they are looked at in the light of those rules of interpretation which are supplied by the Gospel; and, with this meaning, they set before us in the most definite manner the writer’s own conception of the task which he had undertaken. They refer obviously, too, to the Gospel as a whole, and not to any single section. At this point, then, the narrative of the Fourth Gospel closes, having exhibited to us that ‘life’ which was in the Word (chap. John 1:4), and having so set that Word before us that believers, dwelling upon His manifested glory, may be brought to a deeper knowledge of what He is, and to more and fuller life in Him. The authenticity and genuineness of the chapter upon which we now enter have been keenly contested; while many, who admit that John is the author of the chapter, see in it not so much an organic part of his original work as a section added at a later date, but before the Gospel had passed beyond the first circle of its readers. The main arguments brought by the defenders of both these views are, (1) That in chap. John 20:30-31, we have what is obviously the close of the Gospel; and (2) That certain expressions of this chapter, particularly those of Joh 21:24-25, are inconsistent with the idea of a Johan nine authorship. In a commentary such as this we cannot discuss the subject at any length, or avail ourselves of considerations which the English reader can hardly be expected to appreciate. A very few words, therefore, upon the two points above mentioned must suffice.As to the first of these hypotheses, that chap. 21 was not written by John, we need not say more than that it is opposed to all the evidence possessed by us, whether external or internal. Its defenders, therefore, have been few in number as compared with those who have accepted the chapter as genuine. With the latter we agree, entertaining no doubt that the first twenty-three verses at all events are from the hand of the Apostle: of John 21:24-25 we shall speak when we reach them.It is more difficult to say whether the chapter is a constituent part of the original plan, or an Appendix added after the Gospel had been finished, and when a longer or shorter period of time had passed. The question is one that must be determined mainly by taking the contents of the chapter into account. When this is done, there seems little reason to doubt that we have here an Epilogue corresponding to the Prologue, and—not less than the latter—properly belonging to the organic structure of the Gospel as a whole. Let us look for a moment at the particular idea which the chapter unfolds. That idea is not merely fresh illustration of the glory of the Redeemer’s post-resurrection life. Were it no more than this, we should at once allow that the chapter is at best an Appendix to the Gospel. It would be impossible to think that, after having written the words of chap. John 20:30-31, the Evangelist should immediately pass to another illustration of the same thought. No doubt the idea of which we speak is involved in the first narrative of the chapter, which is distinctly stated to be a ‘third’ manifestation of Himself by the Risen Lord (John 21:14), and is thus placed, in one respect at least, on the same line as the two preceding manifestations of chap. 20. Yet an attentive consideration of that narrative will show that the great truth which the Evangelist beholds in it is, the joy provided by Jesus for His disciples in connection with the work which they accomplish for the conversion of the world,—that the dominating thought which it presents to him is not merely the glory of the Risen Lord, but the glory of Christian work as it is performed through Him, and its fruits are enjoyed with Him. If this be the idea of the first part of the chapter, we shall find, when we come to the commentary, that its second and third parts, relating to the two Apostles Peter and John, are much more than simple narratives of facts. They lead the thoughts to apostolic work and Christian action, and to waiting for the Second Coming of the Lord. Three leading thoughts are thus presented to us in the chapter, which maybe thus described (1) The mutual joy of the Risen Lord and His disciples in the successful accomplishment of Christ’s work, John 21:1-14; (2) The work of Apostolic and Christian witnessing between the Resurrection of Jesus and His Second Coming, John 21:16-19; (3) The Second Coming itself, John 21:20-23. If now we compare these three thoughts with the leading thoughts of the Prologue, the correspondence will appear close and remarkable. In the Prologue, as well as here, three main topics are dwelt upon: (1) The Word with God, the Son with the Father, in His general manifestations before His Incarnation, John 21:1-5; (2) The witnessing to Him who was to come, which culminated in John, the representative of Old Testament witness, John 21:6-13; The coming of Jesus into the world, John 21:14-18. In other words, we have in the opening and closing parts of the Fourth Gospel—I. THE WITH ITS THREE .1. The Light to be witnessed to, as it appears in its inner fulness and power. 2. The preparation by witness for that Light 3. The coming of the Light.II. THE WITH ITS THREE .1. The Redeemer who is to be witnessed to, as He appears in the joy of successful and accomplished work. 2. The preparation of the world for that joy by the work of witnessing. 3. The Second Coming.The detailed exposition of these thoughts will appear in the commentary. In the meantime we have said enough to justify our regarding chap. 21 as an Epilogue, as an integral part of the organism of the Gospel as we have it,—its Seventh and last great section.This intimate connection of the chapter with the general plan of the Gospel is the point of real importance, and it is on this that we would lay stress. Whether the Epilogue formed part of the Gospel from the very firsts or was added by the apostle at a later date, is a subordinate question, and one to which different answers will naturally be given. There are peculiarities of language and of structure which seem decidedly to favour the latter supposition. On the other hand, we should certainly expect that, if the Gospel was ever circulated in two forms (with and without the Appendix), the last chapter would be absent from some of our ancient manuscripts, or would at all events be occasionally found separated from the rest. It is possible, indeed, that the Gospel might in its shorter form be confined to a very limited circle of Christians, and be published for general use only when complete. In this form the Appendix theory may perhaps be said to meet the conditions of the case.—The whole structure of the narrative upon which we now enter shows that, to the eye of the Evangelist, it is not only history but parable. As, therefore, it is with a mind alive to the spiritual meaning of the scene that John describes what actually happened, special significance may be looked for in the expressions which he employs. John 21:2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cane of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. It is doubtful whether the seven persons here referred to are arranged, as is often supposed, in two groups, one consisting of three, and the other of four members. There may be significance in the mention of Thomas as now (after chap. 20) completely at one with his brother Apostles, and in the fact that Nathanael (comp. chap. John 1:51) is associated with the miracle. John 21:3. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also come with thee. They went forth and entered into the boat, and that night they laid hold on nothing. It is hardly probable that in this the disciples thought of anything but the supply of their temporal wants. To John, however, there is more in their act than this. His word ‘went forth’ leads us at once to feel that he sees in their going the Providential guidance of God (comp. notes on chap. John 18:1; John 18:4). It is not an ordinary event: it will illustrate that Divine scheme for the salvation of men which was accomplished through Him who ‘came forth’ from God. Moreover, just as once before Peter and some of his companions had been called from the work of fishing to the first stage of their apostolate (Luke 5:1-11), so shall he and those with him be called from a similar scene to that higher stage upon which they are now to enter. In Peter’s being the first to make the proposal, we can hardly fail to see the elements of that character which gave him the prominence he afterwards had in the Church of the Redeemer. He is the moving spring of the whole apostolic band; he proposes, and the others say, ‘We also come with thee.’ Yet writers can be found to urge that one great object of the Fourth Gospel is to depreciate Peter in comparison with John, one of this very company! The seven go forth by ‘night’ (the usual time for fishing), but they caught nothing. There is no reason to think that the season was unfavourable; but they were not successful.—The word used for ‘catch’ is worthy of notice. It means to lay hold on, and it does not seem to be elsewhere used in the sense of catching fish. John 21:4. But when morning was now coming, Jesus stood on the shore; the disciples however knew not that it was Jesus. Night passed away, and the day began to break. Then Jesus stood on the shore, but they did not recognise Him,—it may be that the light was insufficient, it may be that it was not yet His wish that He should be known. John 21:5. Jesus therefore saith unto them, Children, have ye anything to eat? They answered him, No. It is hardly possible to imagine that the word ‘children’ is here used because Jesus is addressing Himself as ‘a master to his workmen,’ or because He is. Speaking with the dignity of a superior. It is a word of tenderness and affection. At the same time it may perhaps have a deeper meaning, for the word ‘brethren’ of chap. John 20:17, which now expresses the relation of Jesus to His disciples, rather leads directly to the supposition that, in a certain sense, He speaks as One standing on a footing of equality with themselves. There is at least a striking coincidence between the word (‘children’) here used and that used in Hebrews 2:13 (Isaiah 8:18). He who speaks is engaged in the same occupation, takes the same position, is called to the same work as they. The question which He asks is important, especially the word which is rendered in the Authorised Version ‘meat,’ but which we have rendered by ‘to eat.’ For thus we observe the true point of the question,—not, ‘Have you caught fish?’ but, ‘Have you fish to eat?’ The term, however, was commonly used of fish. Here it seems to refer to provision of fish taken by them for eating when they started. It ought to be carefully noted also that, as is shown by the particular form of the question, it is the meal that is before the mind of Jesus: only when we see this do we gain the true point of view from which to contemplate the whole narrative. To the question of Jesus the disciples answer, ‘No.’ They thus acknowledge the fruitlessness of their labours, and their need of further light and guidance. John 21:6. And he said onto them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and no longer had they strength to draw it for the multitude of fishes. Comp. Luke 5:6. John 21:7. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. When Simon therefore, even Peter, heard that it was the Lord, he girt hip coat about him (for he was naked) and did cast himself into the sea. That the incident thus related of each of the two apostles is in closest harmony with everything else that we know of them strikes every reader. It need only be further noticed that John himself gives us a token of his desire that we should see in the action of Peter an illustration of that character which appeared in his whole subsequent career. He does not call him simply Simon Peter; but, as in chap. John 18:10, he interposes a word between the two names,—‘Simon, therefore, Peter.’ As soon as Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his coat about him, ‘for he was naked.’ There is no reason to think that the nakedness thus spoken of was absolute. The use of the term is consistent (in Greek as in the language of common life in Scotland to this day) with partial clothing. The girding is probably not to pass unnoticed. It was thus that at John 13:4-5, our Lord prepared Himself for service: His apostle, when preparing for the active service of his Master, must do the same. John 21:8. But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits off) dragging the net of fishes. While Peter takes the lead, impetuously dashing into the water (comp. Matthew 14:29), his fellow - disciples reach land more slowly. Yet they do not actually land the net: they only drag it to the shore. The landing is reserved for him who had displayed greatest earnestness and activity. All now proceeds directly towards the culminating point of the narrative,—the meal. John 21:9. When therefore they came out on the land, they see a fire of charcoal placed there, and a fish placed thereon, and a loaf. No intimation is given where the tire of charcoal had been obtained, or how it had been brought there. The thoughts of the Evangelist are so entirely occupied with the meal, that it is a matter of no consequence to him to give explanations upon such points. Upon one fact he desires us to fix our attention—the meal is provided by Jesus, whether miraculously or in some ordinary way he does not ask. It is impossible not to notice the words ‘a fish’ and ‘a loaf,’ not ‘fish’ and ‘bread:’ the contrast with ‘the fishes’ of John 21:10 is obviously designed. John 21:10. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fishes which ye have now laid hold on. The meal, therefore, consists of materials provided by the combined action of Jesus and His disciples. John 21:11. Simon Peter therefore went up, and drew the net to the land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three; and for all there were so many, yet was not the net rent. Again Peter appears in all the prominence of his character and work,—the leader of the apostolic company. The fishes drawn to shore by means of the net were ‘great:’ yet neither by their sire nor by their number was the net rent. No fish was lost. (See further below.)The comparison of this miracle with that of the draught of fishes in Luke 5:4-7 supplies various points of contrast, at once bringing out and confirming what we have yet to speak of as the inner meaning of the section before us. Of these the most interesting are that the fishes are all great and good, and numbered; in the earlier narrative we have no such statements. In the earlier, too, the net was breaking: here ‘the net was not rent.’ The contrasts all point to the difference between a ministry of trial with a suffering Lord, and a ministry of triumph with a glorified Lord. John 21:12. Jesus saith unto them, Go me and breakfast. The bringing of the fish from the net to the fire is not recorded. The Evangelist hastens to the chief point in his narrative. Jesus gives the invitation to the meal, and it is accepted.None of the disciples durst make inquiry of him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. Awe and reverence prevented their asking Jesus who He was (comp. chap. John 4:27). They did what they were told. John 21:13. Jesus cometh and taketh the loaf, and giveth them, and the fish likewise. We might have expected to read of the ‘fishes’ rather than the ‘fish,’ for the meal prepared must have included a portion of the ‘fishes’ of John 21:10 as well as the ‘fish’ of John 21:9. Yet such is the importance which the Evangelist attaches to the latter that he speaks of it alone, and makes no farther allusion to the rest. John 21:14. This is now a third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after that he was raised from the dead. It is the third ‘manifestation,’ although the fourth appearance, of the Risen Lord that has been described. The appearance to Mary Magdalene at chap. John 20:16 is not counted, either because it only embodied the preparatory message as to the state in which Jesus was, or because it was made, not (like the three following) to companies of apostles and disciples, but only to one single disciple. That the present manifestation is stated to be the third does not exclude the other appearances of the Risen Saviour recorded by the earlier Evangelists. It is simply the third in John’s own enumeration, the third in that selection of the different manifestations which he had thought it desirable to make. The repetition of the word ‘manifested’ (comp. John 21:1) is to be noticed as showing that the word is intentionally used. It expresses more than that Jesus showed Himself after His Resurrection. In these manifestations He really revealed Himself out of the entirely new stale which had begun at the Resurrection. Just as when ‘manifested in the flesh’ He was different from what He had been before, and revealed His glory in the garb of weak and suffering humanity, so in His manifestation of Himself at this time He was different from what He had been when clothed with the lowliness which He had assumed for a season. That lowliness has been laid aside: He is still the Man Christ Jesus, but glorified. We see Him now under a new aspect, and at a new point in His history. This consideration will help us to understand the connection of the next two paragraphs of the chapter, and their place in the organism of the Gospel. Before passing on, however, it is necessary to say a few words upon the inner meaning of this miracle, upon the light in which our Lord Himself intended it to be looked at, and in which it is presented by the Evangelist. Referring our readers to the general remarks made on John 2:11 we observe that here, as there, the miracle must be viewed not only historically but symbolically. The facts are historical, but they have at the same time much more than simple historical force. They are so arranged and grouped by Him who taught by action as well as word, that they bring out one of the great lessons of His kingdom. Nor can we have any doubt in the present instance what that lesson is. We have before us a picture of the wonderful success which was to follow the apostles when, in the strength of their Risen Lord, they went forth to preach salvation to the whole world; as well as a picture of the joy which they shall share with Him, when in this success both He and they ‘shall see of the travail of’ their ‘soul, and shall be satisfied.’ Around these thoughts it will be found that all the particulars of the miracle, in their deeper meaning, easily arrange themselves:—the helplessness of these ‘fishers of men’ when they are without their Lord, their triumphant success whenever they listen to His voice, the invitation given them to come and share in that meal which He has prepared, and whose sacramental character is so strikingly brought out by the mention of the ‘fish’ and the ‘loaf.’ Every particular of the scene is full of spiritual meaning; and, even where we may not be able to satisfy ourselves that we have discovered the meaning, we know that it is there, and can rest in the hope that it will by and by be perceived. Perhaps the most difficult point to interpret in this way is the number of the fishes as given in John 21:11. Of that number we shall say little. It will be hard for students of this Gospel not to believe that it too has a deeper meaning than that of simple numbers. What that meaning is there is little difficulty in determining. The whole course of the narrative shows that 153 represents the fulness of the Church, the complete gathering in of all her members, the net not rent, not one believer lost. It is much more difficult to say whence the number 153 is obtained. Many suggestions have been made, but we shall not discuss them. Not one of them can be said to have as yet gained anything like general acceptance. Until a more satisfactory result is reached, it is better to rest satisfied with the general meaning, of which we have already spoken, and as to which no doubt can be entertained. Before speaking of the contents of this paragraph it is necessary to make an effort to discover its place in the organism of the chapter. So far as we have seen, no successful effort has yet been made to accomplish this. The usual explanation is, that before finally departing Jesus desired to throw light upon the history and fate of the two leading apostles, Peter and John. Such an explanation is unsatisfactory. Apart from the fact that it is not the manner of John to claim for himself so prominent a position as is thus implied, it is sufficient to observe that, if such be the object, it is not attained. Light, indeed, is cast on the future history of Peter, but none on that of John, which is rather left in a mysterious vagueness, perplexing instead of instructive to the mind. Others, again, pronounce any effort to discover the connection hopeless, unless we regard John 21:14 as a parenthesis; which cannot be done. In proceeding to the explanation which we shall venture to propose, we simply ask our readers to weigh it calmly, and not to reject it because at first sight it may seem to them improbable.We have already endeavoured to show that chap. 21 is an Epilogue to the narrative part of the Gospel, and that it has a general correspondence with the Prologue. But if a correspondence exists as to the whole, it is not unnatural to think that it may also be traced in the several parts. This is rendered still more probable by the circumstance that the parts of each are unquestionably three in number; and that, while the one deals with the pre-existent Logos, and the eternity preceding His Incarnation, the other deals with the Logos after His Resurrection, and the Second Coming.In this latter respect the correspondence between chap. John 1:1-5 and chap. John 21:1-14 is, as we have seen, exceedingly close. But at chap. John 1:6 there is a sudden and unexpected transition to John the Baptist and the witness which he bore to the eternal ‘Light,’ until the Light itself shone forth and needed such witness no more. In precisely the same manner, then, we have here a sudden and unexpected transition to the apostle Peter, and the witness borne by him to the Incarnate Word, until Jesus shall come the second time, and shall need no more to be proclaimed to men.Such is the general idea which we offer for consideration as to the connection between the first two paragraphs of the present chapter; and when we come to speak of the contents of the next paragraph this idea will receive much confirmation. In the meantime we pass on to observe that if the correctness of the thought be allowed, it cannot fail to exercise in another respect a powerful influence upon our general apprehension of the meaning of the passage before us. For, as the Baptist at chap. John 1:6 is to be regarded as more than an individual,—as representative of the whole Old Testament witness to Jesus,—so with Peter here. He is representative of all Christian witness to Jesus; and the paragraph deals with more than his re-installation into the apostolic office. It is a re-institution, now made by Jesus in His new estate, of the whole duty of Christian witnessing. Jesus has shown that the banquet which in His state of glory He prepares for His disciples is one consisting of the fruits of successful work in His cause; and now, in the person of Peter, His disciples receive from Him their commission for the work in which they are to bear witness to Him,—a work which can only rest on, and be carried out through, love to Himself. John 21:16. He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? The same verb (‘lovest’) which had been used by our Lord in His first question again occurs here, and the question only differs from the first in the gracious omission of the words more than these. Jesus had appreciated the motive which had led peter in his previous reply to avoid all comparison between his own love to Jesus and that of others. He accepts the evidence of humility afforded by His apostle, and in that direction at least will no longer test him.He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. Peter’s reply is in exactly the same tetras as before; the word ‘I love’ being that which he had previously used, and not that used by Jesus.He saith unto him, Be shepherd of my sheep. See on next verse. John 21:17. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? In this third question, apparently a repetition of the first and second, one word (‘lovest’) is changed: for the word which he had used before, Jesus substitutes that less elevated, more familiar word with which Peter had already twice replied, ‘I love Thee.’ It is this that constitutes to the apostle the painful force of the third question. Not only is his own word taken up by Jesus, but that word is one by which he had sought to give utterance to the strength of his affection. And now Jesus says to him, ‘Peter, dost thou really thus love Me as thou sayest? But a little while ago, what was thy denial of thy Friend? Is it otherwise now? I will take thee at thine own word. May I trust thee that, with that love of which thou speakest, thou lovest Me?’Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou seest that I love thee. Peter’s grief is at once intelligible,—not simply because he had been three times questioned as to his love, but because the third time his own statement, twice made, had been taken up, and he had been asked to consider well whether it was really true, whether he might not be again misjudging himself. But he was not merely grieved, he was also disciplined; his grief was wholesome. Up to this point there seems to have been some faint trace of self in his replies: at all events he had stood before his Lord as if his Lord were peculiarly reading him: he had not wholly forgotten himself. Now, however, all his past weakness and sin rise to his view: can he who has been so guilty have any special value? Surely not: if he is known, he is known only as one of ‘all things;’ with such emptiness of self he will cast himself upon his Lord, and only say, ‘Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou seest that I love Thee.’ The victory of grace is complete, and he receives his final charge.—Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.We have still to say a word or two of the threefold charge which is given in the words, ‘Feed my lambs,’ ‘Be shepherd of my sheep,’ ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is a little doubtful whether we ought to understand by the ‘lambs’ the younger members of the Christian community, or the whole flock in its weakest and most elementary stage of Christian growth: the contrast with ‘sheep’ leads upon the whole to the former view. The charge to the apostle is ‘Feed ‘these lambs: not less than the older members of the flock do they require the shepherd’s most thoughtful as well as his most tender care. After this we have ‘sheep’ twice mentioned (for a slight difference of reading found in some ancient manuscripts does not materially affect the meaning), and the only point we have to consider is the difference between ‘Be shepherd of’ and ‘Feed.’ The structural principles of the Gospel at once tell that there is a climax; and that climax seems to correspond to the gradation exemplified by a pastor as he himself grows in knowledge and experience. At first he is eager to perform all offices for his flock, thinking all equally important; perhaps even most pleased with the rule that has been assigned to him, and in which his own importance most appears. But soon, if he has the spirit of a real shepherd, he learns that to bear rule is comparatively a small thing, and that to ‘feed’ the flock of God, to nourish it on pastures ever fresh, and with waters ever living, is at once his most difficult and his noblest task. Peter is now ready to hear what, in tending his Master’s flock, he is to do and suffer. John 21:18. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast younger, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and bring thee whither thou wouldest not. Our readers may call to mind, before we proceed to the farther examination of this verse, that ‘girding’ was the preliminary to crucifixion. The words, ‘verily, verily,’ with which the verse begins, mark, as always, the importance and solemnity of the declaration made, and thus prepare us to think that we have more in them than a simple announcement of the death which the apostle was to die. Again, the use of the word. ‘girded’—although not the compound of Joh 21:7, but the simple verb—reminds us so much of the action of this latter verse, where the metaphorical meaning is obviously prominent in the writer’s mind, as to lead here also to the thought of metaphor. Again, the use of the word ‘walkedst’ (comp. chaps, John 6:66, John 8:12, John 11:9-10, John 12:35), which in its literal signification is not well adapted to express the free activity of youth, suggests a figurative interpretation of the passage. Once more, the mention of the stretching out of the hands before the carrying away is spoken of, is fatal to a merely literal meaning; for such stretching out of the hands cannot be looked on as a necessary preliminary to girding, whereas it would be a natural action on the part of those who willingly submitted to their fate, and who were desirous to help rather than hinder officials in the discharge of their duty. We seem, therefore, compelled to adopt a metaphorical interpretation of the words. When we do so all difficulties disappear.The allusion to the time when Peter girded himself and walked whither he would, becomes the expression of that self-will by which, before his present entire consecration to the service of Jesus, he had been marked. Now, however, his self-will shall be crucified; the old nature which sought only its own gratification shall be as completely powerless as is the body of one nailed to a cross; he will be so truly a partaker of the sufferings of Christ as to find in this fellowship with his dying Lord the very ground and beginning of his apostolic activity. Then he will ‘stretch out his hands,’ will assume the attitude of one who is giving himself up to another’s guidance, and will resign himself entirely to the disposal of that ‘other,’ to whose will his own has been subdued. Then, too, ‘another’ will gird him,—that is, will gird him in the sense in which the word has just been used, will equip him for his task. Finally, another will ‘bring (not carry)’ him whither he would not; will lead him in paths that he would not himself have chosen,—will guide him to fields of activity in which he shall joyfully submit himself to Him who immediately adds, ‘Follow Me.’ The question may be asked, Who then is the ‘other’ spoken of? The only answer seems to be that it is the ‘other’ of chap. John 5:32,—that is, God (comp. also chap. John 4:38). John 21:19. But this said he, signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God. It is impossible to deny that in these words the Evangelist refers to ‘death’ in the ordinary sense of the term. If, then, we consider (1) the peculiar expressions used in the last verse; (2) the tradition of the Church (usually regarded as worthy of trust), that Peter died by crucifixion; and (3) the fact that, at the time when the words were written, Peter’s death must have been long past: it is at once to be admitted that the Evangelist applies John 21:18, in the first instance at least, to the actual crucifixion of Peter. But it is not necessary to suppose that all the clauses of the verse refer to the literal crucifixion, or that the meaning of any of them is exhausted by that fact (comp. John 12:32-33). The singular words, ‘he should glorify God,’ confirm the interpretation we have given. There is no evidence that at this early stage of Christian history this expression was used for martyrdom. It cannot therefore be explained in the light of martyrdom alone. We must compare such passages as chaps, John 12:28, John 13:31, John 14:13, John 15:8; John 17:1; John 17:4; and, doing so, we learn that the death of Peter is not viewed simply as the closing act of his career, but as an act in which that second life of his which had been spoken of in John 21:18 reached its culminating point. Thus there is nothing in John 21:19 limiting John 21:18 to that act of crucifixion which the several clauses of the verse compel us to pass.And when he had said this, he saith unto him, Follow me. To confine the meaning of the words ‘Follow me’ to the literal following of Jesus on the pre sent occasion,—as if all their import were that Jesus had gone forward a few steps, telling Peter to come after Him,—is so much out of keeping with the sense in which similar words are used even in the earlier Gospels, and so much more out of keeping with the style of John, that such an interpretation hardly needs to be refuted. That indeed our Lord did move forward, and that He meant Peter to follow Him, is highly probable,—especially from John 21:20. But this is certainly not the whole meaning. The external following foreshadows an imitation of Christ in His accomplishment of the Father’s will, and His drinking of the cup put into his hands by the Father, until, in the one case as in the other, the cross itself is reached. The effort to introduce the passage now before us into organic unity with the rest of the chapter has certainly been attended with as much difficulty and as little success as in the case of the second paragraph. Without dwelling upon the opinions of others we apply the same principle as that applied to the second paragraph, and regard this third paragraph of the Epilogue of the Gospel as the counterpart of the third paragraph of the Prologue (chap. John 1:14-18). That paragraph is occupied with the coming of Him who in the second paragraph had been borne witness to before His Incarnation by Old Testament prophecy. He is indeed expressly spoken of in prophecy as ‘He who is to come;’ and when He comes preparatory witnessing exists no more. Here in like manner Jesus in effect speaks of Himself as the One’ who is to come;’ at all events, twice over the words ‘until I come’ are used (John 21:22-23). The coming is thus shown to be a prominent thought of the passage; and its correspondence with the ‘coming’ of the Prologue must strike every one. The contents of this paragraph, therefore, are not to give us information about the future of John as an individual,—information which they do not give; but they are designed to call our thoughts to the termination of Christian witnessing, which will at length, with all its labours and sufferings, close in the joy of the Second Coming of the Lord. The special interpretation of the verses will confirm this view. John 21:21-22. Peter therefore seeing him Saith to Jesus, Lord, and what of this man? It was a natural question. Although Peter did not know the full meaning of the words just addressed to himself, he felt that they betokened trial, sorrow, perhaps even prison and death. When, therefore, he saw John following Jesus, nothing would more readily occur to him than to ask. And what. Lord, shall be his fate? Yet the answer of Jesus evidently implies that there was something not altogether to be commended in the spirit or in the tone of Peter’s question. We cannot imagine that such an answer would have been given to a question in which affectionate interest was the leading feature. We have indeed no reason to think that the question was dictated by envy, but there was probably impatience of the calm spirit of John, of that calmness which had immediately before contrasted so strikingly with his own impetuosity,—for when he had thrown himself into the sea to hasten to his Master’s feet, John had remained in the boat dragging to the shore the net with fishes. To this spirit accordingly Jesus replies.Jesus saith unto mm, If I will that he abide till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. In other words: ‘Thou hast no right to be impatient of the quiet and meditative spirit of thy brother Apostle. True, I have spoken to thee of heavy trials only. But it does not follow that he may not be as faithful as thou art, or that he may not have his own trials, in the work given him to do. Thou art right, I praise thy spirit, only preparing thee for the inevitable consequences. But his spirit is right too. Let it be thy concern’ (‘thou’ is emphatic) ‘to follow Me; and as for him, if I will that he abide till I come, what is that to thee?’ By the ‘coming’ here spoken of can be understood nothing but the Second Coming of the Lord. It is the object of Jesus, as we shall see more fully on John 21:23, to give emphasis to the thought of His Second Coming, that He may thus bring out the truth that then shall be the end of all toil and waiting,—that then His witnesses shall rest from their labours, with their works following them. At the same time we would not venture wholly to exclude the thought of the destruction of Jerusalem. But the relation of that event to the ‘coming of the Lord’ is a topic upon which we cannot enter here.The point of the contrast then between the words spoken respectively to Peter and John, is not that between a violent death by martyrdom and a peaceful departure; but that between impetuous and struggling apostleship, ending in a violent death, and quiet, thoughtful, meditative waiting for the Second Coming of Jesus, ending in a peaceful transition to the heavenly repose. Neither Peter nor himself is to the Evangelist a mere individual. Each is a type of one aspect of apostolic working.—of Christian witnessing for Jesus to the very end of time. But the struggling witnesses are impatient of such as are meditative, the active of the passive, the warring of the waiting. They do not see that the work of the latter is not less important than their own, and that it touches the very springs of the Church’s life. They undervalue it, because its struggle is not visible enough. They cry, ‘This work, Lord, is it really like our work, work for Thee?’ And Jesus replies, ‘I judge of that. If will that it go on until I come, what is that to you? Your path is clear; follow ye me.’ John 21:23. This word therefore went forth among the brethren, That disciple dieth not. Yet Jesus said not unto him, He dieth not; but, If I will that he abide till I come, what is that to thee? Having reported the answer of Jesus, the Evangelist is constrained to correct a misapprehension of its meaning which had prevailed in the Church. At the same time his giving again the words of Jesus in the same form as before shows the great importance which he attached to them, and leads to the belief that something in them had for him a peculiar charm. If so, the words that attracted him could only be ‘till I come.’ It is the thought of this Second Coming that John finds to be the prominent point in the words of his Master. He beholds in them the assurance that there was an end fixed for all toil and suffering incurred in the task of witnessing for Jesus, when the Redeemer whom he loved will come again and take His disciples to Himself, that where He is there they also may be (chap. John 14:3). The two verses before us bring the Gospel to a close. Their authenticity has been much disputed; and not a few who accept the rest of the chapter as John’s, refuse to admit that they are the production of his pen. Both external and internal evidence forbid our passing upon them so sweeping a condemnation. John 21:25 is certainly authentic, and the force added to it, when thus viewed in its Johan nine character, will, we trust, appear in the commentary. It is more difficult to speak of Joh 21:24. To accept the whole of it as our Evangelist’s seems impossible. A passage in his Third Epistle has indeed been appealed to (John 21:12); but there the true reading is, ‘We also bear witness, and thou knowest that our witness is true.’ The difficulty in the verse before us does not lie in the use of the plural pronoun ‘we:’ it is perfectly conceivable that the Evangelist might write ‘we know’ even if referring to himself alone. But it seems to us inconceivable that in one and the same sentence he should write, of himself, ‘This is the disciple which witnesseth.. .’ and ‘We knew that his witness is true.’ We must conclude, therefore, that the last clause of the verse was written by the elders of Ephesus, or other Christians of influence there; and the only question is, whether this clause alone or the whole verse is to be traced to them. If the whole verse be their addition, it must have been intercalated because they wished to explain who the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ was. The word ‘this’ would then refer to him as the writer of the Gospel, who was well known in Ephesus to be no other than the Apostle John: the apostle and the ‘disciple’ are thus identified. On the other hand, the addition made by the Ephesian elders may begin with the words ‘and we know.’ In this case the appended words are to be regarded as the almost involuntary expression of their confidence in and admiration of one whose Gospel differed so much from the earlier Gospels that some may have doubted how it would be received. The first part of the verse will on this view be John’s own statement; and its similarity to chap. John 19:35 is a mark of genuineness. The question at issue is thus reduced within very narrow limits. John 21:25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself will not contain the books that would be written. We have already expressed our belief that these are the words of no other than John himself. They seem to contain the Evangelist’s own explanation of that principle of selection which he has followed throughout his work. To have given a complete history of the facts of Christ’s life would have been impossible. He has chosen those only which bore upon his particular aim. It has been usual to describe this verse as a strong hyperbole. But is it not at once more reverent and more true to say that the language here used expresses the infinitude which the apostle beheld in the life of Jesus,—the fathomless depths which he knew his Lord’s every work and every word to contain? And we may ask, as we read these words, What apostle or disciple of Jesus, known to us as belonging to the first age of the Christian Church, could have so spoken but that apostle whom Jesus loved? In no part of his work does he expressly name himself, not is this necessary. He is named by almost every line that he has written, by almost every touch of the pencil with which he has drawn his picture. Let us imitate his example; and, instead of closing with the thought of the servant, close rather with the thought of the Master whose eternal existence was taught us by the first, and whose infinite fulness is now taught us by the last words of this Gospel.